Strategic Sites Committee - Monday 30 March 2026, 11:00am

Strategic Sites Committee
Monday, 30th March 2026 at 11:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Del Tester
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Turner
Cllr Penny Drayton
Cllr John Chilver
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Andy Huxley
Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Cllr Alex Collingwood

1 Apologies for Absence

Share this agenda point

Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer
Cllr Alex Collingwood

2 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Penny Drayton
Cllr Alex Collingwood

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

4 Chairman's Announcement

Share this agenda point

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Share this agenda point

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Del Tester
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Penny Drayton
Public Speakers
Cllr Penny Drayton
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Public Speakers
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Del Tester
Del Tester - Highways Consultant
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Penny Drayton
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr John Chilver
Public Speakers
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Public Speakers
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speakers
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speakers
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speakers
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speakers
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Public Speakers
Cllr Mark Turner
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Public Speakers
Cllr Alex Collingwood

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Phil Gomm
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Phil Gomm
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Andy Huxley
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Llew Monger
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Llew Monger
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Penny Drayton
Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central
Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant
Cllr Penny Drayton
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Penny Drayton
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mark Turner
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager
Cllr John Chilver
Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central
Cllr Alex Collingwood

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Laura Lee Briggs - Legal
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr John Chilver
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Alex Collingwood

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Share this agenda point

Cllr Alex Collingwood
Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:00

Good morning councillors, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the meeting of the Student

Sites Committee.

Please note that this meeting will be webcast and the public and press can see and hear

the meeting throughout the webcast.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:19

In the unlikely event that there is a technical issue with the webcast, the meeting will be

paused until the issue has been resolved.

A couple of housekeeping items to cover.

Please, members, please note that mobile phones are not permitted during the meeting,

so please turn them off or put them on silent.

iPads can be used to access the Modgov app.

Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand at the appropriate time.

Please remember to turn off your microphone before speaking

and switch it off when you've finished.

In the event of a fire alarm, please use the US Fire Exit,

which is that one or that one.

And similarly, the Overflow Car Park,

which is situated to the right of the main entrance

as you exit the building.

If there are any members of the press present,

please can you make yourselves known?

Nope.

Okay, and before we move on to the first agenda item,

I'll ask the members and officers to introduce themselves,

Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central - 0:01:26

starting with my left. Ross. Thank you chair. My name is Ross Herbert. I'm major team

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 0:01:33

leader for the North Central area. I'm a planning consultant and I'm leading on this

Del Tester - 0:01:41

application. Hello I'm Dale Tester. I'm a highways consultant working with

council. Hello everyone I'm Councillor David Moore for the farmers of Stoke

Cllr David Moore - 0:01:49

and I also chair the East and South Aeroplane Committee.

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:01:55

Mark Turner, Councillor for the Gillan Villages.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:01:57

Councillor Penny Drayton for the Flacke -Waughton -Woburns Ward.

Cllr John Chilver - 0:02:03

John Chilver, Councillor for the Hallward Ward.

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 0:02:07

Councillor Mark Wiglesane, Councillor for Abbey Ward, High Wycombe.

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:15

Councillor Lou Mongo, Winslow Ward.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:17

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:22

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:29

Great. Councillor Phil Galb,

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:35

Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer - 0:02:41

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 0:02:44

legal officer

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:48

I'm cancer Alex Colin Woods. I'm chairman of strategic sites and number for Marlowe and Marlowe bottom

1 Apologies for Absence

Okay, so going to a gender item one are there any apologies for absence?

Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer - 0:02:59

Yes, chairman. We've received apologies from Councillor Phealy and Councillor given a substitute substituting for him today I

See that counsellor

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:08

and Susan Morgan obviously hasn't arrived yet,

but on the basis that we all had interesting times

on the traffic and the road today,

where we all got diverted elsewhere,

but as she's the closest to the council offices

compared to the rest of us,

we'll see if she can finally make it.

Going on to agenda item two, the minutes.

2 Minutes

Can we do agree the committee meeting held

on 19th of March,

These can be found on your gender pack.

Okay.

I think I think on the basis that we're now later than we normally would be my

preference is to continue because it was well confirmed that it would be 11 not

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:04:23

10. Councillor Gough. Chairman just to let you know I've just text

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:04:28

Councillor Morgan just to see if she's on her way just so you know. Thank you

Thank you, Council.

That's very helpful.

Okay, so.

Because if she misses any part of this, she cannot vote.

Right, okay.

Can I suggest you actually say, look.

Can you send a second text and say, please be aware

if you don't make the report part of the meeting,

she can't vote.

I will, Chairman, unless you'd like to slow down

in the delivery of the application.

No, I'll let.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:05:02

Sorry chair is it worth when I was giving her a call because if she's

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:07

driving she may not be able to pick up a text? Okay I'll suggest we do that because

I'm just terrified with council you have to be here for the whole of the item

including the start of the item so even if yeah so you couldn't even just wait

to see the public speaking but you have to physically see the whole item being

presented first and foremost before you because you can't participate so I'll

To let you know, she's obviously got extra hands because she's read the text, but she

hasn't responded.

Oh, she's responding.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sadly, Chairman, she won't be out to her at ten to date, so she's sending her apologies.

She does apologise for not sending her apologies.

I'll recall that in a minute.

Well, at least it shows he has made the apologies rather than it just being a straight absence, which is, to me, is a better outcome than just being straight absent.

Okay, that's, for clarification, Councillor Gough, that's very helpful.

If we go on to agenda item three,

3 Declarations of Interest

declarations of interest.

Are there any declarations?

Don't think there sure are, but just to double cheque.

4 Chairman's Announcement

Okay, then moving on to agenda item four,

Chairman's announcements.

I would like to announce to the committee

that with immediate effect,

I'm appointing Councillor Andy Huxley as the Vice Chairman.

I'd like to place on record all my thanks and support to Councillor Mark Turner for all his help and support

and the work and effort he's put into the committee both on the site visits, but also then again

I've asked my office I couldn't attend stepping into the breach and chairing the meeting for me as well

But just like formally announced that Councillor Andy Huxley for the rest of the remaining of the council year will become the vice chairman

Thank you. Thank you, Jim

So, we now consider the officer's report and I'll clarify you in order on which the application

will be considered.

The planning officer will introduce the item with any relevant updates and that's Helen

to my left, supported by Del and obviously by Ross as well, talking us through the whole

of the application because as you know it's quite a major application.

Then the local members, parish or town, council representatives, members of public and agents

are advised to read out the statements in the following order.

Local member, parish or town representatives, objector, supporter, agent or applicant.

I am aware that Councillor Sherwell has requested to speak and I'm conscious that he is the

neighbouring ward member rather than the ward member, if that makes sense.

So he has put a request in and I have accepted his request to speak.

Just so everyone's got clarity on that, but he can speak.

But I'm building the relevant order, right?

But yeah, so technically you're not the local member, but you're the neighbouring ward member,

therefore you come into the same category, if that makes sense.

Okay.

So after each public speaking statement, members will be asked,

be able to ask speakers for clarification or matters raised in their statement only.

and then these must be addressed through me as the chairman and then I'll ask the

members if there are any technical questions of the officers and following this then

the entire committee will then discuss the application in its entirety. Members

may seek further clarification from officers on points regarding the

application or points raised by the speakers in the main debate. Officers

will respond to the issues and questions raised by members. The committee will then

make a decision by vote and members will need to propose and second

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

recommendations. Okay so now we move to item five which is application number 18

forward slash 04346 forward slash A for alpha O for Oscar P for

Papa on page seven of the agenda pack. Could our public speakers please respond

while I call out their names to indicate

that they're in attendance.

And please ensure your verbal representations

of the 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

and will come to sit at the public table in front.

After the members have asked any points,

they will then return to their seats.

So can I just confirm,

Councillor Alan Sherwell from Buckinghamshire Council,

are you here? Just say yep no no just no no just just confirm you're here and

I've got a Mr. Gary Tucker as the agent. Oh sorry I've got two of them here.

Sorry Hugh James the agent sorry thank you and I believe you may have a highways

person with you and a flood person with you. Fantastic that's great thank you

much. I'm happy when you come to speak if you want to bring the technical

experts with you because it'd be easier if you're sitting them together at the

table to make sure that we can then direct the right questions the right

way. Thank you. Okay so now call on the Case

Officer Helen Fadipe to introduce the report on the application. Over to you

Helen.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 0:11:11

Okay, thank you, Chair. This application relates to a strategic allocation within the Vale

of Aylesbury Local Plan Area, and it includes the delivery of infrastructure, including

the South West Link Road and the Aylesbury Garden Way. Given the scale and significance

of the proposal, it is presented to members for determination. I will present the planning

assessment and I'm joined by Del Testa who will cover the I -ways considerations.

The application before members is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved

as set for the principal means of access.

It seeks consent for a mixed -use development

of up to 1 ,400 residential dwellings,

together with a primary school, a community building,

a gypsy and traveller site comprising five pitches.

The proposal also includes multifunctional green infrastructure,

including a linear park and play areas, the realignment of Stockbrook with

associated wetland habitat and supporting infrastructure such as the

Southwest Link Road, walking and cycling routes, flood mitigation measures and

associated routes. This scheme also includes the demolition of the Oaks and

as I mentioned in my report that has now been demolished due to health and safety

issues. I will now turn briefly to the application process. The application was

originally submitted in 2018. Since then there has been a number of amendments in

response especially to HS2 proposal, that's the high -speed rail. Also to the

adoption of the veil of ESB local plan and consultation responses. Our data plans

was submitted in June 2022, followed by further technical work, including additional flood

modelling requested by the Environment Agency. Further consultation was undertaken in 2023

and again in early 2024, alongside amendments to the site boundary to avoid overlap with

this act is SBR Link Road. Since that time, officers have continued to work with the applicants

and consultees to address outstanding matters. The outcome of that process is the proposal

now before members are set out in the committee report and audited report.

This slide shows the Ville of Aysebury local plan policy map.

It highlights the strategic allocations

within the Aysebury Garden Town.

Members can see that the application site,

which I'm pointing at at the moment,

is on the southwestern edge of the town.

and it's identified as a strategic allocation A DAGC2.

As such, the principle of development has been established

through the adopted development plan.

The key consideration for members is therefore whether the

proposer complies with the aspirations and requirements set

out in the VAP allocation and whether the impacts

of the development are acceptable

and appropriately mitigated.

This aerial photograph shows the application site

in its wider context.

The site extends to approximately 98 .5 hectares

and comprises predominantly agricultural land

at the Southwestern edge of Eastbury.

Members can see the relationship

with the existing residential area

of South Court to the Northeast.

So this existing residential area,

the F -41 Osford Road forms the boundary to the Northwest

While the eastern boundary extends a short distance beyond the Princess Risbro railway line,

which crosses the sides in a north -south alignment.

The proposed HS2 also lies to the southwest and defines that edge of the site.

That will show more clearly in plans that I will be presenting later.

Overall, the image illustrates that the site sits adjacent to the existing urban area,

forming a natural extension to Ealesbury.

As mentioned earlier, the application was submitted in 2018.

And the slide before you shows how the site plan has evolved to take into account HS2

requirements as well as amendments to avoid the overlap with the south east Eastbury link

road phase two scheme.

The current red line boundary therefore represents the most up to date position and ensures that

the application aligns with surrounding infrastructure proposals.

Turning to the wider context of the site, the application, as I've already mentioned,

is to the southwest and is adjacent to existing built -up area of Eastbury and is therefore

well related to the town.

It's also been influenced by the HS2 route, which runs along the south -western boundary.

In terms of green infrastructure, the site falls between two identified opportunity areas

within the Buckinghamshire Green Infrastructure Strategy.

This area seeks to enhance the urban age of Aylesbury and to provide new strategic green

lanes connecting the town to a wider countryside including the Chiltern Hills.

The site therefore has an important role in delivering these strategic connexions, particularly

in terms of walking, cycling and access to open space.

This context has been a key consideration in shaping the master plan, particularly the

emphasis on green infrastructure and connectivity.

Turning to the key constraints affecting the site, firstly is the high -speed rail, that's

the HS2.

This is a significant constraint.

The alignment defines the southwestern boundary of the site

and has been a key driver of the layout.

The HS2 also influences the relationship

with Princess Risborough railway line.

It also affects the alignment of the southwestern link road

and the overall drainage strategy.

And that is because of the land that is safeguarded for HS2.

In addition, anticipated noise from HS2 has also informed the design and layout

of development parcels to minimise impacts on both future and existing residents.

The other key consideration is the requirements of VAP

that this scheme should include the Southwest Link Road.

Currently, it is proposed as a single carriageway, with land safeguarded for potential future widening.

Its alignment, together with the location of crossing points and its relationship with public right -of -way,

has influenced the layout to ensure safe and effective connectivity across the sites and to the wider area.

The Princess Risborough railway line runs through the eastern part of the site, as mentioned earlier.

And of course, this has implications because it's also affected by Chet's proposal

and it's also including the introduction of an elevator station.

And there is a, well not a pinpoint, but there is a crossing around there that we showed

members when we went out on site.

And so you can then have the, you know, have a full consideration of how the HS2 works

and the railway line has impacted what can be done in that particular location.

And Dale will speak more about that when it comes to highway issues.

So this particular elevator section resulted in the need for an underpass

for the Southwest Link Road.

And that has had implications for levels, drainage,

and the configuration of developable land.

Public rights of way are also an important feature of the site.

Four routes cross the site

and has been carefully considered within the layout.

The design seeks to retain and integrate these routes,

maintaining permeability and ensuring

that they remain convenient and attractive for all users, including pedestrians, cyclists,

and equestrians. There are also existing mobile pylons across the site, which represent fixed

constraints. The layout has responded to this by taking

account of easements, safety clearances, and cable swings with appropriate land uses located

nearby. Finally, flood risk is a key consideration, particularly in relation to Stockbrook and

Sir drop ditch. Parts of the site lie within areas of higher flood risk and there is a

known history of flooding in the wider catchment, including events in 2013 and 2014. This has

informed a comprehensive drainage and flood mitigation strategy with built development

directed away from the most vulnerable areas. And the vulnerable areas are those shown in

blue. So the housing has been located and disclosed quite far away from those.

In the next slide, I will explain how the proposed development responds to these constraints.

The slide before you is the illustrative master plan and it is landscape -led and it reflects

the aspirations of the VAP allocation and the SBRIG Guarding Town principles.

Since the original submission in 2018, a number of changes have been made to the scheme and

This includes the reduction in the site area to exclude land required for HS2 and to avoid

overlap with the Southeast Asia.

This will include phase 2.

The scheme now includes provision for 5 gypsy and traveller pitches and also the oaks which

have now been demolished and that is to the northern part of the site.

Members, as I mentioned, should note that a separate application for its demolition

has already been approved.

So whilst it's the part of this application, that permission has been implemented.

The proposal was also updated to incorporate the Ayresbury Guardian Way and to adjust the

the Southwest Link Road and the Draining Strategy in response to HS2 evolving design.

What has happened is the developer booth residential area has been reduced with higher densities

proposed in appropriate locations and the community facility has now been relocated

to the northeastern part of the site where it can better serve the wider community.

There has also been some rationalisation of the public rights of way through the sites.

And turning to the master plan itself, it demonstrates how the sites could be delivered.

It includes up to 1 ,400 homes of missed hypotenuse, essentially located to form entry.

That's the purple bit in the middle of the site.

the community centre which is up there, the gypsy and traveler's site.

And a key feature of the scheme is the provision of extensive green infrastructure with approximately

51 % of the site retained as multifunctional open space including parks, recreational routes,

allotments, a community orchard, and a linear park connected to the wider green infrastructure network.

The proposal, as already mentioned, includes the delivery of the Guardian Way, strategic flood mitigation measures including wetland areas, and the wetland areas is up north and down south.

The SW Link Road is also incorporated together with the potential for future bus routes through

the site.

Overall, the Master Plan demonstrates how development responds to the site's constraints

while delivering the key requirements of the allocation.

The plan before you is the Land Use Parameter Plan.

And this plan establishes the broad land use principle

that will guide future reserved matters submission.

As this is an outline application,

the plan provides the framework for development,

rather than detailed layout.

If you permit me, I will start from the centre of the site.

And as you can see, this popular area identifies the location of the primary school.

And it is positioned to be accessible to the wider development, which are all shown in the brown shades.

Close to this provision is the orchard.

So the orchard, the community orchard allotment is there

and the orchard is on the other side of the school.

And we've also got the other community facilities over there.

And also, if I may point out again, the yellow bit there is the gypsy and traveler's site.

Surrounding and weaving through the sites shown in green are extensive areas of open

space and green infrastructure.

This includes parks, allotments and recreational routes.

There are two skate parks, one down here and another up there for use by the community.

The Southwest Link Road runs through the site and the primary means of access to the site

is through this location and through that as well.

And it takes its bearing from the Southeast Link Road, yes, Cilla Phase 2.

You will also see on the screen the darker shades of blue.

Those are marked for sustainable drainage and they've been integrated into the landscape -led

design of the scheme.

In terms of land use distribution, approximately 46 .7 hectares, around 50 percent of the site

is proposed.

That's 50 -51, is proposed as green infrastructure.

residential development occupies approximately 30 .4 hectares.

In addition, land is safe guided, which is shown in the lighter green street to allow for the potential dwelling of the Southwestern Link Road.

So it goes just alongside the Southwest Link Road.

Overall, the parameter plan demonstrates a clear structure to the development,

with a strong emphasis on green infrastructure connectivity and supporting community uses.

This reflects the requirements of policy DAGC2, particularly in terms of delivering a landscape -led

approach, strategic green infrastructure, and integrated community facilities.

This slide is a close up of the gypsy and traveller sites.

As mentioned earlier, the proposal, which is a requirement of VAB, is for five pitches.

You will see it is positioned in the northern part of the site and is

between the existing Oxford Road and the rear -lined route, which is associated with HS2.

The site itself comprises a relatively small parcel of land, approximately half an hectare

in size.

In terms of its setting, the site benefits from strong existing landscape features, including

woodland along the northern and western boundaries, which provide a good degree of visual containment.

Additional planting associated with the HS2 works will further enclose the site and help

integrate it into the wider landscape.

Overall, the location and landscaping would ensure that the site is well contained and

appropriately related to the wider development. Details of the design, layout and long -term

management of the gypsum traveller sites will be secured through the Section 106 agreements.

I will now mention briefly the off -site guiding way. As you would have read in the report,

The Garden Way is an expression and a requirement of the Eastbury Garden Town.

And this application is taking that orbital route through the site, but part of it will

be on council -owned land.

And that is the area shaded purple.

