Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 9 September 2026, 2:00pm

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 9th September 2026 at 2:00pm

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr Patrick Fealey

1 Apologies

Share this agenda point

Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey

2 Minutes

Share this agenda point

Minutes of Previous Meeting

3 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey

4 25/01867/AOP - Land Off Barnett Way, Bierton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5DN

Share this agenda point

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Raj Khan
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Raj Khan
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Public Speakers
Cllr Frank Mahon
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Public Speakers
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Public Speakers
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Cameron Anderson
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Public Speakers
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Public Speakers
Cllr Frank Mahon
Public Speakers
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Public Speakers
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Public Speakers
Cllr Gregory Smith
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Public Speakers
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Public Speakers
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Public Speakers
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey

4 25/01867/AOP - Land Off Barnett Way, Bierton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5DN

Share this agenda point

Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Chris Poll
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Gregory Smith
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Chris Poll
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Frank Mahon
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Frank Mahon
Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Gregory Smith
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Andy Huxley
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Raj Khan
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Chris Poll
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Niknam Hussain
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Cameron Anderson
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Phil Gomm
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Kathy Gibbon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Frank Mahon
Cllr Patrick Fealey
Cllr Raj Khan
Cllr Patrick Fealey
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

Good afternoon colleagues, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the Central and North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee.

I would just like to go through a few domestics before we commence.

We're not anticipating a fire test or anything like that, but should there be, then please

follow the fire exits, which will take you to the main car park to wait, and we will

wait there.

But we hope it won't be tested.

There's a couple of other points.

Can I make sure you turn your mobile phones off, please?

And colleagues, when you're speaking,

do you mind pulling the microphone very close to you?

These microphones are not the best.

We need to make sure we actually hear what everybody is saying.

Right, and can I also just remind people

this committee is webcast.

and that by entering the meeting room you are consenting to be filmed and possible use

of your images and sound recordings could be broadcast. If you're not happy with that

then please see the clerk and he will indicate where it's best to sit.

We have a number of public speakers this afternoon and I would just like to confirm that they

are all in attendance. First of all, our Councillor, Mrs Ward.

Councillor Fisher, Chair of Bearton Parish Council.

Thank you. John Sylvester.

Present.

Thank you. Robert Taylor.

Present.

And for the applicant, they've got Mr. Wisheart and Seed and Bennett.

You gentlemen have only got three minutes between you and you need to arrange that for yourself.

And we'll make sure there's plenty of microphones for you.

Okay, if we can now return to the agenda.

Have we any apologies?

1 Apologies

Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:02:13

Yes Chairman, just one apology from Councillor Munger and Councillor Hussain is substituting for him today.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:19

And could I have your agreement with the minutes of the 19th of August?

Great.

Thank you.

2 Minutes

Thank you.

And are there any declarations of interest?

3 Declarations of Interest

Councillor Givens.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:42

Yes, I just wanted to

Reassure everybody and the officers that even though I called this in by request from the council

and I used

Quite a few of their comments because I felt that they needed further consideration

I've arrived today with no predetermined view whatsoever, but I do however have quite a few questions

Thank you very much. That's recorded. Thank you for that

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:06

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:03:12

I'd just like to declare that I am a landowner in the area of Beerton and I also for many

years worked on the neighbouring farm and the land associated around this area.

I just want to make that clear just to open as a declaration.

Thank you very much, Dave.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:24

Colleagues, you will recall that this application was going to come before us previously but

because of the changes with the MPPF.

We've had to revisit it, or the officers had to revisit it,

and that is included in the documents

that you have before you.

All right, we can now go to the officer

4 25/01867/AOP - Land Off Barnett Way, Bierton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5DN

to make a presentation on the application 25 -01867 AOP,

Outline Application.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 0:04:01

Thank you Chairman. So item 4 relates to application 2501's 867 AOP regarding land of Barnet Way,

Bearton. The proposal is for an outline planning application for the erection of up to 36 dwellings

including public open space, sustainable drainage and associated infrastructure. All matters

are reserved apart from access. So in terms of the geographical context I'm just going

to point out where the site is here. The application is located to the north eastern side of Bearton

in this location beyond the settlement of Bearton which is a linear settlement here.

