Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 22 July 2026, 2:00pm

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 22nd July 2026 at 2:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

2 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Mr Harry Thomas
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Mr Harry Thomas
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Andy Huxley
David Marsh
Ross Herbert
Zenab Hearn
Vikki Keeble
William Chen
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey

4 25/02196/AOP - Land East of Worminghall Road Ickford

Share this agenda point

Zenab Hearn
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speaker
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Andy Huxley
Public Speaker
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Public Speaker
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speaker
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speaker
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Mr Harry Thomas
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Phil Gomm
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speaker
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Vikki Keeble
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Public Speaker
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Public Speaker
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speaker
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speaker
Cllr Llew Monger
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Vikki Keeble
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speaker
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Andy Huxley
Public Speaker
Cllr Patrick Fealey

4 25/02196/AOP - Land East of Worminghall Road Ickford

Share this agenda point

Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
David Marsh
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
David Marsh
Cllr Phil Gomm
David Marsh
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
David Marsh
Zenab Hearn
David Marsh
Cllr Phil Gomm
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Llew Monger
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Llew Monger
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Gregory Smith
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Gregory Smith
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Zenab Hearn
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn
Ms. Laura Lee Briggs
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Llew Monger
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Raj Khan
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Raj Khan
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Patrick Fealey

5 Date of the Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

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 Patrick Fealey - 0:00:00

right.

Good afternoon

Welcome to our colleagues as councillors and members of the public to Central and North

Area Planning Committee.

Just a few domestics when we start.

Can you please ensure that your mobile phones are switched off or silent?

And also to make you aware that this meeting is webcast, so if you do not wish to be on

please let the clerk know and he will make arrangements for you to sit out of camera.

The speaking arrangements for today is that it will be speakers and initially councillors and local members,

then we'll have parish council, then an objectors, any supporters and finally the agent and applicant.

And I will cheque their attendance in a moment.

So could I just start and confirm that Councillor Ashleigh -Wade is here?

Councillor Alan Turner?

Thank you.

Yeah, I was just on a call with him actually, still at the railway centre at Quaington.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:01:57

That's where he looked like he was.

Okay, fine, thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:01

Parish Council and Nigel Jackson.

Thank you.

Nigel Hillier.

Thank you.

Damien Sullivan.

Sullivan. Thank you.

And you're speaking on behalf of other people, is that right?

Are you reading a statement?

I'm reading that, Chairman.

You're reading that one, OK. Thank you.

Oliver Guilford. Thank you.

And Tor B. Peers. Thank you.

Right, thank you very much.

If we can now return to the agenda, do we have any apologies?

1 Apologies

No, Chairman, we haven't received any apologies.

2 Minutes

Colleagues, can I ask for your recognition of the minutes we had on the 17th of June

as correct?

Please.

Thank you.

Are there any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Gough.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:03:32

I believe, Chairman, some of us might have received some emails from different people,

So I'm just declaring an interest that we will see.

We still come to speak with an open mic, but just letting you know.

We have, and I have forwarded them on to the Planning Officer.

Yep, thank you.

That's all done.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:48

OK, thank you for that.

Right, before we go to the first application, can I just ask the Officers to introduce themselves

so that everyone knows who they are.

Councillors, I think most people know who you are, if you wish.

So I start with my colleague on the left.

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:04:12

Good afternoon. Laura Lee Briggs from Legal Services. Thank you.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:04:14

I'm Harry Thomas with Democratic Services.

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:04:16

I'm Councillor Rice, Carnell and Ellsworth North.

Okay, keep going, keep going.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:04:27

Caroline Cornell, Newton Longville Ward and Winslow Town Council.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:04:34

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:04:40

the council for the council for the council for the council for the council for the council

for the council for the council for the council for the council for the council for the council

David Marsh - 0:04:47

Ross Herbert - 0:04:51

Zenab Hearn - 0:04:56

for the council for the council for the council for the council for the council for the council

I'm not sure if I'm getting this case today.

Vikki Keeble - 0:05:01

Good afternoon.

Vicki Keeble, Sustainable Drainage Team Leader for Buckinghamshire Council.

William Chen, Senior Services Officer for Buckinghamshire Council.

William Chen - 0:05:11

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:05:14

Councillor Robert Stutchbury for Buckinghamshire, which encamps about half of North Buckinghamshire.

You have a bit somewhere else.

Thank you.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:05:23

Philip Galton, Quaington Ward, I cover under Buckthornshire Council and also a Winslow

Town Councillor.

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:05:32

Councillor Loomonger, Winslow Ward.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:05:36

Councillor Frank Mahon representing Grendel and the Wood and the Claydens Ward.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:05:41

Hello, Greg Smith, I'm Councillor for Haddonham and Stone Ward.

Chris Pohl representing Ivinghoe Ward.

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:05:49

Thank you very much. I'm Patrick Figley. I have the pleasure of being the chairman of

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:05:55

this committee and I also represent Gwindon and the Glaiddins. So thank you for that.

As we move into the application we're going to hear this afternoon, the presenter, it

will be presented by one of the officers and their team and go through that and then we

can then go to public speaking, which

will follow on from there at the end of the public speaking.

I would like to remind you on public speaking,

you can only ask for clarification on what

the presentation was given to us.

We cannot go off on different routes, just purely

clarification on what was said.

And then we will go into a technical session.

And the proposal I'm proposing is

that we will handle technical questions by subject,

So, such as highways, possibly flooding, and things like that.

So colleagues, when you have a question about that, then just put your hand up and then

we can deal with it as one subject, because we've got specialists here that can deal with

that.

And then finally, we'll go to open debate and a vote on the application.

Right.

Councillor Mahone.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:07:18

Mr. Thomas noticed that there was nobody absent.

Can I just have it noted that there is one of our members absent today and haven't given

their apologies?

Yes, me has got that.

Thank you.

4 25/02196/AOP - Land East of Worminghall Road Ickford

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:07:32

So before us today we have an application 25 .02196 which is an outline application for

land East of warming hall road,

it could, um, and this will be presented by, um,

our planning officer and I will hand over to her now.

Thank you chairman. Can everyone hear me? Okay.

Zenab Hearn - 0:07:58

So the application, um,

presented today is 25 0 2 1 9 6

AOP,

and that is an outline application for 68 dwellings with all matters reserved

except for the vehicular access from Ickford Road, land east of Worminghall Road, Ickford.

In terms of the site location, it is outlined in red. To its west is Worminghall Road,

to its north is Ickford Road and to the south is the development referred to as Poplar Way.

So providing some site context, the application site includes, the village itself includes

some facilities but its nearest settlements are Tame and Hanham.

So in terms of the site constraints, the public rights of way around the site are outlined

in purple and in green there is a conservation area located to the west and a listed building

along this road. The north western part of the site lies in

flood zone 2 and this is showing the extent of flood zone within this part of Iqford.

In terms of surface water drainage, the surface water maps illustrate that there is some surface

water flooding, but as you can see the intention of the proposal is to keep all built development

outside of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

The site itself is proposed to be allocated within the Emerging Local Plan which is soon

to be out for Regulation 19 consultation. It is located within Iqfid, identified as

a Tier 5 settlement which is a medium and small village.

The emerging local plan allocates 170 homes across two sites in Iqfod and the site itself

is highlighted in yellow there and it's identified in the emerging local plan for 95 dwellings.

This slide sets out the proposed access which is proposed to be taken off Iqfod Road.

This slide is a photograph of the site looking from the existing field access of Ickford

Road to the south, so you are looking north. This is an image of the site taken from the

another image of the site and further image looking east along Iqford Road.

To provide some context, I want to address the previous appeal decision on this site

itself, which was decided against a non -determination appeal in October 2018. This was the layout

before the Inspector and Council at the time for 49 dwellings.

The appeal was dismissed in October 2018. The Inspector's concerns primarily related

to the fact that it had a significant, it shifted built development to this edge of

the village and the Inspector considered that together with the adjoining field it made

a significant contribution to the openness and visual quality of the rural landscape and setting

of Iqford. The inspector considered that the previous cul -de -sac layout had a suburban

character that would significantly urbanise the open and undeveloped nature of the site.

The inspector found it would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed

building referred to as number 64 Warming Hall Road and the public benefits did not outweigh

the harm. No high -risk issues were identified. At the time in 2018, the inspector recorded

that there was little evidence before them regarding that five -year housing land supply

position. That was not an issue that was being contested. He gave limited weight to the wider

arguments about housing at that point. Whereas now we're looking at this site in the context

of our five -year housing land supply position. So moving on. There was a subsequent appeal

decided in July 2019. This was another appeal decided against a non -determination and at

time it was also contested that there would be harm to the setting of the conservation

area and the listed building. In that case, the application was allowed at appeal. The

inspector found that the council's policies at the time were out of date and applied the

tilted balance. In that decision, the inspector accepted there would be landscape harm arising

from the loss of the attractive pastoral field, but concluded that the harm would be moderate

and would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the housing delivery.

So that's the context. So since that appeal decision was granted, that site has now come forward and it's built out.

So we're looking at this site to the north in the context of the appeal that's been decided and built out.

I'd like to also draw members attention to recent appeal decisions that the council has

contested.

Most recently, Great Hallward.

This was a site immediately adjacent to conservation area in Great Hallward with a number of listed

buildings and non -designated heritage assets.

It's also a village in which there are very limited services and certainly no shop or

post office, a permanent post office there, they just had a pub, a church, a primary school

and a village hall. The inspector recognised that there were limited services and that

residents would be heavily reliant on private cars. Bus services were recognised as being

of landscape character, the inspector found harm to local landscape character and attributed weight

Zenab Hearn - 0:15:27

to that. Harm was also found, less than substantial harm was found to a number of heritage assets and

the setting of the conservation area. The inspector also recognised that the proposal conflicted with

policies, the spatial policies including the neighbourhood plan policy, as this site was

located outside the settlement boundary. Notwithstanding this, the Inspector concluded that Buckinghamshire

Council could only demonstrate between 2 .56 and 3 .73 years housing land supply. This represented

a substantial shortfall. Therefore, the tilted balance was engaged and substantial weight

was given to the housing shortage and substantial positive weight was given

both to new homes and affordable homes and in that context the appeal was

allowed. I also refer to the Baughton Road application so this is another

recent appeal decision on the outskirts of Buckingham. In this case the site was

not allocated in the neighbourhood plan and it was identified as a locally attractive

landscape.

Notwithstanding this, the inspector, and this was also coming forward in the context of

Buckingham neighbourhood plan being a very recent adoption, notwithstanding this, the

inspector allowed the appeal for 220 dwellings and affordable housing with associated works

because we could only demonstrate that there was approximately three to four year housing

land supply. So notwithstanding this conflict with spatial strategy where the site sat outside

the settlement boundary and the harm to the landscape character and local, including the

local landscape area which was given more weight in the neighbourhood plan, the inspector

approved the development. In terms of design evolution of this scheme, it's been through

pre -application and following that process it has evolved. The first image to the left

was the pre -application proposal put before the Council and the resultant scheme is the

one being considered in this layout today.

So the proposal delivers 68 new homes including 29 % affordable housing.

This is above the 25 % policy requirement.

All homes will meet M42, M43 standards and the site itself will deliver 75 % by diversity

net gain which is well in excess of the 10 % requirement.

It will provide economic benefits through construction, future resident spending and

the contribution it will make to supporting infrastructure.

In the context of not being able to demonstrate five -year housing land supply, the weight

to be given to spatial conflict is limited.

In terms of technical consultee responses, this slide outlines that we have had responses

from all our technical consultees where objections have not been raised subject to condition

and those matters are outlined comprehensively within the officer report.

So for the reasons set out in the report, this is an outline application.

All matters are reserved except vehicular access.

It is acknowledged that the site lies outside the defined development boundary in the Iqford neighbourhood plan

and it is not allocated within the current Bail of Aylesbury local plan,

although it is proposed to be allocated in the emerging local plan.

It would extend into the countryside and those harms to local landscape are acknowledged

in the report.

However, as noted earlier, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five -year

supply of deliverable housing land, the most recent position indicating there is a 3 .7

year supply of housing.

As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development under Paragraph 11D is engaged.

There are no policies of particular importance that protect this site and therefore it conflicts.

Whilst there is conflict identified, the overall adverse impacts are not significantly and

demonstrably outweighed by the benefits of delivering the site here.

So for the reasons outlined in the report, the officer recommendation is that the application

is deferred and delegated to the service director of planning and environment for approval subject

to the closing of the publication which advertised a departure from the development plan having

with regard to the amendments received and any objections or any comments received on

that and the satisfactory completion of the section 106 securing various matters and the

details of which are set out in the report.

Also to subject to conditions recommended by officers and subject to no new material

representations and these will be considered by the service director as appropriate.

So I'm just going to draw members' attention to the update report.

I just wanted to clarify that we want to strike out the First Amendment because taking into

context the recent appeal decisions, the weight to be attributed to the delivery of housing

and affordable housing consistent with those appeal decisions is substantial.

And then as set out in the committee report,

for clarity, the application was advertised as departure,

recognising that there is conflict with a spatial strategy.

And that published period will complete on the 5th of August.

Concerns have been raised.

Further concerns have been raised by local residents in relation to the applicant's drainage strategy.

And that is set out in the update report.

And there was a further representation received by Iqfod parish council.

And again that is referenced in the report.

Finally there is a small amendment to condition 22.

and that is just clarifying and making sure that the condition itself is

precise enforceable and consistent with policy requirements. I am joined today by

the highways officer and the lead local flood authority so should you have any

questions relating to those matters they will be able to assist. Thank You

Thank you very much.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:08

Can I call Alan Turner, please?

Zenab Hearn - 0:23:09

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:11

Public Speaker - 0:23:22

Mr. Turner, you know the score of this.

You've got three minutes to make your presentation.

I will give you a warning because I'm not going to be

the clock is behind you. I don't know if you can see it. So I'll give you a warning when

you got half a minute to go. Is that okay? If you don't mind, remain seated for any points

of clarification on what you've said. Thank you.

Yeah. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf

of Greg Smith MP, a local member of Parliament.

I wish to strongly oppose this application for 68 houses on land east of Warminghall

Road in Ickford.

Let us be absolutely clear, this is a speculative development which sits outside both the Vail

of Aylesbury local plan and the Ickford neighbourhood plan.

Local residents have spent a considerable time helping to shape a plan for the sustainable

future of their village. That democratic process must mean something. It cannot simply be brushed

aside whenever a developer identifies an attractive green field. 68 additional houses would be

a major and wholly disproportionate expansion of Iqford. This is a small rural village,

not a location identified for development on this scale. Local infrastructure is already

over pressure including sewage, water supply, drainage and the surrounding road

network. The local school is full and there are no plans to address this. I am

particularly concerned about flooding. Residents have already experienced

serious and repeated flooding following development on neighbouring land. Thames

Water operatives are practically local residents themselves with a continued

need to be present to prevent the network being overwhelmed.