The route of the Guardian Way varies approximately 5 metres to 11 metres, allowing for high quality

multifunctional pedestrian and cycle routes.

Again, Dale will be speaking more about the highways, including the Guardian Way, when

he speaks about the highway's consideration.

Although this bit of the Guardian Way is within Council ownership, however, the delivery of

this section will be undertaken by the developer and secured through the Section 106 agreement.

The Council will grant the developer licence to carry out the necessary work.

Overall, the garden way will provide an important orbital route, enhancing connectivity across

Aysebury and supporting sustainable travel in line with the principles of the Aysebury

Garden Town.

This slide before you shows the building height and that's a building height parameter plan

and it establishes the maximum building height across the site.

As with the other parameter plans, this provides a framework for future reserved matters rather than detailed design.

If I can direct members to the plan, you will see that the heights vary across the site in response to context and design principles.

Starting with the yellow area, this identifies the location of the primary school,

which is proposed at up to two storeys with a maximum height of approximately 13 metres.

Moving to the edge of the site, shown in the lighter brown, to the north and to the south,

Development is generally limited to up to two storeys

with a maximum height of around 10 metres.

This reflects the need to respond sensitively

to the site boundaries and neighbouring areas.

Within the sites shown in the mid -brown areas,

development would increase to up to two and a half storeys

with occasional three -storey elements and up to a maximum of 14 metres.

In the most central parts of the site, shown in the darker brown areas,

there is greater flexibility with developments ranging from two storeys up to three storeys

with occasional four -storey elements and a maximum height of approximately 17 metres.

Overall, the plan demonstrates a graduated approach to building heights with lower developments

at the edges and higher density focused towards the centre.

This reflects a landscape -led design approach and ensures that development responds appropriately

to its context.

The plan before you is the density parameter plan.

And as with the other plans that I've mentioned, it's a framework and it will guide the result

matter submission.

You will see the darker brown areas.

This represents the higher densities of the site with approximately 45 to 50 dwellings

per hectare.

These are generally located in the most central and accessible parts.

Moving outwards, the mid -brown indicates medium density developments and they are around 35

to 45 dwellings per hectare.

And finally, the yellow parts of the site, this represents lower density development

and they are in the range of 25 to 35 dwellings per hectare.

This distribution reflects a clay design approach with higher densities focused in more accessible

locations and lower densities towards the site boundaries.

I'm going to now move on to the urban framework and proposed block structure.

It's important to note that the layout has been informed by the key constraints and opportunities

mentioned earlier across the site, including the HS2, the Southwest Link Road, public right

of way and the wider landscape.

And of course it's been designed to create a coherent and legible layout with a clear

street hierarchy.

The framework also responds to existing and proposed movements.

So we've got some movement areas which will be clearer in other plans that will be shown

later in the presentation.

And it incorporates both existing and diverted public rights of way as well as the guiding

way to ensure strong pedestrian and cycle connectivity throughout the site.

In addition, there are three crossings.

I'm trying to see if I can see them.

I think I have another plan that shows it better.

So I will show that in the next slide that shows it better.

So this plan just demonstrates a well -considered and connected layout which responds

to the site contest and supports a permeable and accessible development.

This is an illustrative landscape plan.

And the judge demonstrates the landscape -led approach to development.

I am just going to draw your attention to some of the key features shown on the plan.

At the entrance to the development, there is an area of open wet parkland which will

form an attractive and welcoming gateway to the site.

Along the HS2 bond, shown towards the western edge, new woodland planting is proposed and

this would help reinforce the landscape structure, strengthen the settlement's edge and provide

a green backdrop to the SW Link Road.

The SW Link Road itself running through the site would be designed as a tree -lined boulevard

creating a strong and formal landscape setting.

In addition, the Guardian Way home zone, as indicated here towards the lower part of the plan,

provides a generous landscape corridor, forming an attractive linear park, and came through the development.

Overall, the Landscape Master Plan demonstrates how green infrastructure is used not only

for amenity but also to structure the development and respond to its wider context.

I will now talk briefly about the proposed road hierarchy.

And this shows the proposed road hierarchy and movement framework across the sides.

It has a well -structured and clear hierarchy of routes, which helps to organise movements

and to create a legible street network.

At the top of the hierarchy is the south west link road, shown here, which forms the primary

strategic route through the site and connects to the wider highway network.

This is supported by a series of primary streets, shown in purple, which distribute traffic

through the development and connect key areas, including the school community.

Below this are the secondary and tertiary streets shown in lighter colours which provide

access to residential areas and help to create a permeable and connected layout.

The private drives are shown in blue and this will serve smaller group of dwellings and

are designed to create quieter streets.

The movement framework also incorporates provisions for bus routes and bus stop as shown on the

Ensuring that development is well saved by public transport.

The catchment area shown also demonstrates that the majority of the site falls within

convenient walking distance of, you know, of sustainable travel choices.

It's working distances of bus stops supporting sustainable travel choices.

Overall, the proposed hierarchy promotes a well -connected, accessible and sustainable

pattern of movement across the streets.

And there are going to be three crossings over the HS2 and the middle one would also

include the Bridal Way.

At this point, I would like to now pass over to Del Testa, who will take members through

the I -Waste consideration in more detail.

Thank you, Dale.

Next slide, please.

So the site is allocated for development

in the Vale of Aylesbury local plan.

And it's one of a number of Aylesbury Gardens

Del Tester - 0:43:09

town ADT housing allocations that are expected to deliver

around 15 ,000 dwellings in the plan period.

As part of the local plan process, a mitigation strategy was developed in the Alsbury Transport

Strategy 2016 to support the levels of growth envisaged.

The strategy identified that an outer ring road system would have a positive impact around

Alsbury and provide opportunities to enhance highway, public transport, cycling and walking

networks.

The modelling supporting the strategy indicated that the linked roads would lead to a reduction

and traffic in the town centre.

The local plan under the heading Elsbury Garden Town

confirms that the transport measures

in the Elsbury Transport Strategy

are required to facilitate growth

with the key measures being set out in policy T3.

The application site makes an essential contribution

towards the delivery of the outer link road system,

which beyond the site is advancing through construction.

Next slide, please.

Vout policy T3 sets out a number of necessary highway schemes that are required to support

the growth in Vout carried forward from the Alsbury Transport Strategy.

In Alsbury, this includes a number of link rows to be delivered either by developers

of all of their respective allocation sites or through alternative funding sources such

as HS2 or developer contributions.

Next slide, please.

This slide sets out the current status of the Link Roads around Aylesbury through the

various allocated developments and beyond.

For ease of reference, the tick in the table indicates whether the Link Roads benefit from

planning consent for delivery at the moment.

You can see that the final row of the table indicates that the only X relates to the application

site before you.

It can also be seen that all but one of the other roads beyond the application site has

been either constructed and open to traffic,

was under construction and due to open

within the next 12 to 18 months.

It is therefore essential to complete the Link Road system,

secured in Valp and the Elsbury Transport Strategy

at the earliest opportunity.

This is necessary in order to realise the benefits

of the strategy and to allow the effective management

of traffic from all of the allocated sites.

Next slide, please.

This slide shows the AGT sites around Aylesbury, as Helen showed earlier, that form part of

VELP.

I'd like to just take you around the highway's infrastructure if I can.

So Helen, if you can point.

Starting at the northeast of Aylesbury and travelling clockwise is the Kingsbrook Allocation

site, AGT 6.

and its associated sections of the Eastern Link Road North, Mike Gryphon Way, and Stock Lake Link Road, Bellingham Way,

which are both open to traffic.

Only the southern spur, where the cursor is there,

from Bellingham Way roundabout remains to be completed.

Continuing south of the Grand Union Canal is the Woodlands ADT 3

allocation and its associated Eastern Link Road South which connects Kings

Brook to the A41 Woodlands roundabouts. This site benefits from planning consent

but hasn't yet commenced construction. Continuing south and southwest of the A41

is the Hamden Fields allocation AGT 4 and its associated dual carriageway

Southern Link Road that connects the A41 to the A413 further to the southwest.

This site has planning permission and construction has commenced on site of both the development

and the roads.

Completion of the Link Road here is anticipated in summer 2027.

Continuing clockwise from the A413 is the South East Aylesbury Link Road, which is known

as CELA, a forward funded scheme by the council and HS2 for a dual carriageway road between

the A413 and B4443 lower road in Stoke Mandeville.

This road is under construction

and is due to be completed in late 2026.

Next is the South East Ellsbury Link Road phase two.

So go back a little bit to the number, there you go.

South East Ellsbury, thank you.

Ellsbury Link Road phase two,

which is a dual carriageway section of road

linking Seeler at lower road to a new roundabout junction

that will form one of the principal points of access

to the AGT 2 allocation site before you today.

CELA 2, if you just stay there, CELA 2 and the roundabout are completed and open to traffic,

including a short spur from the roundabout into the development site itself.

Beyond CELA 2 and the AGT 2 roundabout and considering southeast is the Stoke Mandeville

Relief Road, which connects to the A4010. So this road was completed by HS2 and is currently

open to traffic. Then we have the South West Link Road, which is the, if you recall the

table, the X on the table, and it's the one that needs to be completed to complete that

connexion there. Continuing beyond that to the north of Aylesbury, or northwest of Aylesbury,

is Paradise, Orchard and Martin Dolby Way.

They form the remaining link roads

that were proposed in Valp

and connect the A41 Bicester Road

to the A413 Buckingham Road.

Next slide please.

This slide shows the proposed Southwest Link Road.

So I don't know if you can just point along it again.

Through the AGT2 allocation

and its connexions to the A418 Alton Road at the northwest and the CEDA Phase 2 roundabout

to the southeast.

The slide also shows that the wider development proposals for the site and the HS2 railway

line that provides a fixed boundary to the western side of the land.

The southwest link road is designed to a 40 mile an hour design speed and is consistent

with the adjoining link road system.

So see the two onto SLR called Harborway, so on.

Whilst the road is proposed

as a single two way carriageway road,

land is available and safeguarded

through the section 106 agreement

to allow its future drilling by others

if required in the future.

Plans have been submitted as part of the application

to demonstrate how a dual carriageway

would be achieved within the safeguarded space.

Next slide, please.

This slide shows the proposed site access roundabout junction with the A418 Oxford Road

at Cold Harbour Way.

The site is on the south eastern side of the slide, so I don't know if you can point to

that, just note the right, there you go, of the junction, hence served by a new arm of

an enlarged roundabout.

Travelling clockwise from the site access, we have the A418 Oxford Road west towards

Tame. Continuing round we have Cold Harbour Way to the northeast, Pearson Close which

is an exit only between those two roads just there, and then the A418 Oxford Road northeast

towards Elsbury Town Centre. The South West Link Road arm, the A418 Oxford Road West arm,

and the Cold Harbour Way arm at the junction would all have three entry lanes and the Oxford

North Eastern Arm would have two entry lanes. All arms of the roundabout would be widened

to have a two -lane exit. The Oxford Road North Eastern Arm towards

Elsbury Town Centre would be widened to create two lanes in each direction between the junction

itself on the screen and the existing Edlin Road roundabout to the north east. So that

would be two lanes in both directions between the two.

The staggered toucan crossing is proposed across the South West Link Road Arm to cater

for pedestrians and cyclists.

And straight across, Toucan crossings are proposed

across the A418 Oxford Road,

northeastern arm and Cold Harbour Way arm to the junction

to accommodate crossing movements

in connexion with existing walking and cycling routes,

the proposed Garden Way and the round Ellsbury Walk.

Next slide, please.

This is the proposed south west link road connexion

to the existing highway network at its southeastern end,

so the CEDA Phase 2 roundabout junction.

The roundabout junction has now been constructed

and open to traffic on all arms

apart from the site access arm itself

as part of the works to construct

the Stoke Mandeville relief road by HS2.

And the South East Aylesbury Link Road

Phase 2 by the council.

This is a forward funding arrangement,

the construction of the roundabout,

and as such the section 106 agreement

for this development requires a financial contribution

of an excess of six million pounds

to be paid to the council towards construction costs.

The image on the right of the slide

shows the constructed roundabout

and the Risborough railway line bridge,

beneath which the new Link Road

and associated footway cycleway will need to pass.

This bridge structure was designed

to accommodate a dual carriageway road

and it is also understood that the structure

will accommodate the future duelling of the railway line

if that was required.

Next slide, please.

As touched on earlier by Helen, the proposed Gypsum Traveller site is located on a parcel of land to the northwest of Oxford Road.

It will be accessed using a priority junction from the A418, as you can see there.

And that was constructed up by HS2 as part of their A418 diversion works for the railway line.

The Gypsum Traveller site access junction with Oxford Road is located approximately 150 metres west of the Cold Harbour Way roundabout.

It has been subject to swept path analysis for large vehicles and vehicles towing touring caravans.

Next slide please.

This slide shows a couple of typical cross sections for the South West Link Road.

Section AA, which is located towards the north western end of the site close to the Oxford Road roundabout,

shows a typical arrangement with a 7 .3 metre wide single two -way carriageway road.

with a four metre verge on the northeastern side

and a six metre wide garden way route beyond.

On its southwestern side is a four metre verge

separating a further 11 .3 metre wide area of land

that's safeguarded for the future

duelling of the road if necessary.

Section CC on the right hand of this slide

showed the most constrained part of the road

through the Risborough Railway Line bridge structure.

This shows how a 7 .3 metre wide single two way

Carriageway Road can be accommodated either side

of the central bridge structure.

On the northern side of the guard, sorry,

on the northern side, the Garden Way footway cycleway route

would narrow locally to 3 .3 metres in this location

with a 1 .2 metre offset from the bridge structure itself.

Beyond the structure, the Garden Way would widen again.

Next slide, please.

The traffic implications of the proposals have been extensively modelled using the Council's

Aylesbury Transport model as the starting point.

This is a VISM -based strategic model that covers the whole of Aylesbury.

It considers the implications of both new development proposals and the new strategic

highways infrastructure, including the Link Roads.

It is a dynamic assignment model that distributes traffic based on assumptions regarding time,

distance, and prevailing conditions.

The application was originally submitted in 2018,

and this has required updates to the modelling during the course

of the application to take

into account model updates as they have occurred.

The latest iteration of strategic modelling was presented

in a 2022 planning application update.

This utilises modelling data for a 2036 forecast year

and considered seven different scenarios

with and without development.

Next slide, please.

Model outputs were considered the indicated changes

to traffic volumes across the network resulting

from infrastructure and development changes.

This formed the basis of an initial sifting exercise

to determine whether more detailed outputs

from the model should be considered

at a junction by junction level.

This exercise resulted in the consideration of 81 junctions

across Aylesbury where the impacts were considered

to be material.

These 81 junctions were assessed for capacity and the need

for mitigation measures was investigated

where the implications of development in relation

to capacity and delay were determined to be significant.

Next slide, please.

The detailed assessments determined

that mitigation measures were required at a number

of junctions as set out on this slide.

This includes the signalization of two key junctions onto the A41 Bicester Road.

Traffic from the linked roads and the development was shown to materially impact these junctions of Gryphon Lane A41 and Raven's Lane A41.

The signalization of these junctions is shown to offset the significant impacts of development on congestion and delay and resolved officers' concerns.

The remaining improvements are more minor in nature,

involving minor widening works or pedestrian

and cycleway enhancements,

such as is the case at the Bueverhorn Junction in Stone.

All of the works are subject to detailed design approvals

post -determination of the planning application.

They are secured as part of a Highway Works delivery programme

in the Section 106 agreement for their development.

Aside from the Gryphon Lane and Raybourns Lane improvements,

the council is proposing a flexible approach which allows for financial contributions towards

alternative, perhaps more comprehensive proposals rather than implementing the minor works themselves.

Next slide, please.

Ellsbury was awarded garden town status by the government in January 2017, and an Ellsbury

Garden Town Master Plan was adopted by the council in 2020 following consultation with

key stakeholders.

It's an invite key advisory and guidance documents supporting policies in the veil of Ellsbury

local plan, particularly policy D1 delivering Ellsbury Garden town and cameras weight as

a material consideration and decision making.

Eight key projects were identified as part of the master planning process, one of which

was the Ellsbury Gardenway as Helen touched on earlier.

The vision for the Ellsbury Gardenway is for an orbital park of linked green spaces, parks

and natural and heritage areas

that will become a focus for Aylesbury communities

and an active travel accessible route.

It aims to make sustainable modes of transport

more attractive and preferable to using the car

for short local journeys in particular.

It will help achieve the council's target

of half a short local journey

is being made by sustainable modes by 2050.

This slide shows the aspiration for the garden way

around Ellsbury in the thick green line,

including through the AGT2 allocation sites.

The applicants have worked with the council officers

to facilitate the delivery of part of the Garden Way

through the application site,

meeting a key aim of the Ellsbury Garden Town Master Plan.

Next slide, please.

So within the site,

the indicative route of the Garden Way

is shown with the dashed deep pink line.

I don't know if we can follow that as we go through.

It runs adjacent to the Southwest Link Road from its southeastern end.

So go down to the, see the two roundabout?

So it runs adjacent to the road at this point due to space limitations on that part of the site.

And the need to pass under the fixed constraint of the Risper Railway Line bridge.

Beyond this and travelling northwest, the Garden Way route moves away from the road

to improve its setting within a green corridor.

It should be noted that part of the route,

as Helen has already explained,

passes outside the red edge of the application site

by number six on this plan,

and utilises land within the council's ownership.

Helen has already pointed out the principle of licencing

this route by the council.

At the northwestern end of the site,

the Garden Way route spits retaining a seasonal route

through the open space, so at the back of that, Helen,

there you go, around there,

towards the Oxford Road roundabout,

where it ties in with existing walking

and cycling infrastructure.

This section of the gardenway passes through a flood zone

area and as such may not be available year round.

A separate footway cycleway therefore runs adjacent

to the Southwest Link Road through this area.

So go adjacent, that's it, through this area.

The slide also shows that there are multiple footway, cycleway and public rights away connexions to the local area, all annotated by the various numbers on the plan.

This includes a proposed footway, cycleway and bus connexion to Ellen Road, annotated as number five.

Improvements are proposed to many of the connexions to bring them up to current standards and improve surfacing conditions.

and these are again secured in the Section 106 agreement for the site and have been agreed

with the strategic access officer.

Next slide, please.

So this slide shows some indicative garden way sections through the site.

It can be seen that it is typically at least 6 metres wide and up to 11 metres wide and set

within a generous green corridor where possible adjacent or within proposed areas of open space.

So sections A, B, and C show this.