We have Aylesbury to the west and the Kingsbrook development southeast of the site.

In terms of the site context, just pointing out that there's

a sort of natural boundary along here, Treebelt and Woodland along the eastern part of the site.

Built form is located to the south which forms the main settlement of Bearton. There's some built form

to its west

and built form to its north.

And the site itself is outlined in red here.

So now moving on to the site location plan.

The site itself under consideration is outlined in red

and ownership boundaries are outlined in blue.

In terms of the site context,

there are dwellings to the southern boundary of the site

and also a property called Barnet House to the north.

Landscape areas are located, again, as pointed out,

south east of the site and the eastern boundary.

The site is well enclosed with built form

and the village to the south and the woodlands

associated with Brereton pits to the west of Barnet House

set within the grounds to the north.

And the western boundary is more open.

The ecological features include a number of mature trees around the site,

which are mostly situated on the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries.

There is a mature hedgerow to the east of the track access running in the north -south direction,

and there's smaller hedgerows to the north.

The site of scientific interest is Bearden Clay Pits,

And that's its adjacent to the application site towards the southeast in this area here

So that's just setting out some site context and the site is accessed off Barnet Way

So in terms of site constraints

The

Bearden conservation area is outlined in

Green there is a listed building

located here and there is a non -designated heritage asset here and the

outlined in red are the public rights of way. So in terms of site history there

was an application under this reference number which was refused by the council

in February 2017. The reasons for refusal related to the impact on the character

beauty of the countryside and its obtrusion into the countryside, and also the failure

to preserve the adjacent designated and non -digitated heritage assets.

There's a slight change in context in that at the time the Council's spatial strategy

policies were out of date, but the Council did have a five -year housing land supply at

5 .8 years.

So under this suite of applications, we've had pre -application engagement with the applicant.

When they originally came to the council with their proposal, it was for a larger site boundary.

The development encroached west of Barnet House access.

There's a road access and there was encroachment into the western part of it.

there were much greater landscape and heritage impacts, including ecological concerns.

Following pre -application engagement, the application was revised and it was reduced to 36 dwellings.

This is located here. What is notable is that there was still some projection that officers had concerns about.

to this and the officers were also concerned about the proximity of the site to the woodland

to its south -eastern boundary. So under the current proposal the application has been

revised to create a greater buffer between the proposed built form and the woodland.

This slide just illustrates the access that is secured as part of the application.

Now moving on to views of the site. This is a view of the site from the access track entrance.

This is from the footpath facing south west towards Aylesbury Road.

And this is a view towards the northeastern corner of the site.

So the application proposal is for up to 36 dwellings.

It's all matters reserved other than access.

And that's the application before the council.

The report considers all matters relating to the application,

including the principle of development, the impacts on heritage, landscape, ecology, drainage

matters and all other matters set out in a report.

So for the reasons outlined in the officer recommendation, this is the recommendation,

but before I go to recommendation, I just want to draw your attention to the change

since the original officer report was published.

there was an addendum report relating to the changes to the NPPF.

And just to talk you through the updated report that was published with it,

the NPPF 2026 version took effect on the 17th of August.

That changes the policy context somewhat.

It doesn't displace the development plan.

that is the starting point for decision -making,

but it is an important material planning consideration.

And just taking you to the glossary of the new NPPF,

in terms of making a decision,

it sets out where applications are, sorry,

where proposal, where existing development plan policies

are materially inconsistent with the NPPF, then those policies are given limited weight

in decision making.

And this is set out in paragraph 2 of Annex A, so it says development plan policies, or

parts of those policies, which are materially inconsistent with the national decision making

policies in this framework should be given very limited weight.

The only exception to this is where they have been examined and adopted or made against

this framework.

Other development plan policies should be given reduced weight simply because, so it

should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to the publication

of this framework.

So it does change the policy context somewhat in that it's not saying the primacy isn't

there, the primacy is the development plan, but where policies are inconsistent with the

framework policies, then those are given reduced weight.