This site forms part of the local floodplain and the committee must not approve a proposal

which risks making an already unacceptable situation significantly worse.

Existing residents should not be expected to pay the price for another inappropriate

development.

There would also be irreversible harm to the rural character of Ickford.

This proposal will urbanise open agricultural countryside,

introduce more traffic, noise and light pollution,

and damage the setting and tranquilly of the village.

We should also remember that once productive agricultural land is concreted over,

it is lost forever.

At a time when food security should be a national priority,

sacrificing further farmland for speculative development is short -sighted.

I urge the committee to stand with the residents of Iqbud and refuse permission.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Mr Turner. Thank you very much. Any points of clarification?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:26:28

Newman councilman go

Hey Chad, just one mr. Tenoch. Can you just clarify?

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:26:49

You were speaking on behalf of

Greg Smith MP

Specifically and they are his words

Correct. Okay

Perhaps then you will feed back to him that it's incorrect to say that the site is not identified for development

as it is included in the local plan, as is the adjacent site, Sheldon Road.

So perhaps Mr Smith needs to be updated on those points.

Thank you.

Public Speaker - 0:27:23

I'll pass that back on, although of course he wasn't referring to the VELP rather than the current.

OK, Councillor Gough.

Very kind, Chairman.

Just two clarifications.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:27:34

You talked about like sewerage and the water runoff.

Could you just expand on that now?

Mr. SPF MP isn't here, so you're going to have to speak a bit on his behalf.

If you could enlighten us a bit more on the water flow and the sewerage system.

Certainly.

Public Speaker - 0:27:52

Indeed, I've been involved with the Ickford situation for some while now, so I am aware

of it.

And as I alluded to in

Mr. Smith's

Statement if you were to go to it for today, you will probably find Thames water there camped out

And you will see a tanker by the side of the road. It's there for most of the year. In fact the

contractors are used

Having spoken to them

The they very often

stay there for over a month at a time because the whole system is

under severe strain

It is prone to when they have flooding which is on a fairly regular basis

Then you have once the the correct levels are

Met you have back flow of the foul water system back into the freshwater

So it's a real problem

the that was

made worse by, exacerbated by the last new development,

which was known as Deanfield,

where the land was razed to avoid those houses flooding,

which in turn meant that the rest of the village

had increased flooding due to the fact

that there was more runoff.

If this was to be repeated, you'd have even more flooding.

Okay, thank you very much.

I've got a second part to that, Chairman, please.

Thank you.

And then you mentioned about an agricultural field.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:29:33

It is a rural village trying to be looked after in a rural way.

I'm looking at a Google picture from above, and you mentioned it was agricultural land.

Can you just confirm whether that land is still being farmed at this present time?

Public Speaker - 0:29:50

I believe its last use is grazing, but the owners, I don't believe.

and parish council will probably be able to give you a more accurate timeline but I believe

the current owners have not done anything with it whilst they're awaiting the decision

on the application.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Councillor Smith.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:30:17

And you mentioned that the previous developments has significantly increased the number of

increase the amount of flooding in Iqford because of the nature of the development.

Does the MP have any evidence, any written records of the assurances given by that development

at this stage, at the planning stage, that the water runoff would be managed on site

as we see from this, the assurances in this development?

Public Speaker - 0:30:52

Not specific to Mr Smith, but certainly it's in the paperwork, the report you had before

you.

Obviously, we're aware of that.

Sorry, yeah, we have the current planning permission in front of us.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:31:05

I was referring to what you said about the previous development.

Do you have any written evidence that would suggest that there was also assessments on

that development that said that there wouldn't be any additional flood risk I

Public Speaker - 0:31:22

don't I'm afraid I can't I couldn't accurately answer that one for him

afraid it may well be that parish councillors would have more information

on that as it was a few years ago so it predates me okay thank you

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:31:37

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:31:41

Councillor Stutchfield. Thank you Alan, I'm glad to see you again sir and I hope you're keeping well.

In the sense that I'm addressing this question to the MP not to you, remember that.

Councillor Stutchfield could you just pull the microphone slightly closer please.

Actually we'll go for it again. Alan very pleased to meet you again sir and good to have you here today.

In mind to my colleague who in the fact that we're addressing this question through you

to the MP, so it's not meant for you.

I'm concerned that the always have been concerned about surge and drainage and issues and have

a long record in questioning them.

I'm surprised that the Member of Parliament would come to question those issues in the

sense that they had when there was opportunities in previous years to actually address those

issues in the sense through legislation.

So I find it strange that we're now coming to mark one's own homework.

So I know that's unfair to you because you're not the person who said it.

So I think we have to be clear that there was an opportunity to improve the sewage and

drainage legislation in which he had opportunity to do so and the amendment he voted down.

So I find it surprising that he's come now to go back over that ground which is very relevant to this application

Public Speaker - 0:33:07

Well, everyone's in touch their own view I don't think it'd be appropriate for me to comment on

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:33:15

That sort of point. No you deliver in a speech. We understand that. Thank you very much any further points of clarification

Mr. Turner, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening to me.

Please can I call Nigel Jackson, please?

I take it you are a Councillor for the parish?

You are?

Okay.

Public Speaker - 0:33:46

Councillor Jackson, you have three minutes to make your presentation.

And again, if you don't mind remaining seated for a point of clarification on what you have said.

Thank you.

Once you press the button...

I want to.

Yeah.

That's it.

Right.

And we'll get the clock running.

OK.

Chairman, members of the committee, I speak for the parish council in strong objection to this application,

for the reasons set out in the summary document emailed to you yesterday.

Firstly, we recognise that the housing land supply position may engage the tilted balance,

but the tilted balance is not a presumption in favour of any development anywhere.

It still requires the Committee to weigh benefits against real, significant and demonstrable harms.

This site is entirely outside the settlement boundary and conflicts with Valp policy S1

and the Ickford neighbourhood plan.

That plan was prepared against a background of two major developments totalling 99 homes,

increasing the village by around 37%.

The additional small -scale housing allowance has also been met.

Approving this scheme would not be plan -led growth, it would unpick the community's agreed

strategy. Secondly, Iqford is already in the highest

flood risk band and was the subject of a Buckinghamshire Council flood investigation in 2023. The

recommended works remain incomplete and no effective reduction in flood risk has yet

been delivered. Recent developments have already worsened local

flooding and climate projections point to more frequent extreme events.

The applicant's own material indicates that runoff from the site would nearly triple.

Evidence from 37 Sheldon Road shows the existing drainage cannot cope with current groundwater

levels, let alone additional runoff from another greenfield development.

These are not theoretical concerns, they are existing failures that this proposal would

intensify.

As you will see from the photos, the site and the roads around it are liable to flooding,

which would make the site inaccessible during regular flood events.

Thirdly, the foul water system is already failing. Thames Water may say the network

has capacity, but local evidence shows the opposite. Tankers are deployed as soon as

water rises and during flood events, Suishi escapes into roads, homes, gardens and towards

the River Tain. Groundwater infiltration is a known long -term problem and Thames Water

have no plans to resolve it. Permission should not be granted first and infrastructure repaired

later. Without a prior funded and enforceable upgrade, this development would add avoidable

public health and environmental harm. In conclusion, the tilted balance does not

oblige you to approve a scheme that worsens flooding, overloads failing

sewage infrastructure and breaches the settlement strategy. The adverse impacts

are significant and demonstrable and they clearly outweigh the limited housing benefit.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:11

Thank you, thank you very much. Any points of clarification?

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:37:29

Thank you Chairman.

Yes Councillor Jackson, I'm slightly confused here as to what is in the Iqford neighbourhood

plan area and what isn't in a way.

and also what year was your neighbourhood plan updated?

Public Speaker - 0:38:05

The neighbourhood plan was introduced 2021 and the neighbourhood plan states that the

settlement boundary is along here.

So all of this development is outside of the settlement boundary.

So it wouldn't be included in your neighbourhood plan?

Correct.

Yeah, yeah

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:38:25

On just on another point, I mean I

referred to a

Development over at Walter Mead and

Remember picture many years ago where it showed a JCB with water

Halfway up a very huge wheel and that seems to work. All right, but

I'll not go there. Just thank you. Okay. Thank you very much

customer home

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:38:57

Mr. Chairman, Councillor Hockley has completely robbed me of making any comments because he's asked exactly the same two questions I was going to ask.

Very good. Councillor Gough.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:07

I'm certainly glad they haven't done that to me anyway, as I move on.

So, you know, we talk about the New neighbourhood plan, but you spoke about the impact of that area.

Could you elaborate on slightly, you know, you sort of said it is a rural village

We're there to protect our rural villages, but would do you feel that would have dimensional harm?

Having that in the rural area of impact

Public Speaker - 0:39:38

Yes, I think we do. I mean, that's what the neighbourhood plan was put together to demonstrate and I mean

the neighbourhood plan already

accommodated the

development that you can see here and the other one down here. So that's 99 homes.

That all lives within the settlement boundary, so the village has already accommodated a

good deal of expansion and this takes it out into the green fields and outside of the settlement

boundary.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:40:11

Okay. And then you mentioned, and I'm going to go back to the, easing some of your paperwork

at you as well about that being agricultural land and the representative for the MP Greg

Smith also mentioned it so I'll just go pull that in slightly.

Does that land still get farmed?

Does the farmer farm the land around that adjacent field too?

Public Speaker - 0:40:31

They, the farmer, well the ownership has changed and the farmer, the farms all north of there

And that used to be part of that farm.

But as far as I know, it's only been used for grazing and things subsequent to presumably

the purchase with a view to trying to get this application through.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:41:02

And Chairman Baer, my last question is that again, you mentioned about back in 2023, there's

been a flood investigation from Bucks Council itself.

I'm sure it's been going on for a bit longer than that.

would afford but you said in the report from the

The agent or developer that the the water sort would triple coming out of that

That area so you got a flood problem

But I just want to just pluck on saying you mentioned the river Tain

So I'm looking at Ickford. I don't think actually he did mention of it. Okay. No, he didn't. Yeah. Yes

I mentioned it first sewage flowing into it

from our village.

Public Speaker - 0:41:43

And it might be worth noting that the consultees

that you mentioned here, you didn't consult the River Tame,

you consulted the wrong river authority.

So I haven't finished.

And they wrote back and said that you've consulted

the wrong river, the River Ouzel

and something rather Bedford.

I haven't finished my question.

Sorry.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:41:59

That was the case that we did see it.

But we'll get the officer to explain that to us.

Yeah.

Be good to get drilling into that picture because you know looking at it for where it is

It's it's you know

When you look at long crendon

I'm just using where your village is and then you talk about we got flooding issues

then they've put in their report of tripling and it goes down to the river town that you mentioned and

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that area down below their flood?

frequently

You know one on the the road down by Tain it goes down down there

I'm looking at the route and the river is just there and they got the tame road to the 4 1 8 and that all of

That area correct me floods. Yes

Public Speaker - 0:42:46

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:42:50

I just want to make a point though that we've had obviously feedback from the water authority

And they are quite happy and not objecting to it. What they're saying to us is that they need a condition included

i .e. that no occupation will take place until substantial work has been carried out so that

there is no ongoing issue with it.

And that's what we've been told in the report.

Councillor Stutchfield.

Public Speaker - 0:43:20

I don't believe that that includes fixing the groundwater infiltration into the sewage

network.

If there is going to be that condition, then we will be happy to that.

but at the moment there are no plans from Thames Water,

if you look on their website,

to fix that groundwater infiltration.

Well, we'll add that to our technical questions

and then we can clarify.

Councillor Stoschby?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:43:40

Yeah, I'm going to go back to sewage.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:43:43

I started on sewage, we'll carry on talking about sewage.

I accept the Chair's point

that there may be a report for a gramping condition,

which is a means of managing developments I also are concerned and I

need to explore the actualities of this you're saying that at the moment correct

me if I'm wrong please that there is sewage already even from trading into

the village into properties already this is nothing to do with the development

which demonstrates the system what I alluded to earlier is already leaking

into the environment as we speak which there was chance to address those issues

and it's an ongoing national issue with infrastructure so those two points those

points I want reaffirmed and a new state that it's being managed by tankers

permanently

Which suggests that the system is not only not working

It's not functioning at any capacity which

No, gramping condition on this thing. There's an ongoing

unrelated to this application is an ongoing issue in the village and that area there and the other thing you

The with all those things going on

And the property what I need to understand for you because it is your area

are the properties adjacent to this,

the properties being affected by,

in the newly agreed application,

are they the areas which have been affected by it,

or is it the historic catchment area?

Because sometimes developers do improve the system

where they are, but the historic catchment area

of the village is under a different sewage

and drainage thing, so it could be that the development,

the development is affecting.

I have another question.

Public Speaker - 0:45:46

Can I just address that point specifically?

One of the main problems and the appearance of tankers have been since this development was done.

So all of this drains down into the pumping station which can't cope with the groundwater infiltration.

So adding yet more development on there is just pushing on top of an already overloaded sewage system.

So yes, it's true that the system is already broken, but one of the factors that's made it broken has been the additional development in the village,

which is putting something on top of an already stressed system, and that pushed it over the top.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:46:36

Last question. When you mentioned, I believe you mentioned that, and it was mentioned the

neighbourhood, the village and neighbourhood plan, did the neighbourhood plan in its

aspirations bring infrastructure needs and drainage and sewerage? Because in my own area we

have so many applications in the report given by the officer what went

through in Borton Road that that went through appeal and was appealed on

non -determination and I think it was draining sewage why we wanted to get

information on that so did the how do I put it were those things all in play

with the neighbourhood plan did they did did do you identify that as a policy in

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:47:26

your plan. The plans was drawn up in 2021? Yes. And there hasn't been revisited since?

Public Speaker - 0:47:31

Well we've revisited it but we haven't been formally updated. Because of funding and other

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:47:45

things. Councillor Smith. Thank you chair. You've kind of covered this already in this

this discussion but just bear with me because I have a concern really.

There's significant concern clearly in the community about flooding and

groundwater and in your submission you mentioned that there would need to be

additional investment with different additional infrastructure and I was

struggling to understand what that would mean in terms of the groundwater runoff

that you're concerned about, given the low -lying nature of Iqfod and how would you, what is

it that you would be looking for and effectively is that like a pre -commencement condition

for some form of management of groundwater that we don't see in the report?

That's right. As I mentioned the section 19 flood report that was issued in 2023, Buckinghamshire

Council and JBA Consulting, I believe it was.

There were a number of things identified in that

that needed to be investigated,

and potentially then that would lead to works to rectify it.

And as I said, to date, none of that,

or very little of that has happened.

There has been some investigation,

but I've only recently been having discussions with highways

around the trainage, stormwater, and the water.

drainage from the highways and out of Iqford so from from our perspective

there needs to be a lot more work done on that to see how we can get the water

out of Iqford and not flood all the houses on the way good okay no further

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:49:32

points to clarification councillor Jackson thank you it's going back to and

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:49:35

I need to know through the chair,

whether you did say this.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:49:39

Is there any evidence,

we need clarity, I think,

around the water company and the area that it is,

but was there any evidence that there is infiltration of,

because of the system failing,

into the water course and pollution

taking place within the area?