It should be noted that section A has been updated

to include a six -metre wide route separated

from the Southwest Link Road by a four -metre verge,

apart from where constrained on the immediate approach

to the Oxford Road roundabout to avoid drainage features

and other constraints.

Next slide, please.

Again, this is just a zoom in by Oxford Road just to show different

to the section that was on the previous plan.

and confirm that a six -metre wide footway cycleway

continues further towards the roundabout

and reduces locally to avoid constraints.

Back to Helen.

Thank you, Dale.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 1:02:19

I will now take members through other matters.

And so I would like to start by drawing your attention

to the section within the report.

titled other matters and this relates to a number of important infrastructure and constraints related matters.

Firstly, it's in relation to the HS2 interface and secondly to the safeguarding.

As I've mentioned earlier, the site lies in close proximity to the HS2 alignment

and elements of the proposal interact with land

and infrastructure affected by the HS2.

And so it introduces a degree of complexity in terms of delivery,

phasing, and drainage, especially

where mitigation measures rely on coordination with HS2 works.

We've already sought counsel's advice during the processing of the application.

And the position that we have reached is that this can be delivered subject to those mitigations

as set out in the report.

We also have a commitment from the developers as well as HS2 that they will work closely

together to ensure that HS2 works does not impact

or impede the delivery of these sites.

Secondly, or thirdly, are the overlapping concerns.

As I mentioned earlier, the sites plan are to be amended

to avoid the overlap with CILAFIS 2.

However, given the nature of HS2 work,

that overlap cannot be avoided.

We've again sought council's advice and the position

of council is clearly set out in the officer's report.

What this draws to our attention is

that delivery is not entirely within the applicant's control

and it would require ongoing coordination

between multiple parties.

And the Council's Housing and Infrastructure Levy Manager is doing that work of bringing

all parties to the table, including HS2, EFKB, and the applicants and landowners.

And that role will continue to ensure that this site is delivered.

The other point to note is the national grid infrastructure and the presence of overhead

power lines and pylons, which represents a fixed constraint across the site.

As already mentioned, it influenced the layout and design of the scheme, including the positioning

of open space and setting land uses.

Fourthly is the impact on network rail infrastructure.

That's fifth, sorry.

So the fifth point there is the impact on network rail infrastructure and level crossing.

Members will be aware from reading the report that network rail has raised an objection in this respect.

However, the crossing is quite a distance from the site.

Following careful review by the IOWAS department, the public right of way, as well as the applicant

specialist consultant, it was agreed that the level crossing that those who would reside

in the new development would not significantly affect the number of people using the level

Furthermore, the public right of way officer intimated

that the level crossing should not be closed off.

And as a result, the planning consideration is

that the level crossing remains open.

The applicant offered in liaison with our highway team,

some mitigation measures.

However, network will decline those mitigation measures.

And as such, the objection remains, and officers will be obliged

to inform Network Week following this meeting the decision of the committee.

Taking these matters together, they demonstrate

that this is a complex infrastructure -led site where delivery is closely linked

to external dependencies and safeguards.

Members should therefore have considerations

when assessing both the validity of the proposal

and the overall planning balance.

This slide before you is a summary

of parish and public comments.

It summarises the key issues raised through consultation

by parish councils and local residents.

A number of objections have been received as set

out in the committee reports, and they can be broadly grouped

into the following themes.

Firstly, concerning, firstly concerns regarding the density

of the developments, particularly in areas

where density has increased compared

to earlier iterations of the scheme.

Secondly, the potential impact on public services.

including pressure on secondary school provision and health care infrastructure.

Thirdly, objections to the location and justification of the gypsy and traveller site.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to flood risk, particularly the potential impact on existing communities.

In addition, there are concerns regarding the relationship with HS2, including uncertainty

around delivery timescales and cumulative impacts.

Issues have also been raised about the sighting of community facilities and the school in

proximity to overhead power lines.

Concerns relating to the local highway network have been highlighted,

including traffic congestion and capacity.

And finally, the overall scale of development and its impact on the character of the area,

as well as effects on ecology and wildlife.

All of these matters have been carefully considered as part of the officer assessments

and are addressed within the committee reports.

And ultimately, they've been reflected in the planning balance,

which is before you this morning, this afternoon.

I'm now going to talk briefly about the Section 106.

We were trying to work out the total package of Section 106,

but I'll just give you the information I have to hand.

And we can always give that number in terms of the financial sum as of date.

So this slide summarises the key planning obligations to be secured through the Section

106 agreements.

They are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development and to ensure that the

scheme is supported by appropriate infrastructure.

We've carried out this test and they're all still compliant.

That's the community infrastructure levy act, so it's all compliant.

Firstly, in relation to housing, the agreements will secure a minimum

of 10 % affordable housing provision alongside a review mechanism linked to viability.

In terms of education, provision is made for primary school sites capable

of accommodating a two -form entry school, including a 52 -place nursery,

together with financial contributions towards primary education.

Financial contributions will also be secured towards outside secondary

and special school provision.

It will deliver community building along with open space, play areas,

and allotments to support the new community.

The Guardian Way, as we've already mentioned, will be delivered as part

of the wider green infrastructure network.

It will also secure provision for Egyptian traveller sites.

Financial contribution will also be made towards offsite healthcare facilities,

both to the primary care, which is the ICB, a new GP surgery would be built as part of

Amdene fields.

And there will also be financial contributions to NHS BHT, that's the NHS, the Bhopal Kinam

Shared Health Trust.

In terms of transport and highways, Dell has already shown and mentioned some of the contributions.

highway improvements that would be made.

And this include the delivery of the Southwest Link Road,

associated junction improvements,

off -site pedestrian and cycle connexions,

and public transport measures.

Sustainable drainage systems and long -term management

will also be secured.

The drainage mitigation will result in betterment

of the adjoining residential areas.

Ecological mitigation and enhancement measures also form part of the obligation.

Finally, provision will be made for self -built and custom -built houses.

Overall, these obligations will ensure that the development is supported by the necessary infrastructure

and that its impacts are appropriately mitigated.

In closing, members will have seen the published addendum

to the committee report.

This has been prepared to address a number

of identified inaccuracies, omissions,

and points of clarifications within the original report.

The amendments are primarily factual and explanatory,

including updates to the site's description,

heritage context housing land supply position and clarification of technical matters such

as flood risk, pedestrian and cycle connectivity. Importantly, these changes do not alter the

overall assessment, the planning balance or the recommendations before members.

Turning to the overall conclusion, this is a site allocated within the adopted bill of

Elsbury local plan, where the principle of development

has been established.

The proposal will deliver up to 1 ,400 homes

alongside key infrastructure, including a primary school,

community facilities, strategic green infrastructure,

the Southwest Link Road, and the Garden Way,

elements that are fundamental to the delivery

of Aylesbury Garden Town.

While there are identified impacts,

including landscape change and the loss of agricultural land

this have been carefully assessed

and are considered to be appropriately mitigated

through this scheme, planning conditions

and the section 106 agreement.

Technical matters, including highways, flood risk

and environmental impacts have been addressed

with no objections from statutory consultees subject to mitigation.

Overall, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan

and delivers the key components of this strategic allocation.

Accordingly, officers recommend that permission be deferred and delegated

to the Director of Planning and Environment for approval,

subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion

of a legal agreement.

Secondly, that the Director is also delegated in consultation

with the Chairman to make any necessary minor amendments

to the wording of the decision,

provided these do not alter the substance

of the Committee Resolution.

And that's the end of our report.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Helen.

Thank you, Del.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:11

We'll now go to public speaking.

We're now here from Councillor Alan Sherwood

to start with.

If you'd like to come to the table.

Where it says public speaker,

so whichever of those two seats you prefer.

You're welcome to choose.

And once the...

timer starts you'll then have three minutes speaking time and I'm just waiting for the

Public Speakers - 1:16:42

timer to work. Are we good? Good yeah okay over to you Councillor Sherwell. Thank you

um this plan has been 10 years in a gestation and I get three minutes um so there's a lot I'm not

going to talk about.

It's in the local plan.

If it is not adopted in some form by this council,

it will be by an inspector.

So as far as I'm concerned, the argument

is about what the right mitigations are

and what the right development actually is.

I have two main arguments.

One is on flooding.

The Willows is right next to this development.

When the Willows was put into place, the expert advice was that the flooding would be once

in a hundred years.

It has flooded three times in ten years.

And by flooding, I don't mean wet fields, I mean watering people's houses.

And you can all understand just how unpleasant that is.

The Willows is directly upstream of this development.

There's a lot in the words in the documentation about on -site mitigation and downstream mitigation.

There is very, very little of anything about upstream mitigation.

And of course, if the downstream gets blocked, the upstream gets flooded.

So I believe in the conditions that we're putting in and the requirements,

there needs to be something much stronger about making sure there is no flooding back upstream.

And this underestimate of flooding risk is not a mistake that Alesbury Vale made 15 years ago.

It's a national problem. It's been seen everywhere.

And as a member of the fire authority, I know one of the leading pressures on us is dealing with flooding.

So it is absolutely critical. It's not people getting nervous, it's people that

have had an experience and a very bad experience needs to be tackled.

The other thing is traffic. The extra traffic generated on the Oxford Road

Junction is not simply from this development, it's from the Link Road

railing stuff to flow through. I'm not convinced that Cold Harbour Way could

take that traffic properly and I would like that looked in in more detail as we

go through the process. I'm absolutely convinced that Robbins Lane can't. The

traffic lights at the end may do something. The main thing that they'll do

I think is increase rat running through Hayton Hill. There is enough of that

already in peak hours and my residents in Hayton Hill don't have the flooding

problems that the Willows has but they do have traffic problems and we need

some form of traffic calming or mitigation to prevent a massive increase in rat running

through Hayton Hill. So I would like that included in the conditions as well. And that's

my three minutes I think Chairman.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:19:48

Bang on Councillor Strouhal. So obviously you raised some planning issues there. Do

any of the officers need to make any comment on that, particularly about the flooding piece

and all the traffic piece that was talked about.

Or...

We should move to points of clarification

and then officer's...

Oh, sorry, points of clarification, yes.

And officers can pick up on that in technical details.

Okay, no, any points of clarification

from the committee members?

Councillor Sherwell's right.

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:20:21

Councillor Munger, then then Councillor Gough.

Thank you, Chair.

Councillor Sherwell, I'm not suggesting for one moment

that you're an expert on flooding,

but I wonder if you have any contribution to make on basically how that might be tackled.

I mean you're suggesting an improvement to conditions, but for those of us who are not involved,

we don't necessarily have the expertise to even put the basics together on that. Can you help us at all in that regard?

Public Speakers - 1:20:56

Well, firstly, thank you, Councillor Munger, I'm not suggesting that the committee today

attempts to write any conditions because this is a defer and delegate to the officers to

do that.

What I am suggesting is that people with appropriate hydrological experience make absolutely sure

that there is a convincing argument that will convince local residents that they're not

not at a greater risk.

And I don't say that that is simple,

but I think the basic line is that you should assume

that what the environment agency is saying

is likely fed risk is actually the bare minimum,

because that's what evidence around the world at the moment

is.

And that therefore, they just need

to be asking the questions of what

do we do to stop backflow if any problems arise on the site or downstream of it and

how do we minimise that?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:22:02

Thank you Councillor Gilles, that gives good clarification. Over to you Councillor Gough,

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:22:06

followed by Councillor Drake.

Thank you very much Chairman. I was trying to find a button to get you dead on three

minutes but no, you're very good. If you could explain a little bit more just for me to dig

into because you mentioned like the willows, which we've known

over the years, and like you say, you sit on the fire

authority as do a few other colleagues here.

We know some of the problems that happen down there.

And like my colleague to my right, you're asking us to

help with that mitigation down there.

Because if I remember, the willows have got an anti -flood

system down.

They'd have to bring a load of steel panels out, don't they,

when it's flooding quite bad.

And we all know that the weather's changing.

and more and more, you know, we have been flooding all over the area.

So could you just explain a little bit how you feel we could possibly help with that?

And then I have a second question on the Haydon Hill business.

Public Speakers - 1:22:58

Yeah. And I think it's worth saying that the reason that the metal panels and all the rest

of it are in the willows is because the original state wasn't designed

for the level of flooding that it's actually experienced.

And it could well have been that if the Brooks in the Willows were appropriately dealt with

on the assumption that it was going to be a three in ten years rather than one in a

hundred years, brush panels and so on would never have been needed because it would have

been dealt with at the time.

And as I say, I'm not an expert on what is available and what is possible, whether it

is additional sink pools offsite further north that take excess water or whatever.

I mean that's a matter for the experts and I'm not going to pretend that I can do that anymore

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:24:01

than I could actually design the buildings of the estate. Okay thank you very much just to explain

that because a lot of colleagues wouldn't really know about that within here. And then we go to

this new Link Road, so you're making an assumption that the traffic would come from Risborough

onto the new Link Road, rather than going up to the town, you feel that they would come

down to the Oxford Road and then turn right and then left again up through, yeah, through

Cold Harbour, thank you. It all depends where they come in. But what does it, but people

don't realise where Hayden Hill is. So how do you feel that will affect Hayden Hill?

Public Speakers - 1:24:42

Well the situation is obviously you've got 1500 houses or whatever it turns out to be

that are putting extra traffic onto the Link Road. You're also going to get traffic that

comes from Stoke Manderville, either from it itself or has come up the road to it. Some

Some of that, of course, won't be going the best way, but some of it will.

I don't know how much our traffic people might be able to say how much, but some of it will.

So we're getting more than just 1 ,500 houses worth of traffic there.

Comes out of Cold Harbour Way.

At the end of Cold Harbour Way, you've got Raven's Lane, which is an industrial estate,

and it leads to the refuse tip.

It goes straight down to Bicester Road,

where you're talking about replacing the roundabout

with traffic lights.

There's one turning off to the left, which is Meredith Drive,

which goes around in a U and hits the Bicester Road again

at the lights opposite Jackson Road,

right on the edge of Aylesbury.

So if the Raven's Lane is busy, you get rat running through the alternative, which misses out one set of traffic lights.

Some of that rat running, of course, is heavy goods vehicles from the industrial estate.

That can only be made worse by however much traffic ends up coming that way to go to Bicester.

I don't have the traffic volumes. I'm sure that the experts do have the traffic volumes, but undoubtedly it will be more.

And therefore the question arises, can something be done to mitigate the running of that sort of traffic through the Hayton Hill, which is the private residential estate?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:26:42

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:26:44

Thank you very much to just clarify that.

I know that area quite well as well, how that works.

And again, you've explained that to colleagues quite well.

So I'm just going to put something in there.

So you asked us to try and help mitigate that if it's going

to be a problem, say, for that development.

The only way I could foresee that, and there's another road

down on the right -hand side that's been made one way,

do you feel a one -way system off the rail that's laying

down that road to try to possibly solve that problem?

Public Speakers - 1:27:12

I'm not sure that that would be the right answer.

The only reason I say that is that there are only two exits from Hayton Hill.

If you turn it into a one -way system, you're saying there's only one exit and one entrance,

which is fine, until something goes wrong, i .e. there's a traffic accident at one end.

and that I think would be a problem.

But even a chicane or traffic calming within the estate

would reduce the temptation to run through it. And again, I'm not asking the committee to come up with a solution.

I'm asking the committee to say to the officers effectively that like with the flooding,

we need a bit more guys in the work that you're doing before it comes back to be signed off.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:28:03

Thank you very much, Jim. Thank you, Councillor Gough.

Following on to Councillor Drayton followed by Councillor Huxley.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 1:28:09

Thank you. I don't sit on the fire authority, so I'm not familiar with flooding on that front.

However, my ward does have two rivers that run through it and a very high water table level in some of the areas.

and we're prone to flooding and properties badly affected.

We've had incidents of sewage coming up inside properties

and flooding from the rivers which comes into properties.

Just to extend on what you were saying,

the Willows was predicted to have a once

in every hundred years flood, like high severe flood.

Again, I can relate to that.

You're saying it's happened three times in 10 years, is that correct?

And so just for understanding for myself and the committee, to what severity is that?

Is that on each occasion properties have been flooded?

Is it surface water flooding?

And sort of just an indication of the number of properties affected.

I mean, one is enough as far as I'm concerned, but just so that we're clear.

Public Speakers - 1:29:23

I mean I couldn't use the precise details as it wasn't in my patch at the time,

but it was sandbags out time. I don't think any flooding was above ground floor.

And we're talking till three dozen I think, in terms of houses that were directly affected.

but as you say, okay, if one was flooded once, you might say, oh bad luck.

But when it's repetitive, even a relatively small number,

I don't think that's a small number, but a relatively small number is a problem.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 1:30:01

Thank you. And is that within the last ten years?

So I'm just trying to establish if, because we're all, as various people have acknowledged,

we're aware climate change and such is creating these flooding problem

increases but just understand in context today whether mitigation could have

happened previously. Again I couldn't give you the precise details of the

timing but the metal gates which Councillor Garmar referred have

essentially tackled the problem and it's prior to that so we're

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:30:41

I was talking 14 to 4 years ago.

Thank you. Councillor Huxley.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:30:47

Thanks Chairman. Being a former Councillor on Hayden Hill, as you know,

I actually share your concerns about rat running through Meredith Road, Dickens Way and onto the A41.

So, I'd like that noted please.

Just to make the point about flooding on Hayden Hill, I suspect, I've not checked it recently as I'm no longer a resident,

but having been a resident on Goya Place, I know the situation with the River Tame which runs through

and I would suggest it floods every single year knowing full well what our local football team,

how often they play football on their fields and it certainly stops them playing for quite a few

Well, for weeks I would say.

Yeah, that's absolutely true, although Haydon Hill is on a slight rise,

Public Speakers - 1:32:00

so the club water doesn't actually affect the houses on Haydon Hill, but I think

it sometimes affects some of the houses right at the edge of quarantine.

Yeah, the only problem with that is that

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:32:12

it's not the easiest thing to get insurance on the houses in

Goye Place.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:32:26

Okay, I don't think we've got any more questions for clarification.

Do the officers want to come back and any other points raised on there so far?

I mean, in terms of the floating piece, I've read the report and I've seen something in there that I think actually does answer the question.

But I don't know whether the officers want to say that themselves.

Should I respond to highways first, Chairman?

And I think what we need to remember

for this planning application is we're in a situation

at the moment where we've already got roads

that are built on opening regardless of Southwest Dalesbury

Del Tester - 1:33:02

that funding traffic up from the A4010

upstate Mandeville relief road,

see that SLR is all gonna be coming towards a point

on lower road and what the modelling shows

with and without Southwest Dalesbury,

we need to consider the impacts of Southwest Dalesbury

in this application shows that that traffic at the moment,

if we don't have the Southwest Link Road,

we'll still want to continue going west and north,

potentially.