So moving to the updated report, we've considered the proposal on the new NPPF, and this is

set out in the updated report.

It goes through matters considered, and to what extent they do and don't comply with

the new NPPF.

but having had regard to revised framework,

officers have concluded that the recommendation

remains unchanged.

We have a substantial shortfall

in our five year housing land supply position.

It's currently sitting at 3 .73 years

in the Vale of Elsbury area.

And as of the 21st of September,

that is likely to change and be reduced further

when we have to consider the housing land supply

context of Buckinghamshire Council as a whole. So in that context, taking into account the

harms identified in the report relating to landscape and heritage impacts and then balancing

that against the benefits of the proposal also outlined in the report, namely the delivery

of housing, affordable housing, economic benefits and where other matters have been addressed

through condition or legal obligation. The recommendation is that the application be

referred, deferred or delegated to the service director of planning subject to successful

completion of the section 106 agreement and conditions. And the application is therefore

recommended for approval. And I'm happy to take any questions in due course. Thank you

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:14:22

Chairman. Can I now call Councillor Ward please.

Councillor Ward, you've done this many times, so you know how to do it.

You've got three minutes from when the clock behind me starts moving.

Public Speakers - 0:15:01

Members, I'm here to demonstrate that the identified harms of this scheme clearly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the very limited amount of new housing it would

deliver.

There is sufficient evidence of harm supported by policy for you to refuse this scheme.

It is such a poor scheme.

The report correctly and expressly identifies that the site is outside the settlement.

The new MPPF strengthens this. Indeed like previous sites it is not in the

neighbourhood plan nor the emerging local plan. It is considered unsuitable. There

is substantial landscape harm. Indeed the site sits on top of an SSSI. This is in

conflict with the NPPF in two. He6 now requires substantial weight to

conservation and considerable importance and weight to harm.

Being in open countryside adjacent to both a heritage building and SSSI,

N6 seems to have been missed by the report and it clearly meets this.

The development is not physically well related to the existing settlement and

is not of a scale which can be accommodated given the existing infrastructure.

The schools are full, the busses infrequent,

It is not walking distance from a train station. There are no shops

The Northern Link Road and the Eastern Link Road required to manage traffic are some years away

indeed if at all

Those of you who know Bearton will be familiar with the traffic calming scheme this site sits directly

Between a raised table and a build -out it is in an appalling

location in terms of entry onto the A418. Until link roads are in place the scheme

remains dangerous and the fact that the RSA3 undertaken at the start of this

year remains unknown should be a red flag. This scheme delivers just 36 units.

Bearden has already accepted 115 houses just a month or so ago so since I was

last here with you, 115 houses have been approved for building in Bearton. On top

of this, the local plan includes a 9 ,000 dwelling site right on our doorstep and

enough is enough. Bearton has already taken its share. There are inconsistencies

in this report which I would happily share or highlight for you should you

choose to ask me. Limited weight should be given to the handful of units and

substantial negative weight should be given to the countryside loss, the landscape harm,

the erosion of the rural setting and the designated heritage harm.

Is there sufficient evidence of planning harm?

Yes, undoubtedly.

Is the identified harm clearly and demonstrably outweighing the benefits?

Of course, we're talking 36 units.

Is the harm supported by policy?

Again, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Point of clarification.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:18:36

Councillor Stavroux.

Yeah, thank you from the Councillor for coming.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:18:53

You referred something you'd want to clarify if you had time.

If the chair would allow it, I'd like to hear what you wanted to clarify about policies and such like which you are unable to say.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:19:10

Because Councillor Wood didn't talk about it, I can't go back into it.

I knew you were going to say that. I just thought I'd try.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:19:24

But in which case you went on about the unsuitability of it where it is in conjunction to its environs

and where it lives. Please could you explain why this is so unsuitable compared to other developments. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you Councillor Stutchbury.

Public Speakers - 0:19:37

So I touched on what I consider to be inconsistencies within the report,

and that leads indirectly to the question that you're asking about where it's situated.

It's recognised that it's situated outside of the settlement,

and it's outside of the settlement boundary.

It's not included within the local plan.