Because in our area, we're in anglia water,

that's measured regularly,

and you get the charts.

And was it something that you know about,

or is it something we need to explore?

Because if there's infiltration into the environment already,

it's a consideration that needs to be considered.

Well, clearly, clearly, Thames Water,

Public Speaker - 0:50:24

in saying that there is foul water capacity,

whoever puts out that information

is totally at odds with the technical teams

that we see regularly on the ground who tell us that the system is broken and can't cope.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Jackson, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:50:47

Could I call Nigel Hillier, please?

Good afternoon.

Again, Mr. Hillier, you've got three minutes for your presentation and please remain seated for points of clarification.

Public Speaker - 0:51:12

Mr. Chairman, Planning Committee members.

I sit before you as the representative of the Iqford Residence Group which was formed in 2019 after the decisions to allow the building of an estate of 66 extra houses in a village of just 279.

I'm also the Chairman of the local Flood Risk Working Group, appointed by this Council

but for which there is no supporting budget or resources.

I mention that Deanfield development of 66 because it reveals the dubious quality of

the decisions of the respective departments of your councils who, having opposed the development,

did not do so for flood risk reasons and furthermore did not review the specification of the sustainable

drainage system when they gave permission for the site to be raised

selectively by over a metre. Every qualified expert about such a change in

a site's contours states that such a review should have been carried out. The

result was, as witnessed by the then chair of the Ickford Parish Council and

myself amongst a number of others, was that the road next to the site flooded

as never before after relatively little rain. Here we are again with a proposal

to add a further 68 houses on land that is a ridge and furrow field, in part next to

the floodplain of the River Tame and that has been categorised in key areas to be a

flood risk zone 3 area.

That fact is based upon the recent survey mentioned earlier commissioned by this council.

So why based on common sense are we even considering this application?

In addition, the surface water drainage, the responsibility of this council's highways

cannot cope with sustained heavy rainfall so the streets flood and also

sewage bubbles up. More recently we have highlighted the impact of an SODC

decision to permit the building of 111 new houses outside Tame in the fringe of

the floodplain of the River Tame upstream. In short we are faced with a

potential flood risk disaster here. In addition the sewage system cannot cope

with the existing houses, 99 plus six more since 2019.

That was an increase of 37%.

So to expect it to cope with a total increase of 62 %

is lunacy.

Thameswater have to place tankers to relieve the network,

as we've already heard.

Moving on from the physical risk,

this proposal ignores totally the neighbourhood plan,

is outside the village on greenfield land,

will add to the pressures on the local primary school, who

rejected 42 local applicants recently because of insufficient space and in the

village to which this council has not financed any substantial improvements in

infrastructure whatsoever to put it bluntly this development will cause

flooding in the village will exceed local infrastructure capabilities and

should have been thrown out by the council right from the start thank you

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:54:12

okay thank you thank you for your time any points of clarification

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:54:33

I'd just like to understand the, you mentioned the capacity issues at the primary school.

So where do children go if they cannot go to the nearest local school and how do they

get there?

Public Speaker - 0:54:45

They travel to Oakley and to Brill I believe in the main.

So they have to be bused or parents have to drive them there.

Sorry, and is a bus laid on to both of those schools?

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:54:57

I don't know the answer to that, Councillor.

Councillor Smith.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:55:08

Thank you Chairman. I'm going back to my previous question to the MP really.

You mentioned about the previous development and the way that that has had an adverse effect.

Do you have a record of the assurances for flood management and for service water management

that was given for that site when it came forward at this stage in planning?

Public Speaker - 0:55:35

I believe I do have, but not that I can put my hands on now.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:55:40

Can you safely assure us that that planning application gave the level of certainty that

we see in front of us about management of floodwater at that time?

Public Speaker - 0:55:55

Allegedly it did, however of course once you raise the site selectively and change the

contours then that sustainable drainage system is no longer relevant as it is.

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:56:11

Okay thank you. Councillor Munger. Thank you chair. Councillor Paul asked my question but there was a response from behind me which I'll have to ask through Mr Hillier for clarification on.

And that was whether busses are provided to take children to opening Brill.

I don't know the

Well, perhaps somebody else will be able to deliver it to us in a little while

Cancer going

Cancer go

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:56:47

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:56:49

Thank You chairman many of us would like to turn the microphone off please

Council

Turn mine off then for a second German

School busses great big topic of this county, but there we go. So I'll go on to my question

So nice to hear that you chair the flood group for for Ickford and that

Buckling with share council work with you to do with flood

Problems there. Is that correct? But you got no funding we have no funding and we have no resources

But you work with the flood team I communicate with the

With the flood team from time to time. Thank you for just clarifying that and then and

Another question because you look after the flooding in the area and you mentioned a road

Next door floods now, which road do you refer to in your speech? You said the road now floods you referring to?

worming

worming road

Public Speaker - 0:57:52

right from the top here right the way down through the village since that new development

oh it has flooded oh right for a number of years okay but the flooding has increased but there are

other reasons as well because up here in grill yeah yeah yeah and so there is more water coming

down from that high land and i sure and i suspect there there have been some developments on the

which no doubt have caused some of that.

It floods along here and it also floods here

and down Rocker Lane which is down there.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:58:29

And since, you've got a nice windmill up at Brew as well,

and since that development has been built there,

does that flood at all?

The development doesn't, but it creates flooding

in the Warming Hall Road that didn't occur before.

Public Speaker - 0:58:42

Let me explain the way, what actually happened

in the village traditionally was the River Tame, which is down here somewhere.

Down there.

The River Tame, the floodplain would fill up.

The bottom of the lowest drainage ditch is only 10 inches above the floodplain.

So what would happen traditionally is that the water would rise and then the release

of water would reverse.

So, you know, if you played poo sticks, you'd see them going one way, then they come back.

And then that floods the village.

What occurs now, because of the site here, is that the sustainable drainage system cannot

be set at low enough level to guard the surface water drainage, which is insufficient.

And so that Warming Hall Road floods before the reversal when the floodplain rises.

Okay, last question, Chairman.

And then you mentioned one of my topics that I love talking about, and so does my colleague

to the right of me as well, Ridge and Thorough.

You mentioned that field is Ridge and Thorough.

I've looked at the over map of the whole area.

Ridge and Thorough, for those that don't realise, helped water disperse from agricultural land.

It was designed so your livestock would stand on top of the furrer and the water would sit on the lower part of that

Am I correct colleague? So I could you speak to?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:00:16

Not between yourself. Okay, I apologise for that chairman. So looking at the overall picture

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:00:19

I must admit there's quite a lot of acreage in that area of Ridge and furrer including that field

That was designed to help take the water away. So

Would you concur with that and it's not helping as much as it should do?

Public Speaker - 1:00:39

The Ridge and Furrow field are very interesting and they have guarded the village for a long

time and the clue is when you drive into the village you'll see these white houses which

have been there for centuries and never used to flood because the Ridge and Furrow slows

the flow of the surface water.

as soon as you concrete over that in essence,

and that includes that estate there,

then of course you have destroyed

the safeguard of the Ridge and Farrow field.

And that is when you have to start dealing

with sustainable drainage systems.

But unfortunately, sustainable drainage systems

are not a precise science.

And so very often, people get it wrong.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Stosvay.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:01:26

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:01:29

Thank you, I'm just looking through my own records of where I live in Buckingham.

We had Cestantis flooding in 2024, I'm just looking at the photographs here that I took,

I was up here in my waist in it when I took them and we have the same weather, we live

in the same area and in 2020 we had a massive flood again in 2020 so there's been two

major flood instance in the area and I could imagine the River Tame behaves in the same way

as what the river oozed us in the sense that when it reaches capacity. Now what I need to understand

is before any development takes, does the river behave in such a way that it escapes its banks

and comes towards the village listening to what you said about the way the ridge and furrow act

like it's sort of temporary they generally plough it the direction to drain

so does it already do that and I need to understand that because it's not in the

report and we have to understand in the context that a development is being set

against the environment that it's being constructed the the River Tame has

Public Speaker - 1:02:41

released its water into the floodplain for donkey's years many more years than

I have been around and I often consult with people,

some of whom are here,

who've lived in the village all their lives.

And yes, it has always flooded in the way I've described.

But the additional developments have changed

some of the nature of that flooding

and it results in the flooding occurring earlier

and with less rainfall.

So is, and this is relevant to understand it, I'm sorry.

In the way that the environment around you has changed,

it's changed in Buckingham,

we now have regular flooding events,

substantial flood events on a much more reciprocal cycle.

The river behaves in that way,

because it has to discharge eventually

into the Thames, doesn't it?

River Thames in our case?

Yeah, our river just goes out to the Kinsling eventually.

So basically, the environment and the weather

has changed radically in your lifetime.

Councillor Stuxby, can we come to the point

that Mr. Hillier can answer a question?

The area floods full stop, and that has now

worsened with development, particularly

that major development behind me, the 66 houses.

So it would be my belief that it will just

get even worse if we put another 68 houses in,

replacing a ridge and thorough field

which is there to protect the neighbourhood.

Mr. Hilliard, on your section 19,

which you're dealing with with Buckinghamshire Council

and various other authorities,

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:04:26

what stage are you at?

Because clearly the council don't put money into it,

it comes from the Environment Agency

or the Water Board or whatever.

what stage are you at with it? I don't believe any substantial progress has

Public Speaker - 1:04:43

been made at all Mr. Chairman. Okay. Councillor Mahone. Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all I

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:04:52

want to assure you that I've got really good hearing and with your permission

I'd like to answer Councillor Munger's question from earlier. From what I heard

in the room regarding busses.

It's second, sorry.

I can't have people talking in the background

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:05:12

and asking you to convey it.

They're not asking me to convey it.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:05:17

You said that somebody might raise it later

and I just want to raise it now

because you did say that there was some,

or Councillor Munger said that there was some noise

in the room.

And the speaker wasn't able to answer,

Councillor Munger's question but I can that's the point I'm trying to make okay

go ahead there is no bus service for those two schools thank you thank you

sir okay mr. Hillier thank you for your time thank you

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:06:09

Okay, have you got a statement to read?

We are writing as residents of 13 Poplar Way, Iqfad, to express our support for planning

Mr Harry Thomas - 1:06:33

application 2502196AOP, an outline application for 68 dwellings on land east of Worming Hall

Road with all matters reserved except the vehicular means of access from Iqfad Road.

We have lived at this address for four years and our property is one of only two existing

homes that directly border the application site.

We are therefore particularly well placed to consider the relationship between the proposed

development and neighbouring properties.

The issue of greatest relevance to us is the potential impact on residential amenity.

From the plans and supporting information we have seen, Sigma Strategic Land appears

to have taken careful account of this relationship, in particular the proposed separation distance

of 45 metres from the nearest existing property, together with the generous planning proposed

along the southern boundary should provide an appropriate level of privacy screening

and visual separation.

Given that our property directly adjoins the site, we have considered the proposals carefully.

We believe that the proposed development and Deanfield Park should have a good relationship

with one another and we do not have concerns about the relationship between the proposed

homes and our own property.

We consider the scheme to be well designed and capable of making an important contribution

to Ickford.

The provision of 68 new homes, including affordable housing, would help meet the need for a wider

range of housing in the surrounding area. This is particularly important for younger

people, families and others who may otherwise find it difficult to secure a suitable home

locally.

We also welcome the proposed new footpath and resulting pedestrian link through the

development to the existing bridleway. This will provide residents with a safer and more

pleasant route, particularly by offering an alternative to walking along the road. We

believe this would improve connectivity within the village and make it easier for people

to travel on foot for both leisure and everyday journeys.

We recognise that flooding is a sensitive and important issue for Ixford and we have

personally experienced significant flooding within the village.

However, we are reassured that the relevant council departments have found no evidence

to suggest the proposed development would exacerbate existing flood risk.

It is also encouraging that the applicant has submitted extensive technical work and

modelling to demonstrate that the development can be delivered safely without increasing

flood risk elsewhere.

Overall, we consider this to be a carefully planned and appropriate development as one

of the two households whose properties directly border the site we are satisfied that the

proposal has taken proper account of neighbourhood amenity.

It would provide much needed housing, including affordable homes, while delivering substantial

boundary planting and improved pedestrian connexions within the village.

For these reasons we support the application.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:08:58

I can't ask any questions.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:09:04

okay mr. chairman I'm surprised that the residents that's made your statement

didn't come before us and give us the opportunity this evening to question

them so the question I would like to ask was there a valid reason why these

Residents or resident didn't turn up here today

We may not know

Council gone

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:09:31

I'm sure there is one clarification that I could ask

You could try

So give me a question give me the question which house

It did say along with the the borderline

Which one is it?

It's 13 Poplar Way.

Could you show me that one, please?

I don't know where that is on the...

So I'm not giggling about which one?

Mr. Hilly is very excited to go and point it out.

Zenab Hearn - 1:09:59

Mr. Hilly, please do, sir.

Go and touch it for me, please.

Which one?

Yeah.

Oh, right, okay.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

There you are, you did get an answer.

I did.

I'm not gonna take any more questions

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:10:16

about the statements being made.

Thank you.

Now can I call Oliver Goeford and Tor.

Again gentlemen you have three minutes to make your presentation.

Yeah we'll be splitting it into two parts.

That's okay?

Public Speaker - 1:10:49

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this application today.

Firstly, I would like to thank planning officers, statutory consortees and the wider project

team for considerable time and effort they have invested in working proactively with

the applicant throughout the determination of this application.

Through the collaborative process, none of the statutory consortees raise an objection,

including the Highway Authority, Environment Agency, Local Flood Authority, Thames Water

and the Council's Heritage Officer.

As the Officer's report explains,

the Council cannot demonstrate a five -year

housing land supply, with a current land supply

of approximately 3 .73 years.

This means the presumption in favour

of sustainable development applies.

Applying that planning balance,

the Officer concludes that the proposal

represents an acceptable and sustainable form of development.

That conclusion reflects both the substantial

public benefits of the proposal

and the relevant planning policy context.

These planning benefits include 68 much needed homes providing a variety of mix, including

family homes and future -proofed adaptable properties, 20 affordable homes exceeding

policy requirements, biodiversity net gain over 75%, and publicly accessible open space.

While it is acknowledged that the site lies outside the Ickford neighbourhood plan settlement

boundary it nevertheless adjoins it and therefore represents a sustainable and

logical extension to the village. Furthermore, policies most important for

determining the location of new housing are now considered out of date and as

such attract reduced weight in the planning balance. This conclusion is

further reinforced by the council's emerging local plan which identifies the

as suitable, available and achievable for allocation as part of Buckinghamshire's

Future Housing Growth Strategy.

I will now hand over to Tor who is our drainage expert on this application.