So that traffic volume still exists,

apart from the 1 ,400 houses.

And what we see is that as part of the strategy

for this application means that there's

a significant reduction in traffic through Ellen Road.

Because if you're funnelling traffic up State Mandeville

Relief Road and by the other link roads,

the only way it can go at the moment,

if it's not going to go through the town, is Ellen Road to get to Cold Harbour Way.

Del Tester - Highways Consultant - 1:33:49

So in terms of changes as you then go up Cold Harbour Way and looking at Hayden Hill,

I've just had a look at the plots.

And we're not showing significant rat running through there.

The changes through there are quite small.

And of course, you've got the, in terms of it being more attractive,

you've still got a signal control junction at Dickens Way where you've got to come out.

So with the signalization of Dickens Way with Raven's Lane and

with Gryphon Lane, then that can be managed if that's an issue.

And going forward, I am aware that there's gonna be a further review,

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 1:34:29

I think, in the new local plan period of Cold Harbour Way.

So maybe that can be looked at there.

But certainly in terms of this application, I don't think that there is

evidence to suggest that there is a rat running problem caused by

South West Aylesbury through that area from the statistics that I've seen.

That's only when I read the reports that I read that it was

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:34:52

the minimum basically in terms of the volumes and compared to what's actually going to be generated from the houses.

Did you want to talk about the flooding piece?

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 1:35:03

Okay, thank you chair. With respect to the flooding, the area

that this site sits on was looked at as part of the local plan process.

So a sequential flooding at a strategic level was undertaken at that stage.

And since the site's application was submitted, an assessment

for that particular site has been undertaken.

the environment agency as well as the local flooding authority.

They've also taken a look and they are all satisfied that the development at this site

would not lead to flooding that will impact other areas outside of the site.

So I understand the point you are making about it being upstream.

This issue in itself is looking at the site and the impact it would have.

And in respect of planning, we have to consider in terms of will this site impact?

So it's the direct impact of this site that we are required by law to assess.

So if there is an upstream that is likely to impact on this site,

then all of that would have been taken into account as part of the flooding.

because the applicants, flood specialists would have looked at anything that might seem

to have their own site as well as look outside of the site.

So it's very important then that the main issues that is being looked at has been assessed

and at this moment, officers have the opinion

that this application would not increase flooding outside of the site as well as downstream.

And that is what is required of it.

So that's what I like to say.

And we've also got the flooding specialist who is also around who can also help in terms

of answering that.

And we've also got conditions both from the LLFA as well as environment agency,

which the applicants will be required to undertake.

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:37:31

And having looked at the reports, here at page 79 and in paragraph 5 .412,

yeah, that's one and a half, it specifically says that due to the MPPF changes written in last year

or so, but actually it has to do an additional 40 % climate

change allowance over and above where it would have been.

So therefore, the idea wasn't just

that it's got to fix its own scenario,

but then do an additional 40 % allowance on top of that.

Whereas originally it was just fix your own,

if that makes sense.

Whereas now, because the MPBF rules,

they will have to do an additional 40 % allowance.

So in terms of hopefully what that then does

is by having that additional allowance,

it helps out the likes of the Willows and the rest of it.

But that's what the report physically tells us

under that piece and actually addresses that particular issue

that I'd actually read.

So I'd double cheque that it's post 79, paragraph 5 .412,

where it talks about that specifically,

where it's not just mitigating its own situation,

but plus 40%, if that makes sense.

So yeah.

Okay, I think I don't see any other questions

for Councillor Sherwood.

So thank you, Councillor Sherwood.

You can remain and listen to the rest of the debate

and the meeting.

That's your three minutes up

and your clarification questions.

I'll now move on to the agent and their turn

to speak so if you like to return to your space, that's great.

I'll listen to the other public speakers then I will take my leave.

Okay thank you, that's most kind, thank you.

So if I could ask how James to come forward along with the technical

specialist he has with him, I think he's a highway specialist and a flowing

specialist that'd be really really helpful and again he will be allowed

three minutes to speak and when the time

okay right okay so how is also the agent for the application and also he's got

Can you introduce who they are?

Yeah, I was going to say, should I introduce them for three minutes?

Is that helpful?

And so I'm Hoel James from Exeter Planning.

We are the planning consultants acting on this project.

To my right is Ben Fox from PFA.

Ben deals with drainage matters.

I can answer any questions in relation to that.

To Ben's right is Paul Slingo from Gleason Land, who is the applicant.

And then to Paul's right is Laura Cook from Osborne and Clark, who is a solicitor,

acting for the applicants on this project.

So we don't have highways but obviously we have the local highway authority in the room.

Public Speakers - 1:40:10

That was normally second to none so I'm quite happy with Delos' original highways piece.

Okay so I'll let you now make your statement for three minutes. Over to you. Thank you.

Thank you chair. This application before you today for the development of one of the key strategic local plan allocations at Aylesbury

is a result of collaborative work in between the applicants, police and land, council officers and wider stakeholders

over a period of more than seven years.

No stone has been left unturned in ensuring

that all relevant issues have been considered and addressed

and that the benefits are maximised.

Ultimately, this collaboration has created a scheme

that is policy compliant, technically robust,

and presented to you with a recommendation

for approval by your officers.

The principle of a development at this scale

and in this location was put forward by the council

and endorsed by the local planning inspector

to the examination of the Vale of Aylesbury local plan.

The application proposals accord to the council's development plan and will facilitate the delivery

of this key strategic site at Aylesbury.

They also provide a range of benefits, including the delivery of up to 1 ,400 new homes to assist

the council in meeting its housing needs.

The provision of 10 % affordable housing with a viability review mechanism in place to secure

any improvements in affordable housing provision should this become viable as

the scheme is built out. The delivery of the Southwest Link Road including land

for potential future duelling, a key component to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan,

the Aylesbury Transport Strategy and the Aylesbury Garden Town Westerplan.

The construction of a section of the Garden Way which is also a key part of

the Aylesbury Garden Town Westerplan. The delivery of a new primary school and

and need community building, a landscape -led development

where approximately 50 hectares of land

is provided as green infrastructure,

such as parks, play areas, and allotments.

Ecological enhancements resulting in a biodiversity net gain

of more than 30%, a development that will ensure

that all built form is located within flood zone one

and that all future residents are safe

in the risks of flooding,

but which will also deliver flood alleviation measures

that will improve the current situation

for existing residents at the Willows.

New footpaths and cycleways,

including connexions across the HS2 line

into the countryside to the southwest of the site.

Gypsy and traveller pitches,

a range of offsite highway improvement works

agreed with the local highway authority

and substantial financial contributions

towards offsite healthcare provision.

Crucially, the years of work have ensured

that these proposals interface effectively

with HS2 in this location,

creating an integrated and deliverable new community for Aylesbury.

Today is a critical step in the journey to delivering new homes, strategic roads,

open spaces and community facilities on this allocated site.

And we hope that you are able to support your officer's recommendation

and resolve to approve this application today.

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:43:07

Gil, any answer? Two minutes fifty, very good.

Okay, so I'll open it up for questions and clarifications.

So I've got Councillor Waters first by Councillor Huxley and then Councillor Drayton.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:43:19

Thank you Chairman. The point I'm going to come back on to is about the

willows because you did mention it in your statement. Obviously protecting

from flooding on the site but obviously off the site you've taken into account.

It'd be really good to understand exactly what measures you're taking to

ensure that we've got a level of comfort for the wider area that has been

impacted in the past and we know it's it's it's a low -lying area after the

site visit and there are particular issues with with that so be really good

just have a much better idea of what's being envisaged and why that will make a

difference a positive difference to the willows actually which would be good.

Public Speakers - 1:44:02

Hopefully everyone can hear me. Hi I'm Ben. So we have a site -specific flood model so

taking environment agencies strategic model and got the evidence base to

refine that and establish where the flood risk is on site in the baseline conditions and then look

to improve it. So the improvements we're looking to propose is watercourse realignments. So we're

taking the Stoke Brook which forms the western boundary of the site and running it through the

western part of the north and also the Sedgwick ditch as well we're realigning that. And the key

key plank of that is dragging the watercourse corridor away from the willows and then adjacent

to those new watercourse realignments and flood storage areas so lowering parts of the site to

increased flood storage in effect,

reduce the water levels,

which will reduce the out of bank flows

to the Willows area,

which is where the investment is provided.

So in addition to the flood alleviation areas

and the water course realignments,

we've also got sustainable drainage on the site.

So that captures the rainfall,

which falls on the development parcels,

slows it down and releases at a slower rate

into the water courses.

So that the combined effect for those

has flood risk as well.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:45:07

So just a quick supplementary on that. In terms of the level of improvement, obviously

at the moment they're saying, you know, three times in ten years they've been flooding

the willows. What are we now saying in terms of the improvement would be in terms of, you

know, the measures you'd say in what's in 100 years or whatever that anything could

possibly happen?

Public Speakers - 1:45:28

So the improvements are set out as a technical note, which is part of the plan application

where we quantified it, and this has all gone through the environment agency review process

process, so the actual modelling itself has gone through a very thorough review process

which signs up the evidence and that comes to a conclusion, there's no objection to the

scheme, but in effect it's reducing out of bank flows to the widows and the combined

effect is reducing the flood extents to 123 properties within the curtilage affected by

the curtillage within the flood risk

that affects the curtillage of those properties.

So fairly significant reduction in flood extents

and there's also a reduction in flood levels as well

offsite in various different probabilities of flooding.

So the thing to remember, there's different probabilities.

So the 100 year storm, the other way to look at it

is a 1 % chance of occurring in any year.

So it's not once in 100 years, it's 1 % in any year

And that's the other way of looking at it.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:46:27

Just to clarify, the way I read the report

was that it was going to meet the environment agencies

piece of 100 years plus the 40 % climate allowance piece.

I assume from what you've explained

that the technical model tells us that that's what the answer

is.

I can't say exactly which year or whatever,

but in terms of overall understanding,

the new scheme meets the criteria of 100 year plus 40 percent.

Is that how I understand it?

Yeah, so we take climate change into account in both the fluvial flows,

Public Speakers - 1:47:02

so on the flood modelling, but also the rainfall modelling as well.

There's different climate change allowances in both, and we're compliant with both of those

allowances set by the Environment, which comes out of national guidance.

So we're compliant with those.

So plus 40 % for the rainfall.

And then we assess plus 31 % and plus 43 %

for the flu overflows as well.

So there's a high level of sort of sensitivity testing

within the modelling as well.

And those figures that are reported

are based on the design flood, so the 100 year

plus the appropriate climate change amounts.

And you said 123.

I assume that's the curtage of the existing ones

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:47:40

in the willows in that area.

who directly improve the situation for those particular ones that we talked

about already in the willows. Okay, fantastic. Anything else for Councillor Wintour?

No, that's fine. Thank you.

Over to Councillor Huxley.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:47:53

Thank you, Chairman. Bear in mind that most of the link roads in and around Ailsbury will be completed in the not -too -distant future.

When would you expect the South West Link Road to be completed?

So shall I take that one? Afternoon everyone, Paul Salingo from Gleason Land.

Public Speakers - 1:48:18

I think the actual delivery timescales will be agreed as part of the Section 106 wording.

There's a requirement for a pre -commencement for us to submit and agree the Highway Works delivery programme with Bucks Highways.

and that will give the sort of key dates.

Obviously there's, that will cover programme dates

as to when each part of that road will be delivered.

So I can't sit here and tell you it will be delivered

in five years from today, but there is a requirement

for us to agree that with Bucks Council,

and obviously that will come as part of the early part

of the scheme development.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:49:06

I've now got a sea of hands. So ladies first.

Oh sorry, you've done your bit over here. You're good.

Okay so therefore over to Councillor Drayton followed by Councillor Gorm, followed by Councillor Hussain, followed by Councillor Toole.

There we go. Councillor Drayton over to you.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 1:49:25

Thank you. Councillor Waters actually covered my questions. I was coming back following my earlier questions about the willows as it was mentioned.

Councillor Strayton. Over to Councillor Gough.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:49:34

I would oblige Councillor Hustain, he had his hand up before me actually if you don't mind Chairman, I'll be you know.

Councillor Hustain you first.

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 1:49:42

Thank you very much. My question is just basically that you must have heard that local council was showing some concern on the

volume of traffic and some traffic calming measures in the area. Is there anything can we consider to help or to support the residents?

Public Speakers - 1:50:01

If I could answer that question, Councillor. We've gone through a very comprehensive process

with the local highway authority and worked collaboratively with them over the last seven

years to review this scheme and review the transport impacts. The local highway authority

has presented the position earlier in relation to the transport model and from that there

are a series of mitigation measures on off -site junctions that this development will be delivering.

So those have been agreed with the local highway authority and will be secured through the

Section 106 agreement associated with this planning permission.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:50:30

Just to clarify, the way I understood it was initially this, the developers and yourself

will deliver single two -way traffic if that makes sense, but single track if that makes

sense.

But there's the provision, the ability at a future date to dual carriageway.

I think from where it was described, you could still do dual carriageway under the Brisbane

Bridge still.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

Public Speakers - 1:50:53

So the requirement for this planning application is for a single carriageway for the Southwest link road

Which is as explained earlier significant benefit to the area with respect to traffic movements

And that's a requirement at this stage and I understand that's what the modelling

Explains is needed in the future if there was a need to do all that road to accommodate future traffic levels

There is land safeguarded to this planning application

That was basically the section 106 agreement and at a time in the future if the council decides that is required

It can call on that land to deliver a duelling of the link road

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:51:24

That's very helpful.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:51:27

So, back to Councillor Gough.

Sorry to make you play table tennis with the chairman there, but got to enjoy the day as we go.

Okay, so I'm really intrigued on that drainage.

That was one of the points I wanted to pick up and listen to what you said.

I didn't catch all of it, but was quite intrigued of where that water goes.

You're going to introduce a lot more ground level drainage to slowly disperse the impact of water

that's going to come off the roads and off the buildings because that changes the dimension of where water goes.

When it rains and naturally hits the ground,

people are watching and listening, but when it hits the roofs and the roads, it's a lot faster.

So therefore going to go to your new drainage system, which sounds absolutely fascinating.

And then you say you've adjusted the... you will adjust the water course.

You will adjust the water course as it goes round, which will help the willows,

which is really good.

But then where does that water go?

Because if I, I don't know where you're going to send that water course.

Water course, water's got to go somewhere.

And from what I understand, for those that might understand Ellsbury,

if you've adjusted the water course, that means that kick the water coming

from your area to the right, it'll take it lower down past Rabin's Lane

and kick it down to the back of Stock Lake.

Andy, would I be about right?

So that's where, because are you sending the water from one area to another?

You're the professionals and I know you would have done it, but people are watching on fear of what could happen

Public Speakers - 1:52:56

Yeah, so on the point of where the water goes so the water

Will we maintain the catchment of the water courses at the moment the water flows from broadly from the south east?

To the northwest of the site under culvert under the Oxford Road

So that's where it continue continue to go and we're reducing and slowing the flow down as it comes through our development

So through these mitigation measures

So on the suds, so the actual development drainage,

you're actually digging big attenuation basins

in the ground, which is what water

will be temporarily stored, and there'll be a thing

called a flow control on the outlet,

which basically more water in than water going out.

So it slows it down and that gradually,

the basins fill up, and they'll gradually reduce over time

as once the storm has dissipated,

and then reduce, let out a controlled rate

into the on -site water courses, which will then continue to flow down through the site under the Oxford Road.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:53:56

Looking at this plan in front of us, I think they're the blue bits you can see.

My understanding, to confirm on the correct, they're in fact what we call mini reservoirs,

studs reservoirs, so the little blue triangle at the bottom right, that one there, and there's another one further up,

So it's about five or six or seven of them basically dotted all over this site where in effect what I can understand

So what they do in Australia as well, where in effect as it all rains it all collects up in there

In terms of mini reservoirs and it reduces it through in a different and a much more controlled

Flow if I understood correctly is that is that happening?

Yeah, that's correct

Public Speakers - 1:54:34

And each of these sort of blue blobs is size for the development area that draining so it can be delivered in a phase manner

As well and this is all secured through the planning conditions

There's a number of conditions on this strategic one,

and there's also detailed ones which come forward

for part of the reserve methods.

And then just to point as well, the flood alleviation

and the water course realignment is covered

by condition 40 as well, based on the principles established

in the flood risk assessment site -specific modelling.

So it's done the work and it's all secured.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:55:02

I get that, but I'm gonna probe it a little bit harder now

if you don't mind, Chair, is that your blue blobs,

to your little race of wires will slowly let the water into the natural course of where

it used to go.

A lot, lot smaller than the actual like the building sites that you're going to build

on.

So, you've got all of that water off those sites going into your little race of wires

that would have originally gone on the whole of the land that was diminished in its own

way.

You've adjusted what was there in a sense.

the water would have gone through its natural course,

now you're holding it, let it slowly go.

Would that be at a pace that nature would allow it

to normally go?

You still haven't answered the question

of that water would then go off somewhere else,

and this is what I referred to,

if it was faster than it originally was getting

to the normal water course,

it could flood another area or would it be slower?

I don't know.

I'm intrigued, I'm a farmer landowner, so I own quite a bit of land,

so I know what it's like to try and divert water into different places.

Public Speakers - 1:56:15

Yeah, so on the development drainage, it's very much we're slowing the rate of runoff.

So we've done our Greenfield runoff calculations, so we work out what's running off the site.

Pre -development, nothing there. And then we look at the one year,

two year, and the hundred year storm events. And we're slowing the hundred year storm events

all the way back down to the two year events. So the Q -bar event, you may see that sort of terminology

come up a lot in climate applications.

So you're providing, that's where the betterment comes in.

In these large events, you're taking that runoff volume

and taking it into your feature.

So this is your sort of big storage reservoir,

if we're using those terms,

and then slowing the rate of that release down.

So this is all consistent with sort of national guidance

and best practise and taking the SUDs approach

through the development site.

So yeah, this is all standard stuff for development,

but yeah, very much we are taking the water,

slowing it down and releasing it at a controlled rate

at a lower rate than the redevelopment

to provide that flood risk betterment.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:57:11

I find that very interesting.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I might have bored some of my colleagues,

but I was finding, I was intrigued of that.

And I'm sure some of our residents would be as well

around the Aylesbury area.

So I appreciate that.

Maybe some of us farmers could come

and talk to you actually.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:57:26

Thank you, chair.