It's been deemed unsuitable as part of the local plan. It's not included within the neighbourhood plan

It's directly next to an SSSI a site of special scientific interest

I think in the one of the earlier points of the presentation it showed that

developers tried to accommodate this by squeezing it in a little bit from the boundary of the the SSSI which is referred to

as the woodland

To say that there would be no coalescence in reality or even perceivable, which the report does, is inconsistent because this exact site is identified as unsuitable because the development would cause coalescence between Beerton and the strategic Aylesbury Growth site.

Now, as much as there's somewhat of a nimby in all of us, we are actually, and our action group is actually trying to work proactively with developers and with the Council on the delivery of the strategic site to the north of Bearden.

Because we recognise that there's a large picture, there's the delivery of link roads and things like that.

But this site, we've never considered it appropriate before.

We still don't consider it appropriate.

And it's in direct contradiction to the Regulation 19 and the HeLa Site 164 that was assessed as part of that.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Smith.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:21:41

Thank you, Chair.

And yes, in your original submission, you mentioned the SSSI.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:21:46

And my understanding is that this is a rather lovely place to walk,

and particularly because of the lake that's within there.

Now I also notice in the report that, and as you've just mentioned,

that the natural England are no longer objecting because of the move.

Could you explain why that buffer is maybe not large enough,

but also what you understand to be the dangers of runoff into that rather special lake?

Thank you, Councillor Smith. It is a very special area.

Public Speakers - 0:22:22

It's an incredibly bio -diverse area as well.

And it is another inconsistency that in terms of the SSSI,

N6 appears to be missing from the new assessment.

There's no reference to it in pages 99 to 105.

yet the original main report still records that it adjoins the SSSI.

So if officers have comprehensively reassessed the scheme against the new MPPF,

then does the, why does the MPPF update assess N2 and HE6 but not N6,

given the location of this site to the SSSI?

I would say that it's, you know, this what's proposed here in no way

is managed to offset against the the intrusion into the countryside and to the close proximity.

You can see the lake through the woodlands there the close proximity to the SSSI.

I think it's it's just something that can't be overcome in this site.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Carle.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:30

Cllr Raj Khan - 0:23:34

Councillor Ward, thank you very much for your presentation.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.

I've actually noted it.

One, you said that the schools are full.

Can you justify that the schools are full?

And on average, how long does it take?

Or what's the waiting time for schools, for children

to go to those schools?

Or they're going out of the area because there

isn't space there.

And second thing is, I actually know the area quite well.

Having represented Bearton in the past,

for eight years in the past, and it's

a beautiful part of Barnet, the crescent tour of Barnet,

I actually do my training, the road next to it.

And I think it could lose a lot of sense of countryside.

but my main concern is what is the issue of schools?

Because if children are waiting

and then are going to be placed miles away

and then getting them to get school placement

is a very important factor for me.

Thank you, Councillor Khan.

Public Speakers - 0:24:45

Currently, if you move on to Bearton or Kingsbrook,

because Bearton School is in the entire catchment area of Kingsbrook.

Currently if you move on to there and you move between admissions times,

you will be catching a bus to William Harding because the schools are full.

So I have a lot of residents, students, we lay on a bus that picks up and drives children out to

the nearest available school, which seems to be William Harding at the moment.

I get an awful lot of local member casework regarding school places.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:25:36

Dr. Michael P .B. Can I go back onto that, please?

Cllr Raj Khan - 0:25:40

I mean, do we have any evidence of how many children are currently in William Harding?

Are there provisions of transport provided by the authority? Because I understand it should be one

point, some miles, and are the children getting sort of transport service or they rely on

bus service, and are the bus services available right all the way through school times without

any hindrance? And also, how many children are we saying that are not at Beerton School

at the moment and that are going out of the area?

Public Speakers - 0:26:21

Unfortunately, Councillor Carnot, I can't give you the exact number of children that are living within the catchment of Bearden School and don't have a place at Bearden School.

But what I can tell you is that we lay on a bus and that bus collects in the mornings at Kingsbrook Basin and that bus takes those children to William Harding School at present.

In terms of arrangements for older children, one of the arrangements that we have put in place is where children can be given bus vouchers.