Thank you Chairman.

My name is Tor Peebles and for 12 years I was the Lead Local Flood Authority responsible

officer for flood investigations in Surrey and Hampshire.

I want to start by recognising the very real flood concerns in Ixford.

The village has experienced significant flooding of sewage, surface water, groundwater and

falluvial flooding which have been the subject of statutory investigations.

We have taken these concerns extremely seriously.

We have carried out site specific modelling using accurate topographical survey data and

EA recommended two flow hydraulic modelling.

This goes beyond the national mapping and includes climate change allowances.

Modelling shows that parts of the site currently experience shallow surface water ponding after

development.

Those areas are removed from risk all homes sit safely outside the model flood zones and dwellings are in flood zone one

We propose a full drainage system that captures rainfall on the site and stores it safely up to the 100 year storm plus 40 %

for climate change

Discharge is restricted to 4 .4 litres per second

The finished floor levels for the site will be raised for 600 mil above the 100 plus climate change level protecting the homes

Okay, I'm afraid that's that's your time. Yeah

Thank you

Points of clarification.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:14:00

and

kind of exciting.

I need you to make your

way the,

The flood

drainage officer needs to leave us a quarter to four. So I want to pick up on some of the issues

So in this debate, I may call her in to clarify some of the points that you may be picking up. Okay

So it's just a clarification of that. So

Cancer Smith

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:14:53

Thank Thank You chair and and I'm sure that most of our questions are going to be

Relating to to the flood risk and and I see that there's a condition in the reports about the flood mitigation

Requirements for the site. I mean we've heard a lot about the previous development in the way that that also had flood mitigation

Requirements, but that it still made the situation considerably worse in the community

So I wanted to pick up on what you said about

Firstly that you're able to collect rainwater

water, particularly given the expected increase in rainwater with climate change, and an intense

short -term downpour that we've experienced recently. So you said that you would collect

that on site. I wonder if you could explain what that means. But also if you could, clearly

all your focus has been on this site and how this site will be managed. But I wonder if

you could just reflect about the broader infrastructure issues that we heard from the parish council.

and particularly their section 19 report that seems to be have been ignored I think by by this council and how that

Really ought to be assisted in some way by your development

Okay

Public Speaker - 1:16:09

So I'll address the first point say

The way the drainage system is designed

Considerable numbers of the raids will be permeable paving so that in itself will hold water kind of where it currently is

then drain down into the attenuation basin which is in the upper sort of centre just

next to the entrance so that will then hold water so that will then fill up and then drain

down in slow time through an outfall into the existing water course.

So essentially water that would otherwise have entered the water course through the

dip between the furrows, between the ridges rather than the field as it stands at the

moment, that water will still get there just via a different route, i .e. through permeable

paving that may, depending on the detailed design, be some level of interception as rainwater

even comes off the roofs. And then so we slowed down to the point of discharging 4 .4 litres

per second, which is about half the current rate of discharge from the site into that

same water course.

Then I apologise because I misunderstood your submission. I've seen elsewhere where there

is groundwater storage. Given that you're at the top of a development that slopes down

towards the greatest flood risk. I just slightly baffled as why you haven't

included that rather than an attenuation basin which is designed to clear water

off the site. It is an attenuation basin just there. We can't infiltrate into the

ground and don't want to because the groundwater we've modelled as being at

ground level because we know that you know the groundwater comes up to about

ground level and it's presumably quite a big feature when it can work. Certainly

it's been from the comments today,

entering and infiltrating the FALSA

and presumably the service water, sewer and highway drainage

as well as private laterals.

So in this instance, we've assumed no infiltration

to ground, we're not putting any subterranean storage,

firstly because it's expensive and not a great design anyway

it doesn't meet the, from my perspective,

I don't think it meets the national standards

for sustainable drainage.

So we're doing it above ground storage

within that attenuation basin

with a discharge into the same water course

that the water was kinda getting into.

Okay, Vicky, did you want to add anything to that?

No, I don't think it was...

So you think the attenuation they're proposing is adequate?

Vikki Keeble - 1:18:18

It meets the national standards, yes, and it's policy compliant.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:18:22

Okay, thank you.

Vicky, can you confirm that the previous development also met national standards?

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:18:29

It met the relevant national standards at the time, yes.

Vikki Keeble - 1:18:34

So the national standards for this development they've been updated

Okay

Can't you Cornell?

Public Speaker - 1:18:52

Yeah, all I want all I want to be able to do at this stage is to look at some of the flooding issues

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:18:54

before Vicky leaves us and

So council Cornell is yours to do with flooding

Mine's to do with flooding, thank you, Chair.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:19:05

It's just a small one. You're going to raise the level so the water comes down into the village.

And you're going to have an attenuation pond up there.

And you're happy with that, that you're going to drop the water down into the village and flood it some more.

Public Speaker - 1:19:28

So water from that site drains into the village already. It will be controlled to drain into the village still.

But once you've got housing up there, it won't be absorbing so much, will it?

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:19:35

Public Speaker - 1:19:37

So we've assumed no absorption at all because of high groundwater. So recognising that,

yes, there will be hard surfacing in a green field, where the field that is green now,

that's where you put in the attenuation, you slow that flow within the site before

allowing it to run off. So it's not just concrete. You can't, as you go through the

the road, so that won't happen here. It will run down onto the road on the site, which

is permeable. That road will then slow the flow across the site into the attenuation

basin, which will hold water and then discharge it at a controlled rate, less than the current

rate of runoff into the existing stream. So it follows the same format of drainage through

the site. It's going to require some lifting, isn't

it, and modelling of the land? The levels will change as part of the development.

Okay, Councillor Gibbon.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:20:32

I just have to ask about this Condition 1 from the LLFA and I've got two questions on this.

One was that they're requesting groundwater level monitoring over the winter period from November till April

and then flotation calculations based on groundwater levels encountered during winter monitoring.

Are you going to be doing that?

Someone will be doing that. I hope we get the contract.

Because this apparently has got to be done before any houses are built. So I'm assuming

you'll be doing that this winter?

When it's commissioned, yes, that will then happen.

And the other one was, will you be dealing with this foul capacity or groundwater infiltration

problem before occupation?

Because this has been spoke about before, you will be dealing with that.

Public Speaker - 1:21:31

No, there's a statutory undertaker that manages a surgeon as a duty to drain the area

Appropriately and managed the impact of flooding on their assets

Okay, thank you. Can someone go?

My question was actually

Can't go on

Sorry, is that was that me?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:21:49

Everyone's answering your questions today

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:21:52

Okay, just just a couple so you used the terminology about the five -year land supply

You know, I think there's a little bit of...

Councillor Gaughan, sorry.

Can we just stick to flooding at the moment?

Oh, sorry.

Because that's why we've got Vicky available to us.

Oh, I understand.

OK.

Well, the only, you know, we've mentioned the furrows, but I find, you know, like the

officer said, it meets the national standard.

Only if God created a world as a national standard, because each area varies to what

is required to move water.

and there's a flood problem there,

and I think we're just pushing it around

to see where it goes, but that's just my opinion.

Casa Paul.

Thank you, Chairman, and apologies

if I call you Mr. Tor.

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:22:41

I missed your surname, and I'm struggling hearing

when people aren't speaking into the microphones today.

The previous speaker mentioned

conditions that could be put on that would provide the parish council with assurance

or the flood group within the village. Have you looked at those? Have you considered those?

Or is this a question for our flood officer about issues downstream which they believe

will be caused by this development.

I think that's a matter for the council officers.

Vicky, is that something you've been involved in with the section 19?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:23:31

Vikki Keeble - 1:23:35

So the section 19, so the flood investigation report, so that is dealt with by others in

the lead local flood authority but it does make recommendations.

recommendations. Um, those recommendations are not obligations.

So as a council, we can't enforce that they are done. They are,

they are advisory to our, our, our, our partners.

So we developed that in collaboration with those partners and in consultation

with others. Um, there is progress being made on them. Um,

but none of those recommendations sit particularly with the lead local flood

authority. They may sit with like Buckinghamshire highways, for example,

and others okay because generally speaking the funding for whatever the

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:24:16

outcome is is carried out by the water authority or environmental authority

Vikki Keeble - 1:24:26

funding can come from multiple sources for example flood projects its central

government and Buckingham council can bid into funding pots but there's a

business case we have to follow both internally and externally.

Okay, thank you.

So answer your question.

If I may just follow up.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:24:42

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:24:44

So we're kind of dependent on if there is an issue required downstream, we're dependent

on funding from elsewhere.

We can only advise.

We can't instruct.

Vikki Keeble - 1:24:58

So in respect of this development, we are dealing with the surface water runoff that

that falls within the site and ensuring

that it doesn't increase flood risk elsewhere.

So this scheme is outlined in nature.

So as the lead local flood authority,

we have recommended planning conditions

that the planning officers have considered.

Councillor Gibbon talked through some part

of those conditions.

And there's two conditions that are relevant.

So there's the surface water drainage strategy,

which will be the detailed design of that strategy

because this application is outlined.

And then there's a secondary condition that relates to,

that relates to the drainage strategy

and ensuring that the flood risk downstream

for the receiving ordering watercalls

in which the site discharges to

doesn't experience increased flood risk.

So there's further work to be done

which is secured by condition as the detailed design progresses for the site

Okay, can I just clarify a point

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:26:10

Mr. Peebles, I

Know we're not dealing with it at the moment

I just like to make sure the slab level that you're going to be dealing with with the site

Clearly will raise the properties higher

Yes, and is that to protect them from being flooded or is it to allow the water to flow off?

Sorry, can you just repeat the question?

Public Speaker - 1:26:32

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:26:36

You'll be looking to reserve matters about setting the slab level.

So, presumably, you want to set that slab level quite high?

Public Speaker - 1:26:47

600 mil above groundwater level – groundwater plus climate change, rather.

So yeah, so wherever, where your groundwater

and your sort of, your flood level will be,

you will have a 600 mil raise.

Now the particular property itself,

it may not be 600 mil above the ground

because that flood level might be lower

than the ground at that location, if you see what I mean.

But yeah, so they will be raised in order

that they're not affected by an extreme flood,

i .e. outside of the modelled extents.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:27:28

Okay. Councillor Stoswami. Thank you. In your statement you said the underground

storage was not good and not effective. Now I recognise that developments can

take place and I recognise they have taken place where they can prevent and

improved flooding. I'm at odds with the community because I have development in my own

community where that all the underground water storage was put in that holds the

water so consequently that doesn't get mixed with sewage and drainage water and

it lets it go long after the flood event has been finished because it's managed

into a lake. So I find it curious the statement because that was approved

historically long before this development, long before that development, to a higher

standard of attainment than you're saying.

So I'm struggling with the idea that you're saying that it doesn't work because I've

seen it work.

And that's why I'm struggling with your statement around that.

And then I'm also struggling with the drainage and sewage issues in the sense that we know

there's an issue and I'm not assured you've,

in your limited time you had,

were able to demonstrate how you as a developer

were going to address that issue.

That might be something technical,

but I don't recognise what you said

from my limited experience of seeing developments going.

Okay.

Yeah, glad you asked that.

So the difference between underground storage

Public Speaker - 1:29:05

and above ground storage is in this particular location

There is a vulnerability to groundwater ingress already.

So having anything below the ground for things to store, like the sewer, for example, the

fousa which is getting infiltrated with groundwater, we don't want that happening to an underground

storage tank.

The discharge rate from that tank in the locations that you're describing may be the same as

the above ground storage.

So whether it's above or below ground in terms of that attenuation, the same rate of discharge

can be achieved.

So it does meet the number coming out of it.

However, the update of the national standards in 2025 really sought to push developers away

from using underground tank storage to attenuate water and push for above -ground measures,

which also have biodiversity and immunity benefits as well as managing the water effectively.

So thanks for asking to clarify that.

But that's one of the shifts in the national standards that moves us away from the underground

storage option.

Here, there'd be the risk of groundwater infiltration, which would not help.

so that would absorb capacity from groundwater

getting into the system,

which you would then lose when there's a storm,

when the groundwater is already high.

With regards to sewage, can I just confirm,

you mean mitigating sewage issues that are occurring

in the village at the moment?

I mean, you've known there's an issue

and you're coming forward with development

in an area which is compromised,

and I think that's known,

and sewage gets into the river and the water courses,

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:30:33

and then we know that there's whatever.

So we know it and I'm curious because with the water storage,

my understanding of it is my own area,

it's a sealed unit, it doesn't have anything to do with drainage and sewage,

the sewage and that taken in a different area

and that's the reason that they're separated,

it's because fresh water and foul water are separated.

So I'm curious that you think that that would get into it because it doesn't.

So in this instance the surface water and foul is separated

So the water that began into the basin

Would be surface water not foul

Public Speaker - 1:31:12

The foul water be drained separately into the foul system which runs up and down

recognising that there are issues where the foul sewer is being flooded in legal terms by

inundation of

groundwater into that system

So there are issues there for which there is a statutory undertaker in asset management

period 8 that has a duty to address some of those things in conjunction with the other

statutory bodies that have powers and duties in that space as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councillor Munger.

Thank you, Chairman.

Mr Peebles, inevitably what you're proposing in terms of mitigation, flooding mitigation,

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:31:56

is it's a technical issue.

And I would just wonder how much of what you're telling us

is theoretical and for how much of what you're proposing

you could illustrate practical examples

that are already in operation.

Do you mean on things like permeable paving

and these other sorts of features?

Public Speaker - 1:32:21

The above ground storage, for example.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, yeah.

Scotland's been doing this since the 80s and they're really quite good at it.

So there's loads of examples up there.

In England, we've been getting on, like we've been adapting into this space since 2015,

since the consultation and the push for sustainable drainage under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 came into effect.

A good example of where surface water is managed through, for example, permeable paving is

Sainsbury's over the road, where a lot of that surface water is drained into the car

parking spaces, is stored there for a period before it then runs off the site to wherever

it goes, presumably into the surface water sewer.

Similar things like attenuating water about planters are being used.

That's a new sort of sector of the industry that's growing since the 2025 national standards

came in.

But the principles of discharging a site at the green field rates has been a pretty well -understood

principle certainly for the 13 years that I've been working in the flood risk management

space, not just the drainage space.

And that's in order to replicate, and I know it's not replicating it with the existing

situation, but it replicates the runoff rate from the site tomorrow as it is today in order

to ensure that there's no downstream flood risk.

And the key evolution in England and Wales

was the Flood and Water Management Act,

where the push away from sticking in a pipe

and get it away was sought to be reversed.

And that followed on from the pit review in 2007 to 2009,

where the review of significant flooding in Somerset

and Gloucestershire led to a review of how drainage is

designed in England and Wales.

I'd say that the Scots have been doing it,

because they could get more rain.

You've thrown a lot of dates of different changes.

Help me with this then.

Cllr Llew Monger - 1:34:18

There was a change in the requirements which the officer

from the LLFA has referred to last year, okay?