I think, Councillor Gough,

those of us who went on the site visit

and we did the whole site at multiple locations,

actually then working out the multiple,

what I call mini reservoirs, I would describe it.

That's where I've really understood.

That's why, rather than just one massive reservoir,

you have like at West Creighton,

these are what I call more localised ones

for helping out each of the pieces of the jigsaw,

if that makes sense.

But yeah, it was a very interesting

and intricate site visit, I can tell you.

Okay, so I've got Councillor John Chilby,

be ready, patients, over to you.

Cllr John Chilver - 1:58:00

Thank you very much, Chairman. I had a couple of questions about the Elsbury to Princes

Risborough railway line. I think the officer in her presentation mentioned that the new

road bridge over the line would permit any possible future duelling of the railway line

under it. I'm just wondering, can you confirm that that would extend all the way along this

new development and that none of the new development would impair any possible future duelling of the line.

And also I was wondering about the network rail objection to replacement of the level crossing,

presumably by some sort of footbridge.

I'm just wondering what evidence did you have in making the decision not to replace it

and how did you assess the risk?

Thank you, Councillor.

Public Speakers - 1:59:02

If I start with the first question around the Ender Pass

and the Prince of Brisbane rail line.

So I don't know the answer in relation

to the duelling of the rail line itself.

That's probably a question for the Highway Authority.

I think it was mentioned earlier within the presentation.

In terms of what the scheme delivers,

as you can see on this plan on screen now.

So the Southwest Link Road in the form that we're proposing,

the single carriageway is shown in the dark grey line.

And you can see how that goes under the rail line

in between those two red line areas.

Through it by a render pass that has been constructed.

The pink lands shown on this plan is the duelling area,

the land safeguarded for the duelling

of the Southwest Link Road,

should that be required in the future.

And as another plan, I think that was shown earlier,

there's also the garden way that goes through that

I think the work that we've done in detail in collaboration with officers on this scheme

shows that all of those uses can fit under the railway line through the underpass proposed.

So I think that probably answers part of your question.

I'll leave it at the highway authority in terms of the rail duelling point.

In terms of the network rail objection, so that relates to the increased use or potential

increased use of a existing level crossing.

And it's a pedestrian level crossing which is located things around about 500 metres to the north of the site

So the officers can pull up a wider plan just so we can give an indication to where that is

Then hopefully you can point towards probably with eyes

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:00:43

So the crossing is somewhere around where the red pointer is.

So that's where the level crossing would be, or where the level crossing is at the moment.

So that's an existing level crossing that is used by existing residents located to the east and west of the rail line to get across the line, vice versa.

Public Speakers - 2:01:05

And that crossing has a signalised alarm system, if you like, to alert when trains are coming.

There is long distance visibility along that track because it's a very straight line and trains don't travel at great speed.

So it is a safe and well -utilised route for existing residents.

The objection from Network Rail was requesting that that crossing be closed as a result of some additional potential use from the development of this site from a safety perspective.

We discussed this in detail with officers. We presented information that showed that the increase in use from this development would be very minimal.

Officers were very keen from a public right of way point of view that the route remained open for existing residents because to close that route would require a significant deviation around or diversion around for those existing residents, obviously as well as any proposed residents from this site.

And in discussion with the officers, we decided that on balance or the officers decided on balance it wasn't worth closing that crossing.

So the Network Rail objection, as the officers explained earlier, has been noted,

but it isn't considered an issue for this development.

Again, as the additional use arising from this scheme would be very minimal, as per the work that we undertook.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:02:25

Okay, Chair, I would like to also add that the site is outside of the Red Line boundary,

And what Network Rail was asking was for the council to use a grand plan condition in order

to secure or to then ask the applicant to do works on land not owned by the council,

not owned by the applicant outside of the red line boundary.

Furthermore, the condition would not pass the test because in order to impose a condition,

We have to show that it is relevant and everything else.

And after we did that piece of work,

we couldn't justify imposing a grumpian condition.

The other point that was made by the public rights of way,

which has been mentioned by the agents, is the severance

of the local community.

And that was a very critical issue

that by asking the applicants to close or contribute or find a way to close that crossing,

then we will be severing that relationship.

The applicants went a long way to, in conjunction with our I -Ways engineer,

because we all started looking at what are the alternatives.

We came up with alternatives.

Everything is on the website and a very detailed report was produced

for Network Rail showing the kind of mitigations that could be put

in place to increase safety.

So making it more difficult for people to just run across.

And so all those things we did research and we added it and we sent it off to them.

However, they are still insisting that it should be closed.

And so hence, as a planning authority, we are recommending

to members that their request should not be supported,

hence we are still going ahead despite the objection.

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:04:39

Councillor Gough.

Chair, sorry, can I quickly, I've been given the answer

to the first question asked by Councillor Childress,

Public Speakers - 2:04:45

which I couldn't really cover that.

So what I'm told is that the area

between the two red line boundaries,

as you can see on this plan

with the Prince of Brisbane rail line runs,

there is sufficient land for that railway line to be built.

Thank you.

Okay, Councillor Gough.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:05:00

Thank you, I'm really intrigued

on this drainage a bit more now, sorry.

I'm sorry colleagues again.

But so again, it's just sort of prodded me slightly.

I know your application is your application

and HS2 is right next door to you, but as it states in some of the papers, it talks

about interface and collaborate, you know, with whatever. So with some of the water,

I don't know how the water drainage is done off that piece there because I think that's

where the track goes along, there's no road along there, but any water spill that comes

off of their works, I know they should have their own drainage system, but have you sort

of worked out will any of that affect your work there?

You know, water spillage into your side?

Public Speakers - 2:05:49

Yeah, so we've had lots of discussions with HS2

and all their flood modelling work

has informed our flood modelling work.

So we're all aligned with their proposals.

So it's all taken into account.

Regarding the sort of flood risk and drainage works.

So if you've got, they've got their own track drainage

and drainage systems which also have sort of the large

sub -ponds, the reservoirs which collect and slow the flow

from the drainage of the track.

They've got the landscape bunds and at the toe of that

is going to be a drainage ditch as well, which captures

any runoff from the landscape bunds so that protects

our development.

And in addition, as part of the consultation process,

we were asked to look at land drainage streams as well

from off -site lands onto the development sites.

So we've got a provision for sort of interception ditches

around the boundary of our site as well.

and again that is secured as part of the planning conditions.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:06:41

I don't think there's any other more questions

from the councillors.

Officers, did anyone else?

Oh sorry, council member.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:06:51

Thank you, chair.

Three areas, if I may.

Questions about the school, I regret to say flooding

as well, and time scales, all things that you mentioned

in your comments. As far as schools are concerned, can you just clarify for me

exactly what you as the developer is providing in terms of the land, the

construction and fitting out of the school itself and the provision of

related sports facility. Each of those areas if you could clarify exactly what

Public Speakers - 2:07:31

is being provided. Yes, so that is a matter to be detailed to the section 106

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:07:36

agreement exactly how that will work. Sorry to interrupt, we have

experience over many years of things being promised at outline and then

quietly arranged at 106 that the committee never gets to hear about until

after it's been agreed. That's why I'm asking you for clarity now so that we

Public Speakers - 2:07:53

have it on the record. So at the moment that the position of confirmation I can

provide is that the land will be provided for the school. There is then a

a couple of separate mechanisms within the Section 106 agreement.

Either the developer constructs the school and

all the facilities associated with the school.

Or it makes a financial contribution to the council for

the council to then go and deliver the school.

All of those requirements must be, they're subject to Section 106 triggers.

My colleague can explain what those triggers are shortly.

But there is a certain point within the development where the developer must

identify whether it's going to build the school or not.

And if it chooses to build it,

it then must construct the school within a certain time frame.

If it chooses not to construct it, it must make a financial contribution to the council within a certain time frame.

The council is then obligated to deliver the school within the overall time scales set out.

So that's the mechanism in the Section 106 agreement to deliver the school.

So the development cannot go beyond a certain stage before that school is constructed.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:08:55

And I'm pretty sure that in the report there's reference to playing field.

Yes, it will include the facilities you would associate with the schools.

It will have open spaces, playing fields.

Fine. I'll do my third question next, which was about time scales.

That's been mentioned earlier and I appreciate the difficulty in doing so,

but I think it would be very helpful, given all of the things that I pinch upon this,

to have at least some indication of if you were successful with the outline permission today,

when you would expect to submit a reserve matters application and in the event of that being successful without having to go to appeal,

when you would expect to commence construction.

Public Speakers - 2:09:46

So I'll take that one, Councillor, if I can.

So I think it's probably worth saying that the scheme will be built out by a developer

yet to be identified. So that process needs to happen. And then they will work up the

the first reserve matters submission,

which I think in 106 includes part

of the Southwest Elsbury Link Road as well.

So I think that's got to be delivered first as a priority

and then the first scheme of residential development.

So I think the process of finding a developer

and then submitting an RM is likely

to be 18 to 24 months from today.

And then once that reserve matters is approved,

then to be delivered on site,

you know, in accordance with the agreed timescales

that have got to be submitted to

and approved with the council.

Okay.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:11:01

Sorry to have to go back to flooding again,

But it should be a fairly simple thing here.

Going back to page 79 and paragraph 5 .412,

it was pointed out, let me just read the last sentence

of the paragraph in question.

The drainage modelling demonstrates

that the proposed subs infrastructure

provides sufficient storage capacity

to manage the one in 100 year reef rainfall event

with a 40 % climate change allowance.

So, provision is made for 1 .4 events in 100 years.

So that's the current plus 40%, 1 .4 events.

But recent experience over the last 10 years suggests that there has been flooding three times in 10 years.

and I'd like you to be sure that you actually hear this.

I'll leave it until you finish your own conversation.

If it's three in the last ten years,

that's the equivalent of 30 times in 100 years,

and you're making provision for 1 .4 times in 100 years.

Help me to understand how wrong I am,

or how wrong you are in your calculations.

Public Speakers - 2:12:25

Yeah, apologies for having a conversation while you're asking, we're just trying to

find the paragraph in question.

Yeah, regarding the probabilities, our modelling does show that the Willows is at an enhanced

risk of flooding without the development.

So as it stands, baseline today, which we are improving.

So the modelling which has been referred to in the past from the sort of consent of the

previously is clearly was not fit for purpose.

That has evolved over time and we have a more up to date

flood model with more up to date data,

with up to date hydrological assessments,

which has gone through the environmental review process.

Which does show there is a, yeah, as we know,

there is a flood risk at the Willows.

We've not shied away from that at all,

and that's why we've put the betterment in place.

So the assessment of the hydrology comes out of,

Yeah, about getting too technical.

So on the rainfall side, we take into account the latest rainfall data set,

which comes from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

So it comes out with all this sort of detailed government guidance,

and then we apply an uplift to that.

So that 1 % chance of occurring in a year, we then make that 40 % bigger.

So it's not reducing the return period,

which is making the use of a bigger magnitude storm event.

So we are compliant with the guidance and as we are not using flood risk elsewhere and we're providing the betterment through the mitigation proposals.

And that's all been tested in both the site specific flood model but also the hydraulic drainage models as well.

So there's two different forms of mitigation and assessment which have gone through and that's gone through the technical review process from the Environment Agency on the flood model.

Also the lead local flood authorities, so Buckinghamshire Council on the drainage models as well.

And then those will evolve over time

as part of the reserve matters applications.

When more information comes in,

we've got more detailed layouts.

And those designs will then be retested

as part of the works to discharge the planning conditions.

So for each reserve matters application,

there'll be further assessment works

to basically make sure that we're held

to these different planning tests,

that we're not increasing flood risk,

we're managing this design storm,

which is the terminology from the planning policy

guidance so we're not increasing run -off sites and we're capturing and managing it appropriately.

Yeah it's very helpful. Thank you. I'm conscious of time and Councillor Turner hasn't had a chance

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:15:02

to speak at all yet. Well I... So you've had three goes at it with three different questions so

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:08

I'm conscious of time and that Councillor Turner hasn't had a chance to speak. I'd just like an

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:15:12

answer to my to my question if you don't mind chair and that is I'm all right in thinking that

real -time experience is that the flood risk at the Willows is actually 30 times

in 100 years on the basis of the last 10 years reality.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:30

Reality is Willows is not part of this application site Councillor Munger as you well know and what

they explained to us with respect to all basis of the question.

Councillor Munger let me finish. What they've explained to you is that they are also helping to

assist the investigation with the willows, but ultimately is outside the application

site. And as you well know, we look at the application site, right? So therefore, I think

the applicants have been very helpful in giving you very detailed explanations. You may not

like the answer to the question, but the reality is they've explained to you that yes, they

have a direct mitigation, not just for the own site, but also for the willows, specifically

123 properties very specifically.

Thank you chair I'll go and sit on the naughty step. Well I think to be fair the

applicant did answer your questions you may not like the way the answer to the

question was but they did answer the question I got it the answer very

clearly in my mind what the answer to the question was. Over to Councillor Turner.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:16:29

Thank you Chairman I've just got a question really about I mean it's very

disappointing that there's not much affordable housing.

And one of the questions on the viability,

which I believe you commissioned the viability assessment,

is the applicant that does that, I understand, not the council.

So I just want to know how it can

be that if you haven't selected a developer yet,

that you can have the answers to the cost of viability.

It seems, obviously, industry standards or something,

but is that likely to change again,

depending on who decides to select it?

It's very worrying that a developer hasn't been selected,

because I get the impression that if the funding

for this sort of thing is tight because of the viability,

whether it's actually going to get built.

Public Speakers - 2:17:18

So just in terms of the process and selecting a developer,

it's very commonplace for outline planning applications

to be submitted by developers as opposed to house builders,

for then that planning provision to be secured and then sold to a house builder

to construct a scheme. So that is very commonplace and says how that works. In

terms of the viability work that's been undertaken, yes that was commissioned by

the developer based on the situation as things stand at present and for this

planning application. That was an independently reviewed by the council

via appointed consultant the council brought in to assess the viability work

and that has been agreed based on the position as to where we are today. But

Importantly to the section 106 agreement there are review processes of that viability work

So at certain stages in the development process the council will require the viability work to be reviewed again

if there are changes in circumstances with respect to

Infrastructure delivery costs which is the key

Constraints with respect to the viability of this scheme the viability position may improve and therefore more affordable housing could be delivered

And there are three stages of that review process and that's going to be secured to the 106 agreement

So in terms of whether a developer or House Bill depicts the site up,

there will then be further viability assessment work undertaken.

So that process will continue beyond just this outline planning application before you today for determination.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:18:42

I think having just followed up on that, just explain the whole process that's gone through.

Obviously myself and Councillor Turner -Beav had a briefing on this as Chairman and Vice -Chairman.

But I think it's been a very detailed process.

But Alan, just explain a bit more.

Thanks.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:18:57

Okay. The main point I would like to make is that the position we've reached is a minimum.

So which means that further viability assessments would not reduce the level of affordable housing.

The applicants and the developer have, you know, have, whilst the viability is negative,

and that is because of all the infrastructure.

At this stage, they've agreed to take a lower profit margin

than would normally be what is on offer just to ensure

that 10 % is being delivered.

We've also had the input

of an external viability assessment surveyor

who have looked at the figures and of course part of it is

that there are lots of figures or amounts

which we do not know as of yet.

Hence, we are in this position and that is also why we've called

for an early stage review.

And that review stage is tied in with when the cost

of the big infrastructure such as the Southwest Link Road

is known.

So we are asking for the review to be undertaken.

As soon as we know the full cost of the road building and we know the full cost of some

of the other elements.

And in that way we will then be able to seek a betterment in terms of affordable housing,

seek more.

But if it comes out worse we are not going to be going for less.

And that is something that we are securing through the sexual manually.

So we are not going to be taking less than 10%.

And that is the point I would like to make.

But what we are hoping for is to work towards the 25 %

if there is an improved,

if the economic situation should improve.

Thank you.

I think one of my concerns, sorry,

Public Speakers - 2:21:01

is just the fact that there isn't actually a building yet.

Cllr Mark Turner - 2:21:03

There's nobody who's actually taking ownership of it yet.

So the question is that having agreed a lesser figure

and agreed a smaller profit margin,

you've still got to find someone to build it out.

That's my concern, I think, with this.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:21:18

As part of the process, we did ask the applicants

to submit an infrastructure delivery scheme,

I won't call it a plan, and they've demonstrated

through that statement how everything will be delivered.

And we've also secured that through the section 106,

asking the applicant to identify the developer,

prior to the very first RMA.

So we've looked at what can possibly go wrong.

And as officers, we've then said,

can you provide this, can you provide that?

We've then gone back, not only to our surveyors,

we've also gone back to a council and said,

look, this is what we are trying to achieve.

We'll be told.

And every single person that has had a look,

including the council, have told us exactly what to put into the sexual

mnostics to ensure that any future developer would not then come back and

say oh it's going to be too expensive can I provide less affordable housing so

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:22:28

that's what we've worked towards. Just to reinforce, my understanding Helen was

that we had our own two consultants retest and test again the applicant

submission and then we then further went to legal counsel with our own legal counsel to

again sense cheque and make sure it was robust and deliverable based on the way the 10 % plus

the three triggers as well. So it's not just one assessment, one review, it's three triggers.

So therefore it's multiple ones as it goes through the whole process as we get the wider

scheme and reserve matters. So hence why I did ask the government counsel that very detailed

question about how is this working practical terms and again so I work with

Rory on the legal side to understand that. Don't know if you could explain that.

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 2:23:10

Perhaps this is better for technical questions. I'm just conscious that we should conclude with our speakers and then we can have a break.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:23:16

So yes I don't think there are any more technical questions or any questions from the

councillors. I think the officers are happy.

Public Speakers - 2:23:27

Can I make a really quick point just finalise upon on affordable and viability. I think that the key

to stress the applicant wouldn't be progressing with 10 % for the housing offer if they didn't

think it could be sold to a house builder and delivered.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:23:38

Yeah, so they've done the practical sense cheque in terms of real world going,

does that actually work in real world? Okay, fantastic. Excellent. Right.

And now, consciously, it's half past one. Obviously, I think we really might want a

comfort break before we go into the main debate. We'll come back for technical questions if you

like and we can choose a couple of choices.

You have a quick technical comfort break or we could then,

I think there is some refreshments available

if people would rather have refreshments as well.

So I'm in your hands as what you prefer,

just a quick comfort break for five minutes

or you want to have a slightly longer break,

say 15 minutes including refreshments,

what would the people prefer?

Five minutes and keep going.

Yes, I think just

Yeah, okay, so five minutes comfort break and within carolling the technicals and then carry on

Not break lunch, okay, just to remind you not to discuss the application

Yeah, absolutely, okay back in five minutes

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:24:49

Okay, welcome back.