So obviously that level of mitigation didn't apply

when the adjacent site was developed.

And the adjacent site is flooding now.

There's demonstrable evidence of serious flooding at that site and the fact that tankers are

there permanently pumping away water.

How can you assure us that what you are proposing today isn't going to happen again?

Because frankly, I remain unconvinced that the same won't apply.

So I think the flooding, can I just confirm the flooding is happening not on the new site

but downstream of the new site?

Public Speaker - 1:35:06

Well, there's pictures of it at the gates to your site.

Yes, on the road immediately off it.

So what I'm not saying is that IKFID is not going to be at risk of flooding because of this one development.

IKFID is at risk of flooding no matter what you develop there.

The road specifically is vulnerable to flooding because of the way that road and the properties adjacent to it have evolved,

as well as the evolution of the ordinary watercourses and drainage systems that drain into those ordinary watercourses in that area.

There are specific vulnerabilities around maintenance as well as the capacities of that

network.

So as a flood risk manager by profession rather than necessarily a drainage engineer, there

are significant flooding issues within the village.

What we've sought to do with this site is to ensure that none of those are made worse.

The modelling that we have done demonstrates there is a smaller area of betterment in the

immediate vicinity of the discharge point.

What it won't do is magic the flooding away further down the village.

No, no.

But you won't make it worse is what you're saying.

That's the intent and that's what the modelling is for, Shane.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Vicky, did you want to add anything to it?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:36:20

Vikki Keeble - 1:36:23

I think the only point that I'd wish to raise is that within the submission from the applicant,

within the flood risk assessment

and through subsequent consultations

with the lead local flood authority.

Sorry, could you just speak up a little bit?

Oh yes, sorry.

So the scheme includes a submerged outfall

in the event that the receiving water calls is in flood.

So what that does is test how the surface water drainage

scheme within the development copes

without being able to discharge or discharge

at a lower rate.

So that shows that there isn't any flooding occurring on the development site as well.

So it does take a robust approach to understanding the flood risk within the local area.

Okay.

And you're happy that there's a management process for maintaining it?

Yes.

So maintenance will be secured.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:37:12

It will.

Okay.

Vikki Keeble - 1:37:15

Good.

Okay.

Tori?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:37:21

Flooding, just for clarity, I was at a reading the legislation now to mention.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:37:27

In our assumptions around this development, did we, were we minded to observe the regulations in the flood environment?

Sorry, can you speak into the mic?

Sorry, sorry Chair, sorry Chair, I was enjoying the talk.

The flood in the legislation rent mention which is the flood alleviation Act which

2015 which is referred to when we were

We can't we can't hear you back here. Please speak into the mic. Sorry in the

the legislation

2015

When we were assessing this as a planning authority what

What huge to be taken that because the legislation is quite prescriptive about the mitigations

and what needed to be done.

It's just were you minded to that when you were assessing this?

Public Speaker - 1:38:30

So we reviewed the application against the local plan policy and the national standards

Vikki Keeble - 1:38:36

for sustainable drainage which were updated in 2025.

So are you are you referring to the 2010 Act?

The Act, I'm saying it goes to 2010, it was new updated in 2015 and became legislation

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:38:57

that was under the coalition government and that's what we were referred to in the discussions

that the legislation that the developer currently told us that they were working towards.

That's why I'm asking were you minded when you

Revolved in draught the report to be mindful to the obligations and within that piece of legislation

In the way it affects first discharging our duties as a planning authority

So that piece of legislation is around the roles and responsibilities of the lead local flood authority

Vikki Keeble - 1:39:24

It doesn't specifically relate to

to planning applications, we rely on the national planning policy framework and any local development

plans.

So that would be the relevant legislation and, well, relevant policy that we reviewed.

So the 2010 Flowing Water Management Act is more about an establishment of responsibilities

and powers.

It doesn't specifically relate to planning matters.

There is a schedule in there, but that's not enacted around the SUD's approval body.

Thank you.

Colleagues, we focus very much on flooding there.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:40:04

Was there any particular issues about highways we wish to raise with these two speakers that

they mentioned that they had mentioned?

Councillor Smith.

Thank you, Chairman.

There was a bit of an issue about, I can't remember how you phrased it, but about the

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:40:29

transport plan for building, but specifically for new residents.

And I just wondered if you've assessed the likelihood of residents to the new developments

using the, oh, God, I need to look it up.

I can't remember the name of the road.

The one that goes over Bridge Road that goes kind of east of Ickford, given the it's not

well connected by roads, additional houses mean that some roads that are extremely problematic

at the moment could be quite significantly affected.

I wonder if you've given that much thought into that.

Yeah, so we have a transport consultant appointed on this job, as one would anticipate.

Public Speaker - 1:41:18

We did tricks modelling in terms of trip generation across the site.

We also looked at the access off Ickford Road and made modelling and assumptions in terms

of how much travel would go each way along that road, recognising that that would obviously

affect capacities further down that road network and then we actually you

mentioned that bridge we actually looked at that bridge specifically in terms of

what the impact would be on that bridge what the trip generation level would be

as well and sort of recognising that the the location as is will require some use

of a private motor vehicle but not we're not denying that okay thank you

You can raise it with technical as well when we when we go to cancer Cornell

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:42:09

Thank you chairman. Thank you chairman

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:42:13

Probably technical one, but it's if you're raising the level of the land

You're going to be requiring an enormous amount of lorries coming in the spoil aren't you?

So that's surely going to affect the roads in the village

That will be something we deal with under reserve matters on the trust transport

Can't locate it in the pack at the moment, but there's mention of an informal crossing

Can I just be clear where that is?

Are you talking about the link?

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:42:46

The link is it linked between the two. I think it was nice. It's not not the road then

And then it was on page 73

and I think it may be worth if I could suggest you leave it until the technical

technical yeah okay thank you and then I would just want to ask about the traffic

count traffic modelling into the into the village with the again you can only

out traffic modelling we could leave that mr. Marsh yep thank you right I think

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:43:34

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:43:42

Kansas does we are we do an additional round of questions that can we just do

this this was we focused on flooding because Vicky has to leave us yeah this

This is general.

This is still with the gentleman, if you've got a question on what they've said.

Thank you, thank you. I just needed clarity, I'm not going on for love.

I'm well at it and there's a way I would put it now.

I'll put you right.

We're going to move the mic nearer. There we go.

Why I want clarity, you stated, sir, in your deliverance that about the five -year land supply.

Would you have come forward with this development now had you not known about the five -year land supply

or was it not part of the decision -making process in coming forward with this development in the time that you have in the place that it is in the area that it is?

No, that was not part of the speech.

It was. Yes, it was. Yes, it was.

That's why I'm asking.

He said about the five -year land supply and it's relevant.

He said about the five -year land supply.

Yeah, OK.

So the question is would they come forward with it now if it hadn't been for the five -year

land supply?

It's a reasonable question.

And in – are you aware of the – in delivering this application, I'm presuming you're

of the transport issues in respect not to the highway issues, but in respect to the

rural locality of it and the new residents if they were to agree, plus getting catchment

to education.

And are you looking at that in your deliberations in the determination factors at the end of

application because any development should be sustainable.

Yes, I agree that any development should be sustainable and I believe this development

is sustainable.

Public Speaker - 1:45:53

In regards to the sort of the process that goes through sort of promoting a site and

then bringing it forward as an application, it's quite a process that goes back quite

a long way.

There was a pre -application that was undertaken with the local authority in the first instance.

There was also a pre -application undertaken with the lead local flood authority at the

time and there was a pre -application undertaken with the highways authority as well.

So we did quite a lot of ground research in the first instance.

Running in parallel to that, we were actually working on the call for sites process for

the new local plan, reg 19.

So the timing of it is obviously partly implemented by the five -year land supply, but that's not

the main reason why.

The main reason is that as you build through the process, as you get feedback from various

statutory consultees, you revise a scheme and you work up what you think is an appropriate

development.

If at the first point of call when we have done pre -application we have got a no straight

off the bat from the local authority, we might have been in a different position.

We didn't get that.

We had a constructive process and put forward a scheme that worked on that collaborative

process.

We also are in a position where we're supported by the local plan for the new special strategy.

So it seems like the right time to bring forward a scheme that actually not only is appropriate

now for dealing with needs and acute undelivery at the moment, but also aligns with the future

plans for Buckinghamshire.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

I think it's important, the clarity around that.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:47:38

So I'm just going to do a little round -up actually of what's been said.

We were talking about flooding and, you know, what you're putting in.

I'm just flicking that for a second.

I'm not going to get into it.

But you said, you know, you're putting a system into place that hopefully won't – well,

you didn't use the word hopefully, you used a different word actually – that won't

affect the rest of the village.

But it's, you know, it could, it might not.

But I'm just going to go back to what you've said.

So, you know, you've been talking about the need about the five -year supply.

Your need is the neighbourhood plan, but this one joins it.

It's, you know, it joins to it.

They were your words.

And then you went on about your need that none of the authorities have sort of gone

against what you've been asking within the application.

Okay.

That's what you've been pushing all along.

But what I'd like to know is what about the villagers' need?

I'd like to know what consultation, have you spoke to the flooding people, have you

spoke to the parish council?

All I've heard is your need.

Public Speaker - 1:48:45

I don't think I've been saying my need or the need of the development.

You've used that terminology quite frequently.

I think the need and the requirement of Buckinghamshire to bring forward housing is what I mean by

the need, and that is the housing requirement for Buckinghamshire that is set nationally

and comes down from there.

In terms of how we have liaised with various statutory consultees, as I expressed, we have

gone through pre -application with the various statutory consultees as required and have

fed into a collaborative process on that.

It's not, we're not just sort of pushing out what we think is right and not listening to

anyone.

I want to clarify that.

We've, it has been a collaborative approach the whole way through.

The, it's, it is, it is something to say that this has been a scheme that's been worked

up on the basis that we've got to a position where there's no objection to the application

as is.

And that isn't something that just because we've thrown in a lottery ticket and, and

got a result. That's as a result of a lot of hard work from various members of our team,

but various members of the council as well. We've also liaised, we have liaised with the

parish council, um, as well. We have, we have undertaken conversations with the parish council

whilst, yeah, whilst, whilst we understand that there is different views on that, you

can never get everyone to agree on that and anything ever, but we, we have done the technical

work required. Thank you very much for answering that but it's it's you know

the reason some people don't agree that's why it's called into committee

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:50:26

for us to think about it as well. Okay last question Councillor Huxley.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:50:33

Cllr Andy Huxley - 1:50:38

Thank you Chairman, just wanted to clarify regarding did you say that foul water drainage

runs down worming Hall Road I said I assumed it does it does is that likely

to be a route for transport for the site as well

see construction sorry construction transport I'll leave that to you to

Public Speaker - 1:51:07

answer in terms of access and build so we're not yet at that stage to come we're

very much at outline at the moment, uh,

reserve matters will come through that addresses that.

And then there'll also be after that,

there'll also be conditions of construction management plans, et cetera.

Yeah, that's fine. All I was concerned about,

we've had an issue here in Aylesbury where, uh,

drainage has collapsed because of heavy, heavy use on the road. And, uh,

I'm just mindful of that fact. And hopefully you'll,

you may take that on board for future consideration.

When it comes back to reserve matters, when it comes back to reserve matters, we can pick those up.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:51:46

Okay, gentlemen, thank you for your time this afternoon.

Colleagues, I've been asked if we could have a short break, so can we reconvene at 4 o 'clock?

4 25/02196/AOP - Land East of Worminghall Road Ickford

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:52:04

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:52:07

Was really excited when I want to get the meeting started I was communicating with councillor Ashley way and he said his apologies

For the record, please. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:52:16

Okay colleagues. Um, we're going to go into technical

And again, as I said at the start we do it by subject

So we're looking at highways, flooding and any other links that we need to identify.

So if we start with highways, Councillor Smith, you had a question about the link.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

And the specific concern I had really in the report was that any increase to the population

of Ickford will lead to an increase in the use of bridge roads.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:52:52

And I'm very aware that the bridge on Bridge Road is in a really dodgy state.

I seem to remember, I think it's still the case, but it's got a different weight limit

from Oxfordshire as it has from Buckinghamshire.

And it's a real concern.

And I just wonder if you've properly assessed how that's going to be managed.

Reserve matters you'll deal of course with the construction.

But I'm just thinking in terms of the increased number of people who are trying to find the

is shortest, fastest route to get to the M40?

Yeah, that has been covered in their assessment, done quite a robust assessment.

They've assessed for a larger development than they're actually putting forward and

still find that there's no capacity issues, no highway safety issues.

The distribution is done in accordance with the travel survey data.

David Marsh - 1:53:43

So I guess what I was fishing for is strengthening of the bridge or at least coordinating with

Oxfordshire so that there is a single weight limit on the bridge.

That's not part of the proposal, no.

Okay, thank you.

Casa Cornell.

Can you speak into these microphones?

They don't seem to be very good today.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:54:09

They're just very difficult to hear.

Thank you Chairman. I don't know if it's technical or...

Highways technical.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:54:20

It's about the lorries?

Yes.

Because they're going to be raised to the level, so there's going to be an awful lot of lorries coming in and out.

So what are we going to be doing to cope with that, the village being inundated by heavy lorries?

That will be dealt with under reserve matters, under the Transport Plan.

Thank you. We all we're looking at at the moment is looking at the outline planning

Yeah, effectively the principle of this development and highway access

Thank you. We can't we can't deviate away from those those issues and I understand what you want to do

But they have to come up with a different plan. Thank you

Tessa mount barn

No, you okay cancer poll

Thank You chairman. I'm not sure whether it's a highways technical but

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:55:11

Are you able to tell me the necessary raising of the site due to the water level?

So do you know where the water level is in comparison to the ground level of the site?

The slab level will be something we put in in reserve matters

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:55:29

Yeah, well, they say they're only at 600 mil above ground level. Yeah

Okay, Councillor Huxley

I'm fine, thank you, Chairman.

Councillor Gaughan.

Does my microphone work okay, Chairman?

No, your voice is very good.

Good.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:55:59

So, I'd just like – something that got mentioned earlier on, actually, was rights of way.

and it said about a footpath there which was for,

which was a horse right of way as well.

If we could,

I'm just trying to see where it goes through.

There was mention of it going through the site

that would like, someone mentioned it.

Oh, it was in that letter that Harry wrote

about a bridleway going through that site.

That's what I'm just trying to establish.

So there is a link to the Bridal Way to the north that this development is providing.

Difficult to show.

It's just to kind of to…

Just imagine it.

To the right of Warmingill Road, to the north of the site.

There's a link coming out the site.

Is that the link going out to it?

Yeah, there's a little…

I've got it right here on my phone.

So they said that it came through near theirs and I couldn't see it and then met up.

I just want to know right away where those horses are going to go through.

That's quite interesting.

But let me just correct it.

Isn't there an issue with this, Zainab?

Zainab?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:57:18

Zainab, there's no issue with that link.

Has it not been agreed?

So this application is seeking all matters reserved

other than vehicular access so the matter that is agreed is

vehicular access and all other

Points of access would be subject to reserve matters. Okay, because that letter was incorrect about saying that there was a

Right -of -way for that was incorrect. Yes, that's right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much

And there is a condition securing that link, so I'll just let David speak to that.

Yeah, so we would treat that as access, as a pedestrian access, so that is that condition

David Marsh - 1:58:02

to be provided by the development.

Not just as a walkway, but as a bridleway.

Yeah, the connexion to the bridleway.

OK.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:58:10

No, no, sorry.

So where would the link be?

So the link would go from the bottom there so horses could get through the bottom

No, no, there's there's not a private way going through the site there's a connexion to the bride away at the north

What's the point to connect to the bride away so people can go on the right away? What with a horse?

David Marsh - 1:58:32

Sorry, I'm just digging into that. Where so where would it go through through the estate? Would it be allowed to go through there?

Well, this is a reserve map. This is an outline application.

So the reserve matters throughout the site is not being dealt with now.

We're dealing with an access. So they have provided an access to the Bridal

Way. Okay.

An upgrade on the highway to connect to the Bridal Way.

Right. Okay. Thank you.

That's where confusion has been. Well, if I had my horses going that direction,

I'm sure they'd get confused too. Okay.

I can't touch it.

I'll chestnut that horse, innit.

I want to clarify, and the chair will correct me if I'm wrong,

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:59:19

what work's been done on the transport of this site,

and maybe that will come up in the reserve matters,

but we're not going to be discussing those,

so I need to ask now, there will be children who live on this site,

it's not going to be a retirement home presumably and and they need to get to

what we've always established there's no transport and no free bus and no

children getting there something we touched on in council our concerns about

education and I'm presuming that there's some consideration of that

because every vehicle will be going out of there at nine o 'clock in the morning

what eight o 'clock in the morning to go to school and coming back at whatever

time with the children because or because there's no bus so what what what

are we looking at it and it doesn't show on the site the footpaths didn't show

there why they are didn't show because that's going to be done there they

reserved matters and they will come forward either a s -106 agreement or

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:00:26

within the site itself so in a moment we're only able to look at the outline

planning and the highways access to it.

So all those other points we will have to wait until the reserve matters comes in.

Are you saying that the reserve matter is going to come back to us or are they going

to go back to officers?

Because we won't get to comment on them if they're going back.

If it's called in then it would be.

The report suggests that it won't be.

That's why I'm asking.

If it's called in it would be referred back to members.

Yeah.

It doesn't automatically come back to us if it's reserve matters.

Can I just pick up on a point about additional sort of connexions into village and how they

will be used and I'll just refer to David to speak to those.

Thank you.

So yeah, again, as part of the development they are providing a connexion on the left -hand

side of that picture.

David Marsh - 2:01:22

There's a little connexion onto Warmingill Road down there.

Zenab Hearn - 2:01:31

They're also providing a new footway to connect with the existing provision down Warmingill

Road.

This is down towards the school, towards the local services.

There's also some improvements on the route to the school, including upgraded tactile

crossings and widened footways.

It also includes a new cycle shelter at the school.

And just coming back to your point about there is an education contribution sought from this

development.

There's a recognition that this will place demand on educational facilities and that

has been sought through the section 106 legal agreement and then the Education Authority

will deal with it appropriately to mitigate against the impact of additional school places

and pupils from this development.

As part of 106 there is also a contribution towards improving the bus services within

Iqfot.

OK.

Good luck with that.

David Marsh - 2:02:35

Councillor Gough.

Thank you.

I'm just going to dig into that.

I just want to get my head straight into this.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:02:44

You said there was going to be some 106 million to go towards the school for the impact that

that will have.

So the school is over filled now?

So are they looking to build a new classroom?

I think those details are with the local education authority as to, you know, how that money

Zenab Hearn - 2:03:06

is then spent best for the local area.

but they're looking at this development in and amongst other measures.

So I don't want to speak on behalf of exactly, I don't want to say it's going to be committed

to so and so project, but there is a contribution sought, and my understanding is based on the

calculation done by the applicant, it's going to be in the region of over a million pounds

from the 66 dwellings being sought from this development, and that's just to education

to mitigate against that impact from this development itself.

Okay the only reason I ask that, I am concerned because I chair the Children's and Education Select Committee

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:03:47

and administration of schools is a massive topic so that's why I'm a bit concerned of this discussion.

Okay thank you.

Councillor Pohl.

Are we still on highways technical?

Yep.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:04:00

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:04:04

I want a technical not a highways technical but education's been mentioned and that's what I want to do.

Yeah.

Yeah, fine, yeah.

Okay.

So this is reserve matters.

We're, you know, not able to drill deep down into these at the moment, but what concerns

me about the S106 in this compared to if it came forward after Reg 19 and the Bucks local

plan is is there any difference in infrastructure requirements between this

coming forward now and it coming forward by the local plan so numbers of

affordable housing dwellings per hectare and infrastructure delivery in the local

area or within or without? So the small sites policy, which is up on

the screen, notes that the sites listed in Appendix K, which this is one of them, shown

on the policies map, are allocated for residential development or residential then mixed use

Zenab Hearn - 2:05:15

developments or associated uses. They will be developed in accordance with the relevant

local plan policies and key development requirements listed in that appendix. All sites will make

an appropriate financial contribution to any necessary infrastructure requirements, including

towards additional capacity in local school and health facilities. So in respect of this

development, it is meeting I think first of all we're looking at it against the current

local plan, which is the development plan in place, so we need to take that into consideration.

we can only give limited weight to the emerging local plan, notwithstanding, so this has been

allocated for 95 houses in the emerging local plan, we have a development before us for

66 dwellings. The reason the applicant has explained to me that that has taken into account

the site specific constraints. So we've had a look at, so I'm not entirely sure if the

95 dwellings has taken account of the flood risk issues and the need for attenuation,

but we've heard a lot about it today. The applicant has sought to seek a balance between

providing the houses on this site and then mitigating the impacts of the development.

and at the moment the recommendation before you is based on a development that works taking

into account its constraints in terms of meeting those.

So that's the difference.

I think that's a key difference, 95 dwellings and 68 dwellings that we're saying.

And I think that's explained because of the site specific constraints.

But in terms of delivering obligations, this is delivering the, you know, we've secured

a number of, yeah, and they've agreed to it as well.

that's more importantly the health contribution, the education contribution is something the

applicant has agreed to and if your recommendation is positive then we will follow through with

a legal agreement.

And should there be a change to that, of course it will be reported back to you.

Okay, Mr Chairman, I'm just concerned that the calculations that we've made under Reg

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:07:36

19 for the density as in this case won't apply to all sites just an observation

Okay

Thank You council three

Thank you

If it's okay with the chair they go back to

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:07:52

Education and it was mentioned are we okay to do that now?

The education referred to there be a contribution to education.

What's happening now with contributions which concerns me, it's not the developers fault, it's the way that we're writing them.

You get words in there like such other projects relevant to the local authority,

which means that any contribution from the developer through the development if agreed,

Isn't going to the local schools or the local secondary school because it's got a word in there

Which means that it will not necessarily

Benefit the community would have the development which is a concern to me. Just hold on a minute, please

That is not the case with

s106

If you look at it

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:08:45

Explain it

Sorry, we the education officers will specify a project for those contributions to go to and

And recall, those contributions are derived from DFE formula

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:08:57

calculating pupil yield arising from the development.

That project must be still one to two compliant.

It must relate to the, must mitigate the impact coming

from the development and be appropriately evidence based.

But sometimes, education team will secure the funds

but realise they need the funds for another project that will also suitably mitigate the

impacts from the development.

And so all that wording does is allow the education team to allocate those funds to

the other project.

Thank you.

And the localism at night was passed to ensure not – now, I'm reading from a section 106

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:09:45

agreement in Buckingham, which says the expansion of facilities to Buckingham primary, Mays

Morton and Buckland secondary school, first down school, special school, each other project

within relevant local authority which says what you said, but I worry that we assess

that.

The other thing is this is going to with the contribution to this here, whether the actual

I know it's going to go into detail which we're going to have to get someone to call

it in to be able to talk about it if it goes to the next stage. I think I'm really concerned

about the delivery of secondary school stroke education in the local area. I'm really concerned

about that. And it's not it's not the developer is going to deliver that it's going to be

the council. I don't think we go down that route on this application. That will be something

that we if it is called in on a reserve matters and a 106 detail can be dealt with and then

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:10:43

the lawyers will deal with the actual agreement on it.

Councilman Munger.

Just to carry on this particular point

and with respect to Laura Lee,

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:10:57

my understanding is the same as Councillor Stutchbury's,

that all Section 106 education contributions

are not necessarily specific to particular schools,

that there is always this option of funding going elsewhere and there has been many arguments

in the past about local schools not being supported from Section 106. I don't intend

to go into that now. However, you also made reference to the need to be SIL compliant,

but SIL doesn't apply in the former Ilsbrufville local authority area until you…

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:11:42

I'm not talking about a SIL fund.

I'm talking about SIL regulations and how they regulate what you can secure in a 106

agreement.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:11:57

Then I would hope that the applicant is listening as well as our officers and that due consideration

is given to the need to look very closely at the education needs of the existing Aitford

Primary School before the Section 106 is signed because that is not part of, it's part of

this application as explained by Zenab there.

So it is pertinent to today that we raise this issue of Section 106 education contribution

I am looking directly at the applicant when I say this.

I will just come in.

Zenab Hearn - 2:12:45

The regulation as Laura Lee has explained applies to legal obligations, so the section

106, and it requires there are three tests that need to be met.

It has to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

That is what the Education Authority has identified for this development.

And so any infrastructure contributions sought from this development, it has to meet that

test.

It's got to be directly related to the development, and it's got to be fairly and reasonably related

in scale and kind to the development.

So those are the three tests that we need to meet.

And of course, we'll be looking very closely at where that money will be spent to benefit

this development.

that money will not be taken into a pot that will go off elsewhere into Buckinghamshire.

It will be proportionately spent where this development will directly benefit.

Okay.

Thank you, Jo.

I think my question is why it's the same, because it's not just for the tots, but it's

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:13:46

up to the teenagers that we have to educate them.

And we talk about nursery schools, but we need secondary schools as well, don't we?

So does this come into, does SLO sits cover that?

It does. It's a contribution sort for both primary and secondary education.

Zenab Hearn - 2:14:01

Thank you very much. And also then how do we get the children there? Does that come into this one?

Yeah, well that's all, that's what will come out of the 106 agreement.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:14:07

Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:14:14

Okay, can we move on now? Is flooding, we've dealt with flooding, we've dealt with highways. Any other particular issues?

Yes.

When the specialist was here?

Yes.

Councillor Mahon?

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:14:43

Mr Chairman, I've got a couple of comments that I'd like to make on conditions.

And there was a lot of comments both in this evening's meeting and in previous meetings

about the lack of five -year land supply.

And it seems to be trumping everything, including neighbourhood plans.

So the first question I'd ask the officer is, when does a development contribute to

the five -year land supply.

Because I'm concerned here on page 72, item 5, utility provision, Thames Water are asking

for a condition.

It basically says until we get expansion, we don't want any occupation.

So that says to me that there's probably no incentive at the minute for the builder to

build out.

So, therefore, it won't contribute to the five -year land supply.

So, first question, when, and I'm assuming it could be when the building is watertight,

it could be when the building is occupied, that then it contributes to the five -year

land supply.

You could answer that one first and then I'll come back by May, seeing as...

Zenab Hearn - 2:16:18

Okay, so in response to that question, I first draw your attention to Condition 2. So Condition

2 requires that a reserve matters application has to be made within two years of planning

permission, if planning permission is granted within two years. And then Condition 3 requires

that it needs to begin within two years of granting approval of the last reserve matters.

So yeah, of the reserve matters application. So on that basis, if we consider they will

submit something within two years and then within two years they are expected to start,

That takes us to around four years.

In terms of when a house counts towards five -year housing land supply, it's not based on occupation,

it's based on in terms of what is counted as a completion.

It's when a dwelling is wind and watertight, so when a roof is fixed and windows and doors

are installed, that is when it's counted as a completion.

It's unlikely that the applicant or the developer will begin development if they don't have

a expected connexion to water supply.

So whilst Thames Water has applied that condition, the applicant has somewhere between four and

five years to fix that and I imagine that in that period they'll be able to secure their

connexion before occupation

Okay, thank you, that's very helpful and my second point about that name mr. Chairman. Yeah, and

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:18:07

what happens if a

Development can't comply with a condition and I say this again

Because if you look at the section 5 again utility provision page 72 owned electricity

it says

Rectory Woods Development could not comply with the condition to instal EV chargers

because of the lack of capacity on the power network.

So what is the implication here?

And I know it's a reserve matter, but I would assume that we're going to look for EV connexions

on this site if approved.

Yes.

So if you cannot comply with the condition, what are the consequences for the developer?

Well, they would be – they're expected to comply with the condition because it's

Zenab Hearn - 2:19:00

our policy requirement to expect dwellings to come forward.

But I also understand that building regulations require connexions to EV charging points

separately.

If a condition cannot be complied with, I think we'd need to really understand, you

know, at that point if there is an issue.

The expectation is that these conditions applied meet the six tests, that they are reasonable,

enforceable, et cetera, set out in planning guidance and the NPPF.

So we're not setting this development up to fail, so to speak.

It's not the conditions applied.

We have to be satisfied as an authority, and officers have gone through this quite carefully,

to make sure that the conditions are reasonable, necessary and enforceable, et cetera, to meet

those six requirements of applying any conditions.

Okay.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:20:02

I'm sorry, Chairman, but so I'm assuming then that Rectory Woods Development, it was

seen – it seemed unreasonable to have a condition saying they had to put in EV chargers.

Is that a fair assumption?

I don't know the circumstances of that case in that time.

These conditions that have been applied to this case, I can only speak for this case

itself.

I don't know what this rectory woods condition was and the circumstances of that case and

what the issue was with the utilities connexion.

If there was an issue here that has been identified by the applicant, we would have been told

and if it was a case that we're setting up obligations or conditions that cannot be met,

that would have been raised by the applicant already.

And that's not the case here.

Okay.

So my final point then is I have to assume now that the 33 conditions in this pack are

enforceable.

That is the officer recommendation, yes.

Thank you.

Zenab Hearn - 2:21:07

Okay. Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair. And digging into the utilities

point, I'm sorry to say, it's just that in paragraph 159, it's one of those paragraphs

that jumps out at you that basically says that the water pressure will be so low nobody's

going to have drinking water in Ickford. And so there has to be a condition. The condition

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:21:33

is, I can't remember where it is, Condition 31, that the houses can't be occupied until

Thames Water have put something in place to be able to manage that with a get -out course

or the phasing plan should be put in place. So building on Councillor Mahon's position,

point there. To what – I'm just concerned, really, that the losers on this will be the

rest of Iqfod. To what extent can you be absolutely sure that a developer isn't going to step

– one step, two steps ahead of the phasing plan so that we can end up with Thames Water

water dragging its feet, as we know Thames Water will drag its feet, and a developer

is driving forward because they really need a return on their quite considerable investment.