I just had a quick comfort break.

We're now going to go on to the technical questions.

So if any of the Councillors have any technical questions

of the officers, I think we've had a very good understanding

both from the neighbouring ward member and also the applicant

and agents and developer.

I think they were very insightful questions

and also insightful answers.

But it's now the technical section

where if the Councillors have got any other questions,

obviously we did have the original briefing last week

to go with a full site visit,

which I think over half of us managed to attend,

and that was very instructive as well.

So Councillor Gough, you indicated first.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:25:40

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Yeah, sorry I didn't attend last week,

but I did know the area quite well, so, you know,

but that was my excuse.

I'd just like to go on highways a second,

because I think a lot of the questions we've asked

already has covered quite a bit of technical side.

I found the presentation made from all so far has been very good.

But what I would like to ask is, I believe it's great that there's,

within the 106 agreement, there's gonna be the possibility

of duelling that carriage way at a later stage.

I'm struggling of why we would wait till a later stage and

not implement it earlier whilst all the machinery is there.

Whilst, because at some point we are gonna need,

I don't care what anyone says,

because there's more and more cars coming up.

So why we don't take advantage

while the pre -prices are possibly lower

and the machinery is there and why we don't take advantage.

It's the only technical, it's not really technical,

it's just a question.

Do you wanna come in and explain that?

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 2:26:46

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councillor Gough.

It's a good question, but I think it goes back to what we can reasonably require from

this development and meet the tests which needs to be evidence led.

And the evidence that was in the transport strategy, the evidence that's been submitted

through, I think, three strategic model updates for this application shows that the single

carriageway is sufficient.

So on that basis, we don't have a legal justification to require them to do it.

And of course, that would push the viability even if we did,

it would push the viability even more into the red, I guess.

But the fact that we are safeguarding the land and

we want that land available to us at no cost so that we can do the road.

So that will be a cost saving in terms of land.

I think it will be yeah depending on what happens in the future part the new local plant process

Whatever modelling that may may or may not show

At least the land safeguarded, but there is no there is no justification to require the duelling age or carriage away from this development

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:27:56

The applicant agent developer it's down to them to deliver that road

As part of their cost infrastructure cost if that makes sense for the single pieces

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:28:07

So if you'd then dualed it, the cost would be then much higher.

Therefore, viability piece would then be even less than we are now.

Chair, I get that.

But the 106 is so it could be done at a later stage.

Therefore, council would do it at a later stage, not the developer.

I wouldn't expect the developer to come back and do it at a later stage.

It wouldn't necessarily be this developer.

But if another development or something else happens that necessitated it,

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 2:28:35

then obviously it will be for a Section 106 or physical works delivery that they could deliver a road if the land is available and it's a highway.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:28:43

Then we come back on this goal.

So but to deliver that task and never develop that means you're going to be looking at delivering more development in that area.

Like what across the other side of HST?

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 2:28:57

I don't know what to speculate.

Quite quite.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:29:05

As a business person, you know, like you say, us as a council could save 20, 30 million in the long run by doing it.

I'm just asking, I'm just intrigued again.

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 2:29:10

I think it is speculation about what may or may not happen and what may or may not be needed and what the evidence may or may not show at that time.

So all I can say, Councillor Gaughan, is at this moment in time the evidence is not there to require it from this development.

We just need to stop populating the world really, don't we, or the country.

Okay, thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:29:30

So quick summary then, what we're saying is that the,

this development will deliver that ring road

or south west link of the link road,

link road, ring road even,

was part of that and the developer has to provide

that piece for it and then additionally then provides us

the safeguarding of the potential future dual caribou

if required at a future date.

Okay, so I've got Councillor Gibbon,

you've been really quite so,

ladies first, so Councillor Gibbon.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:29:56

Thank you, Chairman.

It's sort of two aspects, but it's really

sort of the same question.

And it's to do with education, or schooling, and health care.

And the NPPF states that there should be, where is it,

sufficient provision for health care and education.

And having gone through the pack here,

I can see that there is money to go towards secondary schools.

But my concern about that is, is there going to be sufficient money?

And also, because there are other schools being built at Hamilton Fields,

I think in Corindon, I think it said here, at Kingsbrook and Corindon,

there's going to be more secondary provision.

But as well as will there be enough money to support the extra places that we need,

will it be phased so that the provision is in place before the houses are built?

Because already, I get so many emails because people can't find places for children to go to school.

So we need, I'd like, because I think with a lot of these developments that the houses are built

and then the schools come later, but I'd like, if possible, I'd like to see if the houses can come first.

I'm sorry the schools can come first.

And the same thing with the health care, but I can see there is provision for health care as well. And again, is a sufficient

provision for that and again, will that be in place before the houses are built or not?

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 2:31:45

I would say that there is provision for secondary school contribution, and that is derived from

DFE figures, formula that our education officers use. And that is further derived by pupil

yield on how many dwellings and the size of those dwellings that are built.

And then our education officers instruct us the triggers in terms of how many houses can

be occupied so that they are, that they have assurance that the relevant infrastructure

will be in place to accommodate those pupils who would be occupying the development.

I think Helen, do you want to just follow up on that as well?

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:32:30

And with regards to your question about will there be sufficient monies available, I would

also like to state that the provision is indexed linked, so it's not just stagnant as of the

cost as of 2026.

So it depends on when development comes forward, when that trigger is reached, then that index

link will ensure that the amount it's, you know, is in line with inflation.

Oh, sorry, could I just come back?

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:33:03

But the other part of my question was, again, same with healthcare as well,

will, there is provision for more GP surgeries,

but will they be built before the houses are completed,

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:33:17

or will there be this gap where people are struggling to find places at surgeries?

It's set out in Section 106 with the triggers.

I haven't got a copy to hand.

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 2:33:27

So the healthcare contributions are made by the,

it's not the CCG anymore, what is it now, Helen?

ICB.

ICB and the local NHS trust.

They again look at the housing numbers and they seek a contribution

from the development to accommodate any impacts to health care provision arising from the development.

So that money will be passed to the relevant bodies to then provide the necessary services.

Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central - 2:34:00

So thank you, Chair. Just to come in on the school's point, and Council Diven, it's important to realise that those triggers are important

and work both ways so that the Council and the trust they're taking on the school will want confirmation

there'll be enough pupils and enough houses on the development to open one form of entry

and then two form of entry so those triggers in the 106 agreement work both ways. If you were to

build the school before any houses then it's unlikely that Trust would want to take on that

school because there wouldn't be enough pupils to make the school viable so it was just to confirm

they work both ways. I think normally the trigger is about 325 homes is the trigger. Obviously this

1400 homes for the primary school. So again even for the primary school it

wouldn't be built on day one it would be on a process similar to making

getting close to that first 325 homes out of the 1400 we then

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:34:55

potentially get you the one form entry and then the two form entry and then so

it goes on. But in terms of 106, Laura Lee and the team were working really hard

about making sure all those triggers come in at the right appropriate time

I've been working with it very closely going, okay,

because like you, I think the ICP contribution,

because again, some of that's gonna be offsite as well.

So therefore we're gonna make sure that that is provided

for the wider community,

cause it is linking with the rest

of the existing community as well,

making sure those triggers actually do come in

when they should be coming in.

So I'm very hot on that, Council Givner.

Okay, so going on to Councillor Huxley,

followed by Councilor...

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 2:35:38

The primary and secondary health care contributions are over 3 million pounds.

So that's significant.

That will provide significant resource to those bodies to provide more services.

Thanks Chairman.

Thanks, Chairman.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:35:57

First is just an observation.

I always think it's a strange statement, but it's when you say this is the very last statement

on the first pack we got.

Supporting representation also notes a concern regarding pressure on local GP surgeries,

and I would add other healthcare provision,

although this is acknowledged as not strictly

a planning matter, which I always think is strange

because it does, and why we say that I'm not quite sure,

but just one or two quick points.

Can I clarify what class F,

what a Class F community centre is, for starters.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:36:52

Hello, Harold, we'll just give you a bit of clarification.

It is what I thought it was, but you can't...

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:37:01

So this would be a local centre that can be hired out by local people

and they can use it either for, you know, like if they've got any activities such as thinking of things that people can do.

So, yeah, crash or maybe at a gym, you know, and if they want to use it for yoga or they want to meet as a local resident group.

So it's that kind of use.

So it's more or less for them to have the space to meet.

You know, anytime that, and it will not just be those who live

in the new development.

Anyone in the area can also use the space.

Yeah. Okay.

You know, and it's also defined within the section 106,

what we are expecting in terms of the,

so it will include a kitchen.

It will include toilets and the hall.

And where it's being located is also close to play areas.

So when parents are using the hall, they can, you know,

their children can also play in the local play area.

That is just, I just sent it to that.

Okay, thank you.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:38:23

Can I just ask just a couple more?

But one is to do with aid the bond.

Well, no, that's the first one first.

What I was going to ask our friends across the road

is that regarding Stoke Brook,

whether anything is going,

any work's going to be done on Stoke Brook.

And if there is, does that mean losing any of the trees

that are along the Brook?

There is some works that will be done to the Stoke Brooks

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:38:57

With respect to the trees, the tree officer has had a look at the tree reports and any of the trees that would be retained and also lost.

The tree officer is satisfied that they are subject to conditions.

Of course, if any trees have been lost, then we are also expecting more trees to be planted.

So yes, there's going to be works to the brooks and there's going to be some trees that will be lost but some new trees will also be planted.

And that is being secured in terms of not just replanting but ensuring that the trees grow.

So we are securing it for 10 years post planting for any new trees.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:39:47

That's quite unusual because normally it's a three -year management plan, about a ten -year management plan, okay?

Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:39:53

And only very quickly, regarding the Bund,

I'm sort of mindful that, again, probably not a planning issue, but

the site of

HS2 itself when it's put up

is going to be very obtrusive to the houses we are talking about.

What is the provision to try and cover that sort of situation?

Is there likely to be trees planting on the bond?

And what's the situation there, please?

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:40:35

Yes, along the bond I was looking for the other plan that I put up

in terms of the landscape strategy.

Yes, so there's going to be planting along the bond

and that would provide a woodland effect across the bond.

And so the HS2 itself, the track, would not be visible

from the development.

And also given the, in terms of the topography of the site

and then the bond itself. So that will be concealed.

And the bond also serves as a noise attenuation.

And so that would also ensure that the noise is mitigated

as well as the visibility of HS2 from the site.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:41:27

I was actually assured at one of the very first exhibitions I went to

that HS2 was not going to make any noise whatsoever.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:41:38

I think that's interesting.

But I think having seen the buns in, because the buns have actually started to be constructed,

Councillor Huxley, and we saw them live where the Bridal Way path was.

And if you look at the plan we've got on the screen there, in your own patch, you've got

your own hut, a more detailed version.

The way that we explained to us was that actually not just the bund will be there, but then

there'll be the whole bank of trees next to the bunds,

and then there's the road, and then there's the housing,

if that makes sense.

So you've got almost bund, trees, road,

before you then get to the physical housing.

So the housing's the other side, if that makes sense.

The houses will probably just be looking

at a road stroke, a sort of tree -lined avenue, in effect.

So yes, they won't really get to see.

They will potentially hear it, but they

won't actually get to see it.

Okay so I've got quite a few names. So we've got Councillor Munga followed by

Councillor Waters followed by Councillor Drayton followed by Councillor Turner.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:42:43

So Councillor Munga. Thank you Chair. Three areas I'd like to ask questions on.

The route, when we did the site visit last week we were fortunate to be able

to be taken through the continuation of the route.

And I was particularly taken with the element

as we went through Gold Harbour and up to the junction,

which has been discussed today.

So it's very much part of today's discussion.

And frankly, I was just go smack to the thought

that that was actually intended to be a relief road.

Obviously, the opportunity was missed to work with HS2

and run a road parallel and take it away from Ilsbury altogether, but you know that's history.

But I think it was Dale who made the point that a future review of Cold Harbour Way was included in

the proposals for the new local plan. Now in my response to that I obviously concentrated on the

that would affect me in the north but if you could just help me understand what

improvements you see that might be included in that plan because I just

personally I just can't see this as a viable extension of the relief road by

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 2:44:18

going through cold harbour. Thank you Councillor Munger. I mean we do need to

we need to take a step back before we can look forward.

So going back to, as I said in the presentation earlier,

going back to the Vale of Aylesbury local plan

and the necessary supporting infrastructure

that's been secured in that,

it didn't necessitate any improvements

for this plan period to Cold Harbour Way.

That's what we have to work with.

That's the policy structure.

That's what it is.

There is no other land available at this point in time

to do anything else.

and there's certainly no evidence that's submitted as part of this application

that shows we must have that.

What happens in the future, I wouldn't like to speculate at the moment

until the new local plan comes forward, and that's obviously not for today.

But I was told by a colleague just before this meeting that it is proposed to undertake a review

of Cold Harbour Way, what that determines, I don't know.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:45:20

Thank you for that then, appreciate the difficulty.

My next area actually is about the proximity of the school site to the Southwest Relief

Road.

We just had much discussion there or comment on the question of the bond between the HS2

alignment and the development.

but between that bund and the housing and more particularly the school, we then have the Southwest Relief Road.

There's no provision for a bund or any sound attenuation there.

And I would then suggest that the actual noise disturbance from the road will be much more continuous than from the railway.

The railway will be, I don't know what the frequency is going to be, but nothing like

continuous, which it will be on the highway, will it not?

So it does seem to me that the alignment there is too, to my way of thinking, too close to

the housing and could have been moved closer, should be moved closer to HS2 within permitted

distances of course, but in particular as far as the school's concerned shouldn't

there be some provision for noise attenuation at the school. It's not a

very pleasant learning environment to have traffic rattling right past the

school building all day long and the noise and disturbance that will cause.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:47:06

Okay, thanks. The first issue I would like to talk about is the location of the school

next to the Southwest link road. The education department is always very, very, well I will

flat and so trying to find a site that is flat that is on incumbent on such a constraint

site is always going to be a difficult one. So the location of the school has been informed

by the requirements of the education team. They also want the school to be central so

that the children living in development can access it from both sides of the scheme. The

The other bit I'd like to also respond to is the location next to Southwest Link Road.

This site is not unique in that sense.

And in fields, we also have a school which is next to a road and also existing schools

which are also next to roads in this particular locality.

Taking that forward into what is proposed in terms of noise, the Environmental Health

team, they've assessed noise not only to the residential, they've assessed noise

to the school, they've assessed noise to existing residential area. And so a condition

will be placed on the planning if approved by members asking for specific standards to

be met in terms of decibels. And the other thing would be that the location of the building

itself because this is the site area. So the location of the building itself would also

be guided by the need to ensure that noise is reduced. I would also like to add that

the main thing is for the land to be reserved so the Education Department might still come

back and say we don't need the land, give us the money, we are providing the school

elsewhere, but at this moment, this is the location and we've been in close discussions

with the education team to ensure that it would meet the aspiration

of the education DFE requirements.

So that's what I like to say is that we are looking at it

and when the school is being delivered and it comes forward

as a reserved matters application,

then noise attenuation will be one of those key things

that we'll be looking at at that stage.

Thank you for that.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:49:59

Okay, my third, that's helpful, my third question is something

that I would reckon is bound to come up at reserved matters,

but again, you mentioned it, Ellen, in your presentation

when you were showing us the density and the build height

on one of your plans.

My understanding has always been,

and correct me if I'm wrong, obviously,

that in planning design terms for a community,

the higher building should be at the centre

and lower buildings as you move out to the outskirts.

And that has a critical impact

on views of the site from a distance.

So the area around Sedrup, you've got footpaths and equestrian routes across that area,

historic being there used for many years as I know personally.

And building three and four storey buildings on the outer edge of that development is going to be,

it seems to me, contrary to basic design principles, but that's what you seem to be

suggesting that the developers should deliver when it comes to reserve matters.

I just wonder if you could help with that.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:51:27

Well, as I said earlier, this is a building height parameter plan, which means it's indicative.

which when the reserved matters is submitted, the way it blocks, because right now it's

shown as a parcel and it doesn't just mean it's one big building.

And so it might be a series of houses with views through and it's, you know, so that's

the way it relates to the existing development and also in terms of the site itself are things

that we would take into account.

So when we are looking at the building height plan, it's not to say it's just one monolithic

block but to have that understanding in terms of the scale and the way that it will be staggered.

And would of course be taking observation from the land use and urban design specialist

prior to approval of the RNA.

And you know, we can take these points that you have made on board to ensure that the

way that it also relates to the existing building.

But as part of the indicators of the plan, the site itself is quite narrow and it's also

linear.

So it's trying to see how best we can still achieve because the VAP itself is expecting

this site to deliver up to 1 ,400 new homes.

And so where can we then have those?

So we've more or less concentrated on the areas that we feel the ice can be delivered

and we've tried to take away the ice from places where it would make, where the impact

would be.

Well I'm looking at that.

So the north and the south, whereby people are driving past, has been the most sensitive

part of the site.

and so we are trying to keep the heights lower in that respect.

And then it's not always the HS2 where the heights might then increase.

So that's the thinking behind the way it's being stopped.

Yes, and the South -West Link Road.

We're also looking at the Link Road, the HS2.

In layman's terms, what we're saying is that the higher, so three straight,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:54:07

four storeys will be closer to the Link Road and to the Bund, if that makes sense.

the two -storey will be reflecting the existing residents

who are on the existing estates already at two -storey.

So that would be relatively similar heights to each other.

And then as you go away from existing locations,

you then go to the higher levels at that point.

But again, it's indicative at that point.

And we'll be reserving,

comes back from reserve matters, isn't it?

It comes back from reserve matters.

Thank you, Helen, for your response.

You know, I'm sure I'd like to just add the points

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 2:54:37

that Ross just made,

that the first three buildings is, you know, it's not, okay,

it won't be a lot, it's just some focal buildings.

And those particular ones, we would then ensure

that where they are would not result

in existing residents feeling a sense of inclusion.

So it would be strategic.

And the other thing that we can also think of is

that those are buildings will also act as a buffer from HS2 and the road itself.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:55:17

Well, thank you for that.