How can we be sure that we're not going to end up with water pressure so low in Iqford

that people really run out of drinking water?

So this is a condition recommended by Thames Water.

Zenab Hearn - 2:22:49

This is subject to their expectations that if they don't grant the entire connexion

upfront then they may grant a phased connexion to the applicant.

So the applicant would not be able to occupy their dwellings until this condition is discharged

and we have the evidence from Thames Water that there is sufficient supply to serve the

development without impacting the rest of IKFID?

I suppose the specific question really is why is there a get -out?

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:23:23

Why is it not that single condition that you just mentioned, which is that no home will

be occupied until the additional demand has been serviced, rather than an opt -out that

says that there can be a phasing plan that will kind of mix and match and maybe make

it work or maybe not.

The second condition, the either or, seems to be an odd thing to have when something

is so clear in terms of the assessment from Thames Water.

So it's a condition recommended by Thames Water, so they may consider that this development

Zenab Hearn - 2:23:55

could come forward in two phases or so.

And I think perhaps Thames Water have been a bit clumsy, if anything, because, you know,

on larger schemes that all of us in this room at some point have been involved with. There

will be different parts of the site that are connected. You've got Hamden Fields at the

moment. You've got the eastern neighbourhood, separate to the western neighbourhood, and

they'll have different utility connexions for those. And I think it's to allow for those

scenarios. But given the scale of the development, which is less than 100 dwellings, it's very

likely that Thames Water will look at the development as a whole, but I think it's a

model condition that they use and it's why, but if you think that it's small enough being

under 100 dwellings and you as members consider that actually that second ore is not needed

and you want the whole of it, I mean that's up to you as members to say can this condition

be amended and I think that would be – When we get to debate, can I propose that then

Because it just seems an outrage.

Start with you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:25:05

I'm very grateful for Greg bringing up the water issue,

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:25:10

because in North Buckinghamshire,

under angular water, and I know this would be correct,

if everybody turns a tap on now in MK18,

there will not be any water, because there's

not enough water now. So I've got no and Thames might be a historical firm if you listen to

the press. It might not be Thames who actually implement it. So I'm worried about the that

we are secure that Thames have got, it's got nothing to do with the development obligations.

it's Thames' obligation to the development that they can actually, I say, and they can

supply this water.

I have other questions, but this water one is crucial in a sense because if you go across

the whole of that valley, we're in almost an area with less water.

They're a statutory supplier of services and they're obliged to do it.

There's certain criteria set down.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:26:18

I have to leave I think under and ten litres per house if per day

So they are statutory supplier and it's their responsibility to do it. We have no control over that. We have no control whatsoever

Council Cornell

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:26:35

Thank you. I think my question is the same what I fail to understand with this application

Is that Thames water can't provide water nor can they remove the water?

So if they can't provide or remove the water sure that would stymie the application

It's because they can't provide the water for drinking they can't get rid of the sewage and everything else

They have actually said they will

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:27:01

They've said that they come back and they would come up with a scheme to do it. They are not objecting to the application

So that means they are obliged they are statutory

Consultee for us to ask. Can you do it?

Chair point of order, I don't think Thames water is a statutory consultee

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:27:20

They are a consultee, but I don't think they're statutory or have through specific resources

and utility their utility supplier

Their statutory supplier. Yeah, they're not a statutory consult consultee

As a matter of course, and I think in line with our statement of community involvement

we do consult Thames water on applications of this size and

Zenab Hearn - 2:27:37

They have responded to our consultation. They've raised no objection subject to the conditions

Okay, thank you very much. I think that's the end of our technical questions.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:27:50

How confident are you that we've just moved into a more positive part of it?

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:28:01

We've done quite a lot of negative. The developer has stated they want to deliver

higher than the Vale of Alsbury development plan, which is 29%.

And there's 25 % derisory in the Vale of Alsbury plan

and in the emerging Buckingham plan. How sure are we that when that's the

breakdown, how the breakdown of that development

might be because this is a village location,

particularly in there be people there who may wish to stay in the village,

who are born in the village, who...

OK, that's fine.

And I think that's important also, Chairman,

having encountered disability and lived with disability in the family,

are we conscious within that that there's going to be some units in there

which has got the right width of the door for disability access

to make sure that these are liveable properties for people and not difficult?

and that might be something the developer wants to do anyway.

These are reserve matter issues.

I can respond to this.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:29:13

In terms of accessibility, all dwellings are going to be M42 compliant so they can be adapted

Zenab Hearn - 2:29:17

should anyone require adapting their home at a later stage, but also there's a requirement

for 15 % of the affordable homes to be M4 3 compliant which is already a fit out accessible

home.

So it's ready for anyone that may have accessibility needs.

In that respect, all homes will either be adaptable or some homes will already be accessible

and that's also given some positive weight in the planning balance.

but the development does provide above policy requirements and that's been

recognised in making this recommendation to committee today okay can ask one more

question it's relevant to what I said about local connexions is there any

grounds in a future or possible development agreement to make sure that

we protect the like if you had a village exception scheme they you could do stuff

to protect the very nature to make sure that there is an uptake of people in the village

because at the moment we're moving everyone out of Buckinghamshire. And if that is possible,

can that be looked at? Sorry, that is not relevant to this application.

A rule of exception scheme is something totally different. I'm sorry we can't take that into

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:30:38

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:30:46

account. Councillor M

we lost at appeal. One, Great Hallwood and the other one was in Buckingham.

Okay. A simple question. Did the inspector remove some of the conditions that Buckingham

Shire Council Planning Authority had previously included in the application pack?

I can confirm the Inspector watered down or removed some of those conditions that we had

Zenab Hearn - 2:31:27

recommended and applied. We had one view. We put our view to the Inspector. The Inspector

took their own view on the conditions and that was the resultant decision.

And I believe some of the obligations were also amended by the Inspector.

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 2:31:49

Yes, that's right. Some of the obligations were amended. We felt, you know, we had a

position that we had advanced that was quite clear and we felt it was enforceable. The

Inspector took another view.

Okay, thank you very much. Now we're going to open debate.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:32:07

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:32:15

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:32:23

Thank you, Mr Chairman. And unfortunately, here we are again between a rock and a hard

place. And I have to say, first of all, to the officer, that the conditions imposed on

this application are robust, to say the least. And that is what's causing me the problem

here. Again. Because them conditions are put on to protect the residents and the communities

to the best of the officer's ability.

However, having listened to the officer answer my last question,

at this stage, and I'm not going to make a proposal,

but at this stage I'm not sure, as a gambling person,

I would want to gamble refusing this application and allowing it to go to appeal and the possibility

that we could lose all those conditions which at the end of the day is the only protection

our residents and community have. So I just want to listen. I'm not going to make a proposal.

I'm still open -minded here but I do want to listen to the rest of the debate but

there's where I sit at the minute thank you.

Okay thank you.

Councillor Mungo.

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Llew Monger - 2:33:58

I think it might be helpful to skim through the key points that I made notes of if you

bear with me.

The first thing was the question of the situation with the neighbourhood plan.

As the lead person of the very first neighbourhood plan developed in Buckinghamshire, I have

to say I have the greatest sympathy with all those people who have made great efforts and

contributions to developing neighbourhood plans across the county and indeed the country.

The problem that we now face is the failure of this council to deliver sufficient housing

in recent years has left us in a position where we don't have a five -year housing land

supply.

In fact, we have 3 .73 in the former Ilsbury Vale area,

which by a long way is the best in the county.

There's 0 .86 years in the former Chilton area,

0.97 years in South Bucks, the former South Bucks area,

and 1 .98 years in Wickham.

It's an absolute failure of delivery

of much needed housing.

and that's what puts us in the position that we're in today

and the neighbourhood plan not having any weight

as is the same with the Vale of Aylesbury local plan

because we don't have a five -year housing land supply

the tilted balance comes into play

and the only issue, despite all the other things we've talked about

it will come down to a decision about whether

the delivery of much needed homes outweighs the disadvantages that we've talked about

today.

Just picking up on them quickly, on the school situation, not directly related but it has

come up in the day, I suggest that the parish council has serious discussions with their

local member because there is a statutory obligation to deliver home school transport

where the only option available is more than two miles away.

And for record, Oakley is 3 .8 miles and Brilla is 5 .6 miles from Ickford.

So I think there's a conversation separately to be had there.

I made my point earlier about Section 106 monies from in terms of the education contribution

and I hope those words are picked up on.

The conditions which Councillor Mann has mentioned, there are 33 conditions and 12 informatives.

I think that Zen Abhearn has done a fantastic job in developing such detailed conditions

and I think it will be up to our planning enforcement team if this is approved to ensure

that those conditions are enforced.

I draw people's attention particularly to conditions

21 to 23, which cover the flooding issues.

And again, to pick up the earlier point,

that if this were to go to appeal,

which if it's refused, it certainly would,

it's a standard pattern that we're seeing develop now,

there is a risk that in agreeing an appeal the planning

inspectorate would dilute the conditions because we have seen that and Zainab has

confirmed that that happens. So the five -year housing land supply issue is

county -wide we're seeing this all over the county with the tilted balance and

We come down simply, as I said, to the weight to be given to the harm of the development

against the delivery of the housing need.

And we know the way that that will go.

And that is that the need for housing demonstrably outweighs the harm.

And I'm satisfied, I have to say, on the main cause for harm in this, from what I heard

from the applicant and that combined with the conditions

on flooding that, and we can only look at this application,

not the previous applications that are causing flooding.

I'm satisfied in my own mind of what I have heard today.

And with all of that in mind, I'm sure it'll come

as a great regret to the many members of the community

Who've come here today, but I would propose

acceptance of the officers

recommendation so your recommendation

That is indeed my recommendation

Okay, can Smith

Thank you, thank you chair and

Thank you, Councillor Munger, who summed things up very well.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:39:18

I mean, I still remain significantly concerned about the flooding issues, which I think is

the main key concern here.

And I'd refer you back to the officer's report in paragraph 156, which says that the proposed

discharge into the watercourses, in principle, shouldn't place additional strain on the receiving

watercourse.

It's kind of wishful thinking, isn't it?

And I think it's the sort of wishful thinking that took place previously with the previous

developments.

So what I would like to see is for officers to really take that on board, the fact that

the assurances that this development will consume its own smoke will deal with all the

water from the side to not feed into the watercourses.

that can be addressed by going back to the Section 19 report and actually making sure

that we're doing something about the drainage infrastructure around Ickford so that that

can be dealt with properly. But having said that, I think it's really important. I would

also urge that the officers go back and look at Condition 31 and remove the option for

a phased approach. We know that Thames Water is not a reliable partner. We know that Thames

Water is in a really difficult position at the moment and to allow them the leeway to

allow a phased approach I think will be setting ourselves up, setting the residents of Ickford

up for a very difficult time.

So we should try to avoid that if possible.

Having said that, I'd also like to refer back to what Councillor Munger said.

I think we need to apologise to the residents of Ickford.

We, Buckinghamshire Council, have let them down by not coming forward with a five -year

land supply, leaving developments like this or communities like this vulnerable to these

sorts of developments.

We haven't come forward with a local plan.

We've left the position of local residents in a very difficult position, and we inevitably

are going to have to approve this development despite the reservations that we've got.

I would also like to commend the officers on the amount of conditions that they put

in place because I think that's really important and with those two tightened conditions I

will be supporting the officer's recommendation in this case.

Thank you.

Councillor Paul.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:41:53

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:41:56

I too am minded to agree with the officer who I have a great deal of respect for.

Mrs. Hern, I think she's done a very good job.

I have expressed concerns about education facilities.

I suspect the existing village school may be landlocked and unable to be expanded upon.

So as Councillor Munger has mentioned there is that travel situation to be

recognised. He mentioned that the Planning Inspector were we to refuse and

it go to appeal may dilute the conditions somewhat ironic being that

there's problems with water supply and water discharge although I do agree from

I'm sorry, Mr. Thor, I know that was your first name,

that the surface water will probably not be exacerbated

by the fact of building dwellings on this piece of land,

but the fact is that water consumption

and water discharge will.

So we are then relying on Thames Water,

who as Councillor Smith has said, are not reliable partners.

In fact, all water companies say the same thing.

These small speculative developments do harm, and yes, it is correct that we would be better

with our plan in place.

I understand that Regulation 19 has been passed by Cabinet to go out to consultation, and

we shall be in a better position going forward.

The fact that the government keep changing the rules as to the MPPF and the MPPG numbers

of dwellings leaves us in an impossible situation. I too have sympathy with the residents who

may well suffer water issues, but I too will go along with the officer's recommendations.

Thank you. Casa Con.

Thank you, Chairman. As we were speaking, I was making notes in my mobile because I

it far more attractive to use on my mobile.

Cllr Raj Khan - 2:44:10

I find this, I'm probably not in agreement with the position we're in at the moment.

I think the red card just gets thrown at us if we don't agree something, the inspector

will agree and we won't be in a position to give any protection to our residents.

Sometimes I question how, why we're here, because I know the offices have done a fantastic

job and I also like to echo what the office is doing, but I think this committee also

has an onus of responsibility to what we think is the right thing to go ahead.

Patently, all the villagers have been here sitting all day, and if they're here just

to rubber -stomp what's effectively been told to us, then I can't be part of that.

I think it's sad that we get the red card of the inspector to say, if we don't go along,

the inspector will just agree with less conditions.

I find that difficult to agree.

The inspector is in a position of trust to make the right decision in protecting the

residents.

I find it awful that the beauty for villages we have that we pride ourselves in Bakkemshia

is now going to be tarnished with homes, homes, homes, without being thought out.

Infrastructure.

We're talking about its Reserve 18, whatever you want to call it, that we will think about

it once we get there.

No.

Why should we think about things in the future if a decision is going to be made?

It's going to be made today.

Schools are already stretched.

Transport is not available for them.

It means that the residents will have to go out fighting to get what they deserve.

Do they deserve 68 more houses on their doorstep without the right infrastructure in place?

I think it's sad.

I think I cannot vote with the office agreement under compulsion, because this is like a compulsion.

And if it means that I'll be the only one voting against it, I will vote against it.

And I want to vote against it because we have a responsibility,

a responsibility to all our residents.

They've given up their time, their effort,

they're passionate on what they believe.

They're the real people who know the area far better than us.

What we see on paper is not what really happens in practicality.

Everyone needs to be reminded that we have a responsibility

The responsibility is we go with what we are asked to agree or we become and take a position

on what we believe is the right thing.

Even and even it needs to go to the inspector and it costs us money.

The money is best spent on our residents and protecting our residents.

So I should not be voting with this recommendation.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:47:36

what what we have here and let's be frank about this it's very easy to be

cross and turn it down we when Buckingham Council was set up it was

supposed to deliver a development plan by 2025 that was what we said to the

residents and the assumption of the development plan.

That would have been developed under the MPPF 2023.

That isn't the case.

We've done that.

Councillor Munger points out the way that we are being affected by shortage of land

supply.

The reality is that that's true.

And we've got 3 .7 % in the Vale and the derisory amounts in the south of Buckinghamshire.

and the Buckinghamshire plan agreed to go out to consultation next door repeats the same pattern.

Lots of development in North Buckinghamshire and the Greenbelt is left alone in South Buckinghamshire.

That said, the points that was raised about the conditions, the planning conditions,

the being able to do whatever limited powers we've got left within the local

authority which are limited powers to actually get something out of this

development for the residents and the future residents. If we had a five -year

land supply we probably would be voting it down wouldn't we and every confidence

that that it would go away and our decision wouldn't go to appeal because

we'd have grounds to.

It's no good seeking the reality of approval over something

if the reality is that you lose.

If we lose all those conditions in there,

we'll have an estate which doesn't meet its obligations

to its residents.

We'll have an estate that the officer has got all

these conditions put in there.

It won't match.

So we're left with this situation.

The council's designed, put very well over by Greg and Lou in the sense that we've

been manufactured this situation where the council is and that's what we're

considering an application. Now in Buckingham, coincidentally and it's not

related to this application, it's actually relevant, I sat in a meeting the other day with

1750 houses just turned up in the same conditions as this is and I also sat

there watching 800 houses just at the road the same conditions I also sat

there watching another one coming forward with 600 houses very same

process that's huge numbers same problems angular water not Thames water

but they've come forward before the plan is agreed and this is going to be the

pattern because we haven't got a plan and developers have a business to run

and we we are not running the counts in the way that we should have done so

So that's going to be the real entity going forward.

We can seek applause or we can recognise the reality that we've stuffed the residents in the long term.

And what we need to do in the short term is get the bucket and shear plan to a point where it gets agreement,

hopefully through the inspector so we can have a five year land supply so we can return back to normal planning applications and considerations,

where we can have the powers to actually make decisions dispassionately.

But, you know, voting against this might make you feel alright in the short term, but in

the long term it probably will damage the residents irreparable.

And every application where I live, that's thousands of houses are coming in on this

basis, not under 100.

And you imagine how that's going to be there.

So this is going to be the pattern of play.

And we won't have those.

They'll go to strategic development control, but there are over 400.

how are they going to deal with it?

So this is what we've got, the council's messed up,

as Lou said, we haven't got a plan,

and all the stuff we want to do going forward

is crippled by our inability to have done what we've done.

So jointly, collectively, or the council has not delivered

what it should have done to the residents.

When we had vesting day, and I was in the shadow authority,

I sat there listening, we're going to deliver a plan

by the end of 2025.

and we didn't under the previous MPPF which have been less numbers same

problem sites so vote how you wish but either way nobody wins.

Right, let's move on. Councillor Goulme.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:52:17

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:52:20

I'm struggling how to follow some of my colleagues.

But, Raj, I'm going to take my hat off to you gentlemen.

I've known you nearly all my life.

And for you to come out of a speech like that, being someone that's come from the town, thinking

of a rural community, I take my hat off to you, sir.

I really do.

But anyway, as we look into the application, you know, the blame culture is the council's

fault.

It's this fault.

It's that fault.

It's, you know, that's just a ruse to get around what's actually there.

The problem that we have is that as Councillor Khan uses the terminology of a red card, I

use the terminology as Russian roulette in actual fact because we're being held to ransom,

whatever.

The way I look at it is, if you don't do this,

it's just going to happen.

Well, that's bully boy tactics, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care if I get told off for that,

because that's the way I see it.

You know, we all agree in planning terms.

I've always agreed, and I'm from the rural community,

as you all know, is that all villages should expand,

because the younger generation want to stay within those villages.

And it was actually used that some of the other generation

might want to move into some of those new houses.

Iqfad has already had its implement,

as far as I'm concerned, of houses for their area,

with the last one that popped up.

There are issues.

It's flooding, and we were thinking,

well, that might happen, that might not.

We might be able to do this, but anyway.

Then we have the other issue of travel,

with busses in the area.

Oh, well, we're going to do this.

Well, there's always that, well, well, we're going to do that.

And a bigger issue that I even have

is when it moves on to the school.

That school is not going to take on.

The schools over the whole of Buckinghamshire,

over the whole of the country, is in a state.

So it's going to be one of those hard things.

So again, for Little Ickford,

poor old Little Ickford is going to get bombarded.

There is a respect and some of us agree to vote for it

because I agree with Councillor Mahone

that the conditions are there from the officers,

the conditions are in there to protect it for those that want to go for that vote.

But those conditions should also go if some of us disagree, and inspectors should consider

those conditions.

That is the way it should work, not by taking them away, because, again, that's your hand

behind your back.

Here we go.

Yet again, that's my personal opinion.

But that's it.

What I do get upset about, and I appreciate the, you know, the developers, you know, they're

the five -year planners their way in there's other areas you could look

forward to possibly build I know you put a lot of work in there but what upsets

me the most is that all the villages spent thousands of pounds on their

their little neighbourhood plans they put a lot of heart and soul into it they're

a community they don't mind expanding but they put their neighbourhood plan and

you ignore it great oh it touches it whoopee but anyway that's my opinion I'm

I'm going to stay with Councillor Khan.

I respect you, sir, and I won't be going for this application either.

Councillor Cornell.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:55:47

Actually, I agree with both Raj and with Phil, and I don't see, in normal circumstances,

this should go ahead.

We've got Thames Water who can't get the water in or out.

We've got electricity which is going to be madly affected.

We've got children that need education.

we've got transport issues and I have to say I won't be voting for it sorry

Councillor Gibbon. Thank you Chairman. Like Councillor Carnan and Councillor Gorman and Cornell,

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:56:25

being set in this position I sort of feel I have to do what I personally

believe is right. And I understand the other councillors probably very real

worries about the conditions which is also mine as well I think that's quite

shocking that someone can't see the sense I mean these conditions that Mrs.

Hearns got down are brilliant. All that work and time she's put in is fabulous and

they're essential and then someone can then come on and not see how

essential they are I just find horrifying but for me I can't in all

good faith go with it because I'm very concerned about the flooding I can't see

it being resolved satisfactorily for a whole load of reasons it's a bit too

sort of not quite definite I think some of the wording of things and also some

of these surveys that have been done and also the weather's changing a lot of

surveys in the past I think on this period were done in 2020 and the weather's changing

and the rain levels are going up. But I think my main, my two concerns as well as that is

one is the harm it's doing to the environment which hasn't really been mentioned much but

certainly the previous inspector talked about the considerable harm done to the list of

building and the environment and the lack of space and it was one of the reasons why

he rejected the 2018 I think application and I agree with that and that situation hasn't

changed.

And also, again, with the school,

I mean, the developers being incredibly generous,

giving a billion pounds, roughly, I guess.

But that's not really going to solve the solution.

You're going to need more schools.

But I don't think that will really actually

solve the issue.

So these children will be having to be ferried out.

It will be costing the council loads of money.

And also, it's very distressing for the children

and the families.

They're not with their mates.

They're spending time in a car.

and it causes considerable sort of upset to the parents

and the families.

So for me, I'm sorry, I just feel,

personally I think the harm outweighs

the lack of housing that we have.

Especially as we've got this local plan

which in a few months we're going,

we will have a plan for 90 ,000 houses.

Why do we now need this one and a half year plan now?

So anyway, that's my plan.

Okay, thank you.

It goes to Colin.

Cllr Raj Khan - 2:58:59

Chairman, I mean, obviously I have to do what I believe to be right, and I respect all my

colleagues if we have opposing views, because that's one of the reasons we are here.

But I find it very difficult spending three hours here and just going with the status

quo.

I think it's morally uncomfortable for me to sit here along all the residents here who

got things to do, but they're the ones who actually are going to be fighting for the

survival of their position, for their kids, for their infrastructure.

I as a counsellor right now in Ellesbury find it very, very difficult to get a bus pass

for some of the kids, and it takes me six months.

Are you telling me that all these residents are going to have everything on the table

for them?

No.

Every one of them will be fighting to get whatever they should be getting.

They're not going to get it on the table.

It means more battles for all these busy people who are probably trying to do their livings.

This is, in my opinion, absolutely premature.

It should not go through.

And I'm basically going to make a proposition that we do not accept this officer's recommendation.

and on the basis of no infrastructure no flooding groups that we know I am

basically going to make a recommendation that we do not accept the office's recommendation.

We already have a recommendation.

Councillor Mahoney.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:00:42

First of all I want to say that I have great respect for the two fellow councillors on either side of me.

But I'd have to say it's probably a little bit disrespectful to blame everything on Buckinghamshire

Council and I'll tell you why. When

Reg 19 came in with the local plan, I asked one of the members on the select committee to

ask a question when they were debating it here last Friday or Friday week.

And my concern at the time, and it's still my concern, that there is no mechanism in

place for a developer to build out.

And as I asked the officer earlier, basically nothing happens to the five -year land supply

until it's either built out, watertight and whatever else.

So the argument about bringing in the plan, the local plan,

the local plan means nothing unless the developer bills out.

And there is no mechanism in place for that to happen.

So while we must bear some responsibility as a planning authority,

A lot of the responsibility should also be laid at the door

of the developers, because they have land -banked for many

years. If you listen to national radio, national news, it is

estimated that there is a million houses in the UK with

planning permission for the last three or four years that have

not been built out. And I think that's something we need to consider here, that it's alright

bashing the Council, but the developer has to take some responsibility here.

And when I opened this debate with my first speech, I was on defence. And I said I would

not make a decision, but I would hear the debate out. I've listened to debate which

I think was tremendous from people on both sides, and I have come to my conclusion. And

I have come to my conclusion, and it is very hard for me to do this, but I am going to

vote against the proposal. Thank you.

Councillor Stosway.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:03:28

Thank you.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:03:31

I've been involved in planning indirectly for many years.

What we have a situation now is that planning has become a political football short term

game and in many senses away.

Explain how that's political.

Hang on.

Stop.

Thank you, Chair.

It's become a political football.

If you let me explain, I'm without introduction.

I didn't barrow at them.

And if we're going to get that's what just demonstrated

what I've just said, it's a political football.

That demonstrated it perfectly.

Can we focus on the application?

So what we have a situation is we have a policy,

which we have to implement.

We have a obligation that we have

to build, which we are not meeting.

We have a situation where we've been told by officers that all applications that don't

go through go through on appeal.

We've been advised that those officers, that those appeals means that none of the conditions

go in.

So none of the limited benefits happen afterwards.

So if we carry on that, we also know that there's five councils or nine councils around

founders, which have gone down this route of and lost their right to consider planning

applications, and which means their officers have no input in this.

So this is a very heavy responsibility, and we've got people set outside who may decide

that this may be the tipping point, this application.

We don't know.

And we're unfortunate.

I've known Raj for years, I don't think we've ever disagreed,

personally we might have disagreed on what we're talking about.

But I respect his passion.

I've known Phil for years, I respect his passion.

Changing your mind about this is difficult

because I don't want to be walking out of here today

and find that I've thrown the whole of my community,

where I live, bucking them under the bus for 68 houses.

and the situation being that then the whole of my community's plan is divided

down in Whitehall and everyone in Whitehall will decide what we've got on these same

conditions. And I worry about that and the passion has been out there.

So I think this is going to be a very one of those decisions where people are

divided. It is indeed and in the end for me we talk about the five -year land supply

That is something that's been imposed upon us again.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:06:08

It was done away with.

We didn't have a five -year land supply problem until the government changed that policy.

So back in December 18, I think it was, they reintroduced it, which means now we got every

chance of speculative applications coming in anywhere within our county.

So the outcome of that, as Councillor Mahone said earlier, was to try and protect our residents.

And the only way we can do that is by making sure that the conditions that we apply are

adhered to and deliverable.

So we've ended up with this really difficult situation where they're saying you have no

five -year land supply because they've decided to reintroduce it and therefore a speculative

bill didn't come in before we got the Buckinghamshire plan.

And also remember that these pieces of land are in the Buckinghamshire plan.

Okay, so we now finished our open debate and we will go to a vote.

We have a proposal brought forward to accept the officer's recommendation, which was seconded.

We can go to the vote.

All those in favour, please show.

Six.

All those against?

Five.

Any abstentions?

None.

That's carried.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:07:39

The proposed motion is carried.

Thank you.

That was six votes to five.

Okay, colleagues.

Thank you for your attendance today.

And

Thank You chair

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs

View profile

Cllr Caroline Cornell

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Patrick Fealey

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Kathy Gibbon

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Phil Gomm

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Andy Huxley

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Raj Khan

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Frank Mahon

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Llew Monger

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Chris Poll

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Gregory Smith

Green Party

View profile

Cllr Robin Stuchbury

Independent

View profile

Mr Harry Thomas

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 hCaptcha.

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.

Interactive webcast player

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning CommitteeWednesday, 22nd July 2026 at 2:00pm

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:00

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:01:57

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:01

1 Apologies

2 Minutes

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:03:32

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:48

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:04:12

Ms. Laura Lee Briggs - 0:04:14

Mr Harry Thomas - 0:04:16

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:04:27

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:04:34

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:04:40

David Marsh - 0:04:47

Ross Herbert - 0:04:51

Zenab Hearn - 0:04:56

Vikki Keeble - 0:05:01

William Chen - 0:05:11

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:05:14

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:05:23

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:05:32

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:05:36

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:05:41

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:05:49

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:05:55

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:07:18

4 25/02196/AOP - Land East of Worminghall Road Ickford

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:07:32

Zenab Hearn - 0:07:58

Zenab Hearn - 0:15:27

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:08

Zenab Hearn - 0:23:09

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:11

Public Speaker - 0:23:22

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:26:28

Cllr Llew Monger - 0:26:49

Public Speaker - 0:27:23

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:27:34

Public Speaker - 0:27:52

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:29:33

Public Speaker - 0:29:50

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:30:17

Public Speaker - 0:30:52

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:31:05

Public Speaker - 0:31:22

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:31:37

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:31:41

Public Speaker - 0:33:07

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:33:15

Public Speaker - 0:33:46

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:11

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:37:29

Public Speaker - 0:38:05

Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:38:25

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:38:57

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:07

Public Speaker - 0:39:38

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:40:11

Public Speaker - 0:40:31

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:41:02

Public Speaker - 0:41:43

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:41:59

Public Speaker - 0:42:46

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:42:50

Public Speaker - 0:43:20

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:43:40

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:43:43

Public Speaker - 0:45:46

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:46:36

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:47:26

Public Speaker - 0:47:31

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:47:45

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:49:32

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:49:35

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:49:39

Public Speaker - 0:50:24

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:50:47

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 22nd July 2026 at 2:00pm