I'm sure that like much of the things we've discussed today, they'll come up at reserve matters.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:55:27

Indeed, Councillor Munger and you know me, we'll be looking at those in detail to make sure

that they do actually make sure any existing future residents are considered

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:55:39

and looked after. Okay so Council Waters followed by Council Drayton. Thank you

Chairman I've got a couple of questions. The first one actually comes back to the

the flooding and the attenuation ponds and going and really about the timing of

those in terms of the development and obviously this would need to come

through the S106 agreements because I know on other sites where attenuation

ponds are needed. I can tell you Bellways for instance in Wickham would be an

example where they didn't do the attenuation ponds at the beginning and

they flooded out the houses nearby. So actually making sure that they are very

much in the early stages so that actually we aren't causing more problems

to local area and the current development could be very key. So that's

one thing I'd like to get a little bit of a feel on. The second point I'm going

to make is, and others have already talked about the ICB and GP surgeries,

the bit I'm really uncomfortable about is we already in Aylesbury have where

the ICB had a site which they decided they didn't want to use. I think it's

Kingsbrook. The money for that now sits with Bucks Council waiting under S106

for something to happen.

No GP provision has been provided on the back of it.

We've now got the tick box, which is,

here's the money for the GP surgeries,

which is absolutely fine for the developer,

but for the residents, actually having some certainty

that actually they will get GP provision

when it is being paid for by the developer,

and as people arrive.

I don't know how we do that, but under the S106,

If nothing else, it's made very clear in writing

from this committee to the ICB,

maybe a letter from the chairman,

to say actually you've already failed to provide

one part of Aylesbury with provision.

You are going to be getting further funds

from this one when it comes through.

That needs to be noted that it comes through.

And it may not be on the 106,

but it is not as acceptable provision.

So I think where the Aylesbury councillors are uncomfortable at the moment is they know

that the residents have been failed who were there so far when they had sites.

So, and I know 106s can be changed.

I can see legal things.

But I think it's going to be a letter from the chairman on that.

That's the point I'd like to make.

And I think most of us would really feel comfortable if that was done.

I'm getting some nodding, so I'm feeling quite uncomfortable.

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 2:58:19

The 106 allows, right now the ICB has told us they need 1 .4 million to deliver a new GP surgery at Hamden Fields.

So that is what it secures. The developer would pass that money to the ICB, but again it would be out of our hands as to,

if it's not spent it would have to be returned within 10 years. But certainly the chair could write a letter.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:58:50

The ICB does not hold any funds. The funds are always held by bucks because

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:58:54

they have no ability to hold funds so the technical part of it is we're

sitting on funds waiting for them to be spent. In another area we don't want to

be a bank for the ICB and we want actually facilities to be built so

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:59:10

that's the key. The third point, I agree we can't on the 106

we screw up a good lump of money, great,

but I'm, like you, Councillor Waters,

I want to say, look, this is what we found in history,

this is where we are today,

but also flag any future sites,

because we've got other sites around Aylesbury as well,

but therefore, this is the expectation going forward,

is ICB, you are there to deliver.

Yes, we will hold the money for you,

but we are, so I'm happy to write the letters going,

you've failed us previously,

you're announcing this is going to be offsite

in terms of Kingsbrook, fine,

but then please confirm when you're going to deliver this

thing for in a timely manner so 18 months, two years or whatever it's going

to be, whenever we get the money and then also please confirm going forward

you work with us clearly so you show how you're going to deliver for the rest of

the other sites that are coming around Aylesbury because it's going to be a recurring thing.

So we're happy to do that letter so it's on record that we clearly have said you

know this is fundamental to us going forward that you have to deliver these things.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:00:04

Thank you Chairman and there's one other item before I'll let people come

back on the other things, is the pylons going across the site, which are pretty ugly.

And they are not going to move them.

It does go right on the boundary of the school.

Again, you say you've got a school surrounded by a busy road with not only noise but fumes.

You've then got pylons, which have lots of restrictions about things not being underneath

them, clarity.

and I think there is some nervousness about pylons

and particularly the impact of them.

So, that we haven't been able to move that or change that

gives me a concern on this site.

The site has lots of restrictions,

but this is one of the ones which in this particular area,

which is quite narrow,

we've got a lot of conflicting things

and then we're deciding there's a primary school

going in the middle of it.

So that gives me some concerns.

Thank you.

Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central - 3:01:06

Thank you, Councillor. I mean, Laura -Lee has answered this in part and it is primarily

a Sex 106 question, but just from a point of view of potential comfort for members on

the surgery point, I think perhaps one of the reasons why we're now looking at, and

the ICB are now looking at, multiple sites contributing towards a super surgery at Hamden

fields is to prevent potential for there being individual surgeries identified

at outline stage on each one of the AGT sites but you know you could be building

those out ten years down the line, situations change, patient lists change,

you know things can change. If you've got the comfort of a surgery, a super surgery

being built in a designated local centre at the biggest of the AGT allocations, a

site which is coming out of the ground now and has outline and reserve maths

approval. There should hopefully be a bit more comfort there that they're getting that right.

All of those contributions get poured into that. Now there's a process in that application and in

fields whereby there's a design code that needs to be done for the local centre, there's

external providers that are feeding into what that local centre needs to look like and that includes

the ICB and that's actually on the verge of coming forward now in the programme being dealt with under

So it's just a point of comfort.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 3:02:22

And of course, it's not only AGC -2 sites that will contribute

to the super -sodrine amin fields.

AGC -1 will also be making that contribution.

And so hopefully, you know, there should be adequate health

care for AGC -2 because of what's happening in that particular area.

So it's not always the case for all of the schemes.

So it still works well for the chair to still write to ICB.

But in this particular instance, we

are very, very confident that the money will be spent.

With regards to the pylon, it's unfortunate

that National Grid, yes, they've declined

to get the pylons moved.

And that, again, we can understand.

because according to the information I've been given by the applicants is that it can

only be moved for national infrastructure. If they have to move it for every site, then

there's going to be a lot of chaos around the country. And I think they've already

made some allowances for HS2. So it's unfortunate that the PILOTs are, you know, forms part

of the site with respect to the impact on education.

Again, it's going to be a reserved matters application.

Because it's a public building, the HIC,

the health executive will be involved in the building.

The health implications of any kind

of constraint will also be looked at.

We've also got other regulations that will be brought into force.

So in terms of planning, we haven't got any planning justification to refuse it

on the basis that it's close to a pilot.

If there are any health risks, then that will be picked up through other,

yes, through other legislations.

And so from where we are in planning, the education team have not raised any concerns about the pylons.

I think it's because of the distance away from the pylons and where the school playground would be.

And again, maybe based on information available to education team in respect of education provisions next to pylons.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:04:59

Sorry, and the first question which was to do with the attenuation ponds and how we're

going to put that into the S -106 to make sure they're done early.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 3:05:06

The, well I'll say it's, I think, you know, I have to cheque all the conditions relating

to drainage is prior to commencement.

And so they have to then meet all those requirements prior to commencement.

And in terms of how they are brought forward, it has to be based on, you know,

how the schemes are, you know, are being brought forward.

So it's not going to be that they will leave the Antenation Pond until the very end.

So our drainage team, knowing the flooding history of these sites,

They are very much on top of that and they've ensured that they've put a very robust condition.

Also, environment agency, they've also done the same.

So all the flooding conditions are proud to commence and that will then hopefully also influence the build -out.

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 3:06:08

Yes, that's right. And the Section 106 requires the SUD scheme to be submitted and approved by the Council prior to commencement of any phase.

So at every phase of the development our flood officers

Experts will be reviewing the sub scheme and approving it

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:06:26

Okay, so I've got

Council Drayton followed by Councillor Turner followed by Councillor Chiodo

Thank you

Cllr Penny Drayton - 3:06:35

I've got two points. I want to cover which are

regarding the road and the height and density

First, I'd just like to say I totally support Council Waters'

points on the health facilities.

I think it's really important that that's done in a way that,

you know, we've got cement for the future.

So in regards to the road, I'm not from this area

and I don't know the background as well as,

obviously local members will do.

And I think it's invaluable in applications

to have an understanding what local members know and those

that have been involved in years.

And, you know, for all, for reading the report,

through looking through the planning applications

and all the background, it's, you're still, as a member,

out of the area coming in afresh to it.

What I do think it helps is I can ask simplistic questions

about it, and it really comes down to, through, like,

everything I've looked at with this and today's presentations.

I'm fully behind Councillor Gomes comments on if we have got a road being

built and an underpass that can take a dual carriageway why we're not doing it

at this point and taking into account you've already answered and said there's

no legal reason what I never understand is why we are just basically putting up

with the bare minimum when we could be attaining first something that we know

is better and higher. Now from my understanding we are pretty much under

pressure to approve this because of the road. We don't have a lot of choice in

the matters on it but what we do want to do is get the very best possible out of

it. Now the best possible is a road that's going to be built that can have a

dual carriageway and it's acknowledged that the space is there because there's

an expectation that's going to be required. Why are we not putting that

into conditions with the developer? That is what we want as a council. We want the

best out of this for the residents and that's what we should be looking for. I

don't know and I guess this is where my questions come into it. At what point was

it agreed and who was it that said was it the develop, obviously the

applicant pushing to keep it as not your carriageway or is it the council that said it's okay we

don't need a dual carriageway. I just want to know if we're looking at putting this essential

link road in and that's why we have all been given the impression we have to approve it,

why we're not doing the best. That's my first point. Thank you council you might get a

Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central - 3:09:22

Yeah, multiple answers from multiple officers, but I think officers, both Del and Helen have

both covered this, but it's worth a consolidated answer because if you take your kind of planning

hat off, it does look a little bit illogical when you're trying to future -proof something

like this.

The difficulty is it goes back to the tests that officers have mentioned before.

In order for us to ask for anything via conditional Section 186, it has to be necessary to make

the development acceptable in planning terms, and therefore, in order to ask for something

like a dual carriageway, it would have to be necessary.

And therefore there would have to be evidence

that it was necessary to mitigate the impact

of this development.

And there was already gone through the reason

why it's not for this development.

However, if you were to not safeguard the land

that is being safeguarded,

and that's at no cost to the council,

and you would just allow this to go forward,

which would potentially be the minimum to mitigate.

And then should the local plan come forward

and should speculating other sites come forward

that necessitated that to be jawed.

There wouldn't be the land available.

We would have to buy the land potentially as the council

or developer would do.

And it would take substantial change to this scheme.

It probably wouldn't be viable at that point, essentially.

So there's the test that has to be met.

There's also the viability piece

that we've gone through as well.

So I think as a solution in terms of trying

to secure the land to enable this to be amended

in the future, once those tests would be met

by other developments and other developers,

that's the best case scenario.

But we would be open to challenge and we wouldn't be able to recommend the scheme for approval without meeting those tests

Which officers have gone through? Thanks, Dan. Sorry

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 3:10:59

I'm just gonna add we also need to go back to the DAGT to policy about I mean that quite

specifically says and was based on all the testing at the time says

the other kept the science allocated for key development and land use requirements including a

Southwest link road and it says a single carriageway brackets safeguarded for future during so it's set in policy as well

So the evidence modelling isn't there at this point in time.

The policy isn't there at this point in time.

We wouldn't meet the test as Ross has explained.

So we can safeguard the land which helps us if we do need it in the future.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 3:11:34

Okay, thank you.

Just it seems economically to me that we could just build it now.

I mean I have no idea on costs.

I'm not going to start plucking figures out of the air.

but surely doing it as a final product rather than in parts.

But OK, that's fine.

That's answered that bit, thank you.

Height and density is another part of my development

because I don't believe they do blend

into what is already there.

And the problem with outline planning is obviously it's all,

you know, this could be this.

This could be you've got your parameter plans and stuff,

but really we don't know how it's going to end up.

So you're looking at up to 1400 houses

and up to four storeys.

Just for clarity, have the four storeys come about

since the number of houses trying to be put on the site?

Because obviously, typically from old residential areas,

which is surrounding the reason that sort of height about,

And it's just understanding if we are only going up to four storeys to hit that number,

or if sufficiently we did a thousand houses on that site,

it would be a lot more in keeping with what the area was.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 3:13:01

I would like to start by saying that VAP, as we all know,

sets the requirement for this to be up to 1 ,400.

The allocation for the next plan is about 95 ,000 for the whole council.

So the numbers will be going up.

These sites, when it was brought forward initially in 2018, was a much bigger site.

However, due to HS2 as well as CILLA2, the site area has reduced.

So in order for the council to be able to meet its housing delivery,

And this site is one of those already allocated.

We've sought ways in which we can deliver that number.

And that might then mean that a couple or a few,

doesn't mean a lot of the buildings will be four storeys

because anything that is that high will probably be flat.

And looking at the demand in the area, it will be more demand led

and also in terms of looking at the landscape.

So we're not envisaging that we're going to be having lots and lots and lots of four -storey buildings.

So it's going to be more in keeping, you know, two storeys, three storeys.

And then maybe one of, you know, well I don't know how many and I don't want to put a figure to it.

But it's just saying that in some places we may need to go higher in order to meet that density.

Talking about if it was only a thousand,

I would say that we would then not be compliant in terms

of what that says, and if members were to say because

of that, the application should be refused,

we don't stand any chance if it gets

to the planning inspector of actually achieving a

successful outcome.

And we all know why.

is because the council at the moment is not meeting its housing delivery.

So it's looking at what can we realistically agree to.

And at this stage we cannot be asking the developer to come up with a lower figure.

Rather we are looking for the developer to at least try to show how they would accommodate

up to 1 ,400 dwellings on these sites.

Thank you, I will be very quick.

Cllr Penny Drayton - 3:15:33

I guess that's my point, is you just emphasised up to.

I mean, I understand all the housing allocation, I don't need all that clarifying,

but up to, two very, very important words, up to could be 600 houses.

I'm not expecting 600 houses to be built on there, but when you start with a larger site

That's then gone smaller

It seems to me that the council's then

Saying well, we will still squeeze it in and it's to the detriment of space and to residents and everything else

But we're going to go up to it's always looked at as the higher number rather than us scaring

actually the reality is on that site we can only attain this for the best outcome for Buckinghamshire residents and

that's where I think sometimes we need to look at what the best outcome is of a plan

and not what we are worried we'll get pushed back on.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:16:32

I get that, but in reality the original number was 1490, so we're under the less than we would have been.

And what the plan is showing here at the moment is about 50 % of it is green space.

So I don't think we class it as being crammed in because half the site is actually green space.

If you're putting it developing all residential, then I would take point counts straight, definitely.

But on the basis of only 50 % being developed, I can't really see how we can justify that we're saying we're cramming.

Well, I get we're in the area, but in reality, you know, if we were trying to push as many houses and trying to get our housing numbers up,

then we'd be saying it'd probably be two, two and a half thousand plus, right?

So I think in terms of the way it's been designed,

half of it is actually green space.

So I think, you know, and in terms of the original number,

it was 1490 and this is 1400.

So therefore it's in the ballpark,

but it's not pushing the envelope even further

because it's not 1600 or 1800 or the rest.

So I'm comfortable with the officer's explanation

of how they've got to the number they've got to,

if that makes sense.

Across the time, I'll cover to you, Mr. Councillor Mucker,

in a bit, but I've got Councillor Turner

followed by Councillor Chilva and then Councillor Mucker.

Councillor Turner.

Thank you Chairman.

Cllr Mark Turner - 3:17:48

I'm broadly supportive of the application because I think it does bring vital housing.

Aylesbury is more affordable than lots of rural places in Buckinghamshire.

It's an aspirational place for young people and young families.

It's a big employment area.

It's great connectivity for sustainable travel.

So the key bit for me that is missing is the affordable housing,

which I appreciate the viability and so forth.

But so it just brings me to a question because we know that this is and has been described

as a key strategic by the gentleman.

So it is a key strategic thing.

So one of the questions I want to ask is why there is no HIF funding for this particular part

because I know we had something like 173 million pounds

of HIF funding with projects about 245 million.

I'm wondering how was that allocated

and why was there no allocation for this site?

Bearing in mind, we know how much the cost

of the infrastructure is gonna be

on this particular stretch.

And bearing in mind that I think we used that funding

to build Kingsborough Secondary School and primary schools.

So just wondering how the priority

of spending that money has been made.

And also, just to bear in mind that I believe

it has to be drawn down by March 2028

and whether that had any bearing on it.

Couple of other questions, just whether because of that,

whether there can be a change in the reserve matters

to make the housing mix more affordable,

another bedrooms and things like that.

And also I noticed that there is,

the self -build has been reduced from 70 to 10.

I'm not quite sure really why the importance of self -build.

So maybe you could explain that to me.

But would that 10 self -build be better off as affordable housing,

perhaps in blocks of affordable flats or something?

I don't know.

Okay, thank you.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 3:19:41

I would like to start by saying that what you've raised is very, very important.

And it's something I've noted I wanted to bring back to members.

So the first thing I would like to say, which is indirectly,

Also linked to what we've been talking about, or directly linked, is that this site is now part of the new home acceleration scheme.

It's Tranche 2. Amdene Fields is Tranche 1, which means that the Ministry of Housing, Community and local governments are very much involved in seeing this site go forward.

Coming back to your point about if funding, unfortunately because of the timing,

because we've been engaged in a lengthy, you know, in a very lengthy process,

both to address flooding issues with the EA, also to agree in terms of affordable housing,

it means then that this can no longer benefit from the if funding.

And the second viability assessment was carried out in 2025 to then show in terms of delivery

if there is no e -funding.

We've been in discussion with the e -funding manager and he said that there is likely prospects

that because of the fact that this is not part of the new home acceleration, accelerator

tough scheme, there is that prospect of getting the money in future. However, until then we

cannot assume, so we have to wait. Hence, when the scheme is then looked at again, if

the funding comes back, we are hoping to be able to achieve more affordable housing on

And that is why we've done a baseline as 10 % is the baseline, is the barest minimum,

and we are hoping that we can get more.

And we are going to be working closely with sponsoring land to see how we can get more money

to be able to put into this site.

With regards to the self -build and custom -build, it's a policy requirement.

And so if we were to then say we are not requiring it, we would have to,

it would then be a departure because that is what is asked for in the plan.

And so what's being delivered is to meet that particular requirement.

So we can't say that, don't give us a custom build, give us only affordable housing,

because we'll be setting a precedent for other schemes.

But if that's something that members want to look at, not in terms of this plan but

in terms of future plans, then that's something that can be built in that if this kind of

scenario should occur, we would rather have a more affordable housing than an upstate

build and cost custom build.

I'm just going to go through with Laura Lee.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:22:56

Potentially we could look at doing an informative that says when the reserve matters, applications

coming back that we would be looking to work proactively with both Homes England

and the Housing HIF managers to work out how we can actually get the additional

funding to help increase affordable housing piece that then feeds into the

triggers that's actually within the 106 if that makes sense. I don't think we can necessarily do it as a

condition, we could do it as an informative so it's on record that, because I have to share your

concerns Councillor Turner, I would rather we have much more affordable housing but I get

in terms of current scheme we can't do it on under HIF but we could potentially do it on the

we don't know what that might look like yet,

we can't quantify against why we've gone back

to this trigger mechanism that says we start at 10 %

and we look to go up again.

So certainly in terms of informative,

to what we seem to do as informative

as part of that process saying,

it won't be a direct condition,

but it's part of the informative

that goes with that trigger, if that makes sense.

Council Turner.

Okay, I was just going to say that subject

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 3:23:53

to further thoughts with legal and the applicants,

It might be something that we also put some, put a kind of mechanism in place.

Because in some instances, some schemes have not been able to get anyone taking

up the self -build and the custom build.

It could be that if no one is willing to take them up and after a certain time,

then maybe anything that would have yielded can then go back.

I don't know if that's possible.

It's just a thought.

I haven't explored it.

So it ends up saying subject to further talks.

It would be subject to further talks.

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 3:24:36

It would have to be some kind of cascade mechanism that we have put in place

after the marketing of the self -build.

If then the council would have some impact,

feedback on how that housing was provided.

Yes. Not what I was thinking of.

That we can do it that way.

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 3:24:52

But in terms of approving, well, in terms of your consideration,

The fact that it is compliant with VAP is important.

And hence, we could not have done that until after you've looked at it.

If not, we'd have to advertise it as a departure from the plan.

I've got Councillor Chiu and then Councillor Londo.

Cllr John Chilver - 3:25:19

Thank you, General.

I wanted to ask about noise mitigation.

and I appreciate this is something that's going to come back again at the reserve matters application.

But as has been mentioned, you've got HS2, you've also got the new link road,

and potentially in due course a dual new link road.

So I'm wondering, do you think it's going to be possible to have a long -term solution?

I know we're going to have trees planted along the bund,

but that will take time for them to grow and have an impact on acoustics.

And also, as I understand it from the report, because this development is taking place after

the HS2 hybrid bill, any cost of noise mitigation will be borne by the developer.

Although I would assume that HS2 would have some sort of offence anyway for security and

to stop people and animals wandering onto the line.

But that might not be acoustically effective.

So I don't know if there's anything we can say about that at this stage.

Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central - 3:26:31

Thank you, Councillor. I mean it's a combination of those things. HS2 already have a, and for those members that were on the site visit, a very, very large bund.

Now that bund isn't planted at the moment because it's under construction, but as you've seen from the plans today, including the landscaping plan that Helen showed,

there's gonna be a woodland landscaping scheme

all the way across that bond.

That's visual and noise attenuation, it's both.

It's not just for noise.

You're right in saying that,

and it's detailed in the report,

that because of the way HS2 has come forward,

largely it's up to the developer of this site

to attenuate noise from HS2,

and there's a condition that's gonna be dealing

with a construction environmental management plan

that's gonna be bringing those forward.

That will be updated each time reserve matters come in.

It's already been looked at very, very carefully,

it's been addressed in the environmental statement and officers the council are

happy up to this stage but it requires more details that as the detailed design

comes forward in order to ensure that the residents of this development aren't

affected and to an unreasonable degree by noise and it is it is attenuated successfully.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:27:38

Councillor Munger? No question. Right I think that deals with the technical

questions. Do you want to then go on to the actual debate and maybe have the site

members ask any questions or have any comments or any thoughts

about the application? Who would like to go first? I thought we were going to have a

refreshment break at some point. Okay, right. Let's have a 15 minute

refreshment break now and then so back at 3.

15 20 minutes or no I'm 15 minutes. 20 okay we'll say 20.

Well I was asking that question as well.

Geordie view.

So what's the majority view? I'm relaxed either way. So Geordie view is have a refreshing break now for 15 minutes.

I'm going to crack on.

Because, hold on a second, I'll just speak it.

We said we would have a comfort break.

Then we would do the technical.

Then we would have a comfort break.

Then they go on to do our preparation, but good to know.

OK.

I get the sense that some want to continue,

some are happy to have a break.

I think if we stick it to 15 minutes just

to have the refreshment break, because that way people

would then have sustenance.

Because obviously, much later starting,

we normally would be and then look to try and wrap this up relatively rapidly once we

come back because I think we've done this in real, real detail and then come back and

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:29:37

then finish it off fairly quickly. Thank you. Okay, come back at three. Okay, right, welcome

back everyone. Right, we now managed to have a quick refreshment break. So to deal with

technical questions. We now got the general discussion about the application

itself. Obviously there were obviously everyone all the members had a briefing

last week before we all went out well a large number of us went on the site visit

itself to see all aspects of the site and so I think we now wants to talk

through the application and then have feedback and decide what our decision

will be so I don't know who wants to go first anyone from the site visit

particularly want to start the ball rolling or are you all now content? Okay

Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:30:27

Councillor Hove's the easy guy. Yes thank you Chairman. Yes I find the site visit very

very interesting although I do know the earlier real reasonably well having

lived in Aylesbury for over 50 years. Yes so I mean there are concerns with it and

The close proximity to HS2 wouldn't entice me too much to buy a house there, but that's another storey.

I've enjoyed this discussion this morning and this afternoon regarding the various ones.

I was pleased that comments from the officer regarding certainly the healthcare side of things

and that we could be talking about multiple rather than singular surgeries or what have you.

Because when you look at the sort of four fairly big sites locally

And if you added Aston Reach as well, you've got figures when you look at Kingsbrook,

Camden Fields, Woodlands, and this site.

Then we're talking over a potential of something like 20 ,000 patients,

which is not going to go too comfortably into one surgery.

So as a result of that, then I would welcome the multiple rather than the singular.

I think we've looked at certainly the issues with the water side, if you like, of life.

Certainly with the attenuation ponds and that I would hope

that would start to help.

And in the main, some of the other issues

which we've already discussed.

And I'm mindful to agree with the recommendation.

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:32:49

Councillor Axsom, who wants to go next?

Councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:32:54

I think I'm gonna go down very much the same route.

I think we've raised a lot of questions today.

We also had a lot of answers and a lot of clarification.

I think the letter going to the ICP is helpful

from the chairman because I think that is something

which we do need to nail that we're concerned about that

and that not being delivered.

I think the flooding to the areas in this site and beyond and to try and make sure that we have control of that and improvements so that actually what had obviously not been planned correctly at the previous estate actually gets some benefit from this one is actually a positive.

I think the points about it not being made a dual carriageway, our wishes I think would be that it would be,

but actually it's not supported by the policy and it's not supported by the evidence.

I do think there would be savings in costs long term, but that's to some extent the problem we have of not a lot of joined up thinking across a more regional way of thinking,

and the long -term view of roads which should be, you know, a bit like train tracks, you know,

it's not about today, it's about what's happening in 50 years time, you know, and that longer term

we miss out on. I think in terms of the school and the location there was some questions there,

but hopefully that will come in the detailed side of it so that we actually get more confidence

And I think, other than that, I think actually seeing the detail on the design and the layout

in the future will also maybe give us a little bit more confidence in terms of how the look

will be.

But there will be some density areas here which would give us four storeys, et cetera,

that's mentioned.

If that was across a piece like a big wall, that wouldn't be looking good.

But actually if it comes through with a little bit more of a balance than that, that'd be

fine.

but that's not something we're looking at

at this point in time.

So overall, I would support the officer's recommendation

and if that was a proposal before,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:35:03

I would second that proposal.

Thank you, that's very helpful.

Council Wortons.

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 3:35:08

I'm not sure if we had a former proposal and a second,

so I just would like to confirm.

Was your proposal counted?

I'll advise the proposal.

And then I'll second that.

Thank you.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:35:18

Councillor Gough is indicating next.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:35:21

I guess I'll just go straight to the vote but I want an opportunity to have a little chat.

So, it's logical to have that there.

It's, I think, the work that's gone into it. How long has this been going on?

Since 2018? And before.

And before. But, you know, as an Alsby person, that has been wished for.

I mean, the amount of work that's gone into it, you know, it looks like

nearly every stone has been turned over and turned over and turned over again to make

sure that the right sort of things are found. I do air my frustration as a few other colleagues,

the dual carriageway, I must admit the one from Berryfield to Buckingham Park is a single

way, it's a big single way but it works so maybe it could be a wide single way that goes

Another concern I do have is the height of some of these properties.

I don't know many houses out that direction that are more than two storeys high anyway.

So that concerns me because we're getting more and more upwards than outwards,

but there again, land is diminishing.

So, but yeah, in all goes, I was really intrigued over the drainage.

I do apologise.

I don't have a fetish about drainage, but I did find that extremely interesting.

And so for future, when you look at it, what they designed,

you know, more and more areas should adapt that.

If it's gonna help the whole of the Elsbury town area

that does, you know, flood quite a bit,

then we should look even harder on that.

So again, we're running with colleagues.

I would fully support what's being promoted

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:37:01

on the application.

Council Gough.

Council Hussain.

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 3:37:09

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:37:10

I think we need more properties and I fully support the application.

Cllr David Moore - 3:37:15

Councillor Moore followed by Councillor Gill.

Yeah thank you Chairman. I think this is you know ultimately this is a plan led

allocation. I do sympathise with what Councillor Turner said about the

affordability triggers. I think that's really important and I welcome is that

what I understand is going to be an informative and some mechanism as it was

mentioned to ensure that to the 25 percent.

So, yeah, I think on those grounds I'm satisfied.

And that was my main concern.

I'm sorry I missed the site visit, but I can safely say

after reading the report and analysing what everyone's here

to say, weighing up all those material arguments,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:37:51

that I'll be supporting this application.

Thank you.

Dr. Robert Nussbaum.

Cllr John Chilver - 3:37:55

Councillor Children?

I agree with a lot of what's already been said.

Some of the things I think we need to ensure that are followed up at the reserve matters stage includes

what's been said about density and design, particularly design.

I think just square blocks should be avoided if possible.

Also noise mitigation, which I mentioned.

And I think one of the big issues has been flooding.

I'm not an expert, so I rely on the assurances

that the experts have given us,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:38:32

so I will be supporting this.

Cllr Llew Monger - 3:38:35

Councillor Munger?

Thank you, Chair.

I think this is a really good example

of why the general public have so little faith

in council planners, developers, and house builders.

Lack of foresight in the long run, you know,

whereas we should have been building a road alongside HS2

and sharing the cost, and we could have had a genuine

road right around the south of the town, but we don't.

We're now faced with being forced to make a decision

on something that many of us are clearly unhappy about,

many aspects of because on the one hand,

we got five year housing land supply breathing down our neck

not to mention Mr. Penny Cook and his letter to the council

and the need to deliver this part

of the Southwest relief road,

which I have to say with the greatest respect

to all those involved, particularly our highways consultant,

I think is a non -road.

I just don't see how this is gonna work

and I really do feel sorry for the people who live

on the Gatehouse, not the Gatehouse development,

the Coldharbour development.

I think, I hope that much of the issues

that have been raised today are reflected

in further considerations before section 106 agreements are completed and that the developer

takes note of such of these in preparing their reserve matters application.

Mind you, given the length of time that it's taken, the gestation period thus far, say

10 years, some of us may not be here.

I mean, I expect to be, but some may not be here when it comes to reserve matters.

We'll see. The flooding is a serious issue with whether it's within the red line or not.

The flooding in the willows is a consequence or would be a further consequence of this development,

therefore is extremely relevant. Highways issues I've mentioned, the density really does concern

me it seems to me that it's a case of well pile in everything you can to get

up to a number that sort of ties in with valve bearing in mind that the original

ATG to application said at least 1490 hours is it said at least now now we're

saying up to 0 .1 hundred I think it's a little too flexible for my liking and I

again, wait to see what comes to reserve matters.

The primary school location, the more we look at it,

we looked at it on the site visit last week

and we see again, as we've exploded today,

it's really too close to the relief road.

It's crammed into what frankly is probably

about the least developable part of the site

from the applicant's point of view.

And I appreciate what was said about being central

to the development given the portion of the development

that is closer to the Princess Risbrough rail route.

But I think that's not particularly a relevant factor.

Maybe the school could be provided on different location.

Certainly something that would take it away from the noise,

the fumes and the general discomfort of having that road going past. The fact that there

may be other schools in that position doesn't make this one right. So the proximity of HS2,

the relief road and the housing is all too much for me, particularly in that central

part of the development site. Again, some better forward planning could have perhaps run the road

more directly alongside HS2 and the bund being between both of them and the housing and that

would have gone some way to resolving issues that are bound to come up on the housing development

itself. The almost lack of affordable housing is really regrettable. Our provision in it

valve is low enough without accepting it being reduced to one third of the requirement. You

know, over many years, I keep hearing the hard -pressed developers and house builders

telling us about viability whilst they deliver bigger and bigger profits.

Not a planning issue but it's a result of inadequate planning. Much to do then with

reserve matters. I trust our officers will take heed and yes simply because of

the five -year housing land supply

and the fact that we'd lose at appeal,

I will be obliged to support this outline application,

not because I like it.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:44:15

Okay, thank you, Councillor Mungo.

I think, so I'm talking through the offices again,

I think the, because I asked the question about the school,

whether you could swap it out

and put it where the community facility is,

or they point out to me is it's flood zone three.

So the problem with that is that flood zone three

is prone to large amounts of flooding.

Therefore, you don't want to put a school

right in a flood zone three, if that makes sense.

Hence why that's why they put it in.

Well, it's so, but it also, being a central piece,

it does mean that both halves of the scheme

do get to basically walk to school

rather than take the cars,

which most parents seem to like to do.

But I did ask that direct question,

well, could you not swap out the community facilities

with the other bit?

But they pointed out that where the community facilities

is flood zone three.

So therefore that's, you know,

wouldn't be, would not be where you want to put a school.

I think I agree with the points that have been made by the

Councillors. I think to me quality design is

key and I think we saw that at Wilton Park when we went back to Wilton Park

and looked at the reserve matters on Wilton Park about the quality design

because again that was some three stroke four buildings where they were what I would call

statement buildings that set the scene if that

makes sense for the whole of the area rather than being obtrusive to the other existing

neighbours if that makes sense. I think risk mitigation definitely is a key issue and I

think in terms of the triggers for affordable housing like Councillor Turner and he and

I both have the same view of we want it to be much more than 10 % if we can and I think

certainly as part of this whole process also I'll be working with Laura Lee in terms of

but also then working with New Homes Accelerator to make sure we get that

improvement in terms of the amount of affordable housing because I think it will be required because I think in current climate I think

even though it might be slightly more affordable than it is compared to children villages where Councillor Turner is from, in reality

it's still going to be, you know, we're still southeast of England,

we're still relatively expensive area compared to the north of England as it were, so therefore

we're going to need to have that affordable housing as well.

So, as far as I'm concerned, we've got a proposal from Councillor Huxley, a seconder from Councillor Waters.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:46:36

So, unless I hear any other dissenting bits, I think if we just go to the vote.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:46:41

Just to say, obviously we mentioned the informative would be part of that.

Absolutely, including the informative as well.

Obviously, we've updated the conditions in terms of the additional report.

you saw there was an additional amendments to the conditions

to give much more clarity and much more certainty

in terms of the conditions we're putting on there as well.

Obviously the informative piece as well,

but also then working in New Homes,

yeah, New Homes England Accelerator Scheme.

So yeah, so that it's on that basis

that we've done the changes in the amendments as per that,

but I get Council Member's point about,

you know, it's not ideal, it's not perfect,

but I'd rather we at least progress forward on it

and then hope in the local plan

we can then bring forward other areas

that might then help support the dual character way

going forward if we can at some point.

But that will be for another day, if that makes sense.

So on that basis, based on the changes in the amendments

and the additions and the reformative,

I've got a proposal for Councillor Huxley,

seconded by Councillor Waters.

So can I have a show of hands

for those in favour of the officer's proposal?

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10.

Unanimous.

Unanimous, okay.

Right, well thank you very much for all your time.

I mean, that's been a, I think we can say

we've done it in real detail.

I think the applicant and the agent and their team

have obviously heard all the things that have been said,

and hopefully we can then go forward and work with them

to actually get this delivered in a much quicker

time scale than the 10 years it's taken so far.

Okay, thank you very much.

Now close the meeting at 3 .25.

Thank you.

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:48:15

Webcast Finished - 3:48:23

Thank you.

Cllr John Chilver

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Penny Drayton

Independent

View profile

Cllr Kathy Gibbon

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Phil Gomm

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Andy Huxley

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Llew Monger

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr David Moore

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mark Turner

Independent

View profile

Cllr Jonathan Waters

Liberal Democrats

View profile

We welcome your comments in relation to the webcast.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Buckinghamshire Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Strategic Sites Committee - Monday 30 March 2026, 11:00am - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Strategic Sites CommitteeMonday, 30th March 2026 at 11:00am

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Feedback

Votes

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:00

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:19

Ross Herbert - DM Majors Team Leader North/Central - 0:01:26

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 0:01:33

Del Tester - 0:01:41

Cllr David Moore - 0:01:49

Cllr Mark Turner - 0:01:55

Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:01:57

Cllr John Chilver - 0:02:03

Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 0:02:07

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:15

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:17

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:22

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:29

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:35

Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer - 0:02:41

Laura Lee Briggs - Legal - 0:02:44

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:02:48

1 Apologies for Absence

Harry Thomas - Democratic Services Officer - 0:02:59

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:08

2 Minutes

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:04:23

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:04:28

Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:05:02

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:07

3 Declarations of Interest

4 Chairman's Announcement

5 18/04346/AOP - Land at South West Aylesbury

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 0:11:11

Del Tester - 0:43:09

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 1:02:19

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:11

Public Speakers - 1:16:42

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:19:48

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:20:21

Public Speakers - 1:20:56

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:22:02

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:22:06

Public Speakers - 1:22:58

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:24:01

Public Speakers - 1:24:42

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:26:42

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:26:44

Public Speakers - 1:27:12

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:28:03

Cllr Penny Drayton - 1:28:09

Public Speakers - 1:29:23

Cllr Penny Drayton - 1:30:01

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:30:41

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:30:47

Public Speakers - 1:32:00

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:32:12

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:32:26

Del Tester - 1:33:02

Del Tester - Highways Consultant - 1:33:49

Del Tester - Highways Development Consultant - 1:34:29

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:34:52

Helen Fadipe - Technical Team Manager - 1:35:03

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:37:31

Public Speakers - 1:40:10

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:43:07

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:43:19

Public Speakers - 1:44:02

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:45:07

Public Speakers - 1:45:28

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:46:27

Public Speakers - 1:47:02

Strategic Sites Committee
Monday, 30th March 2026 at 11:00am