The closest, when full, the closest school that I've had at secondary level that's had availability is Mandeville School, which I'm sure many other members will have had for their areas as well.

from our area there's no direct bus to Mandeville school.

So quite often children as young as 11 are being given vouchers

to make their way from the village across into Alsbury

and across and out the other side of town.

So it's a real ongoing problem.

Can you just clarify for me how far away is Kingsbrook Secondary School?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:27:32

Gosh, you can ask me in terms of metres.

No, no, for secondary schools it needs to be within three mile, sorry, three mile journey for young people.

So Kingsbrook Secondary School would be the closest secondary school.

Public Speakers - 0:27:52

However, because these are, because that's a new school, it's, you know, the year groups are released

as it starts with one year.

So I've had issues where people have moved in mid -year.

The school is already full.

And that's why we're giving the bus vouchers

and the places are coming forward at Mandeville School,

because the school is already full.

So the issue is the timeline of the Kingsbrook loading

the school.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:28:25

Different year groups are going in as the school expands.

Correct.

But also what we're seeing as well

Public Speakers - 0:28:32

is because quite often schools can come forward

before a development is built out.

And then you might, the earlier years might be populated

with people, children from...

Sorry, the earlier years might be populated with children

from say outside of the development.

As they then move up a year, their siblings,

they come through on the sibling rule as well

and it reduces the availability on the years that are coming forward.

I think it is a phenomena that we're seeing across quite a lot of new build developments.

Councillor Gormley might have picked that up at the Children's Committee,

but it's something that we're seeing quite a lot of across new build developments.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:29:20

I just wanted to clarify my point about it, because obviously,

the Education Department have approached with any department.

How much did I ask?

So it would be in accordance with the standard amounts that we ask for.

Depending on the number of beds at the next stage.

Okay. Because there's an outline in planning we haven't got the detail of that.

Once it goes to if it is agreed then reserve matters then we will have the amount of money that can be allocated.

Public Speakers - 0:29:57

Well bids and schools already been extended once to accommodate students

from Kingsborough. That is a capacity. They're not going to make that any bigger.

If the plan is to request money to then lay on a bus to drive

children across into Owsbury to another school.

I'm sure you understand though, Councillor Ward, that from a planning point of view,

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:30:19

education availability is not a planning issue.

No, but I was asked the question so I answered it.

I know, I know you have. I just wanted to clarify so that everybody understands that it's not a planning issue

because we've written to the Education Authority and asked them what they need

and they will come back and tell us as we do with other groups as well.

Okay, thank you for that. Councillor Gibbon.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:30:49

Thank you, Chairman. I've got a few questions.

Could you explain a bit how it's an effect you think this development will have on the

neighbourhood in terms of, because there's really an interest structure, because there's

no shops or GP surgery, we've already discussed the school, and also on traffic.

Could you just explain the effects on the residents of this development?

Thank you, Councillor Gibbon.

Public Speakers - 0:31:18

I mean first of all it's a development in open countryside.

It's next to an SSSI and it's by a conservation area as well.

So aside from the landscape harm, the actual siting of the development,

in terms of the A418 which is a traffic calmed road allegedly,

but if anybody has ever driven through there recently,

I think you'll have found the experience less than calming.

I know I certainly do on a daily basis.

Where this actually would be coming out onto the A418,

to the right you have a raised table

and immediately within feet to the left you have a build out.

So it's coming out right smack bang into the middle of the chaos.

And residents are rightly frustrated by the driving that we see through Bearden at the moment.

And that's something that they live with on a daily basis.

Until such time as the Link Roads strategies are brought forward,

the ELR, which could be 2029, 2030, and the Northern Link Road, which is an integral part of the Alsbury Nest, the large site to the north.

Until such time as important infrastructure like that comes forward, the traffic situation in Beerton is really quite dire at the moment.

correctly observed. There are no shops.

In terms of other

vital infrastructure, GPs and things like that, there is nothing.

It is a very small village.

Could I also confirm a bit about the safety of the road

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:33:23

because I noticed the other day driving down there, two near misses with one

of those chicanes. Is it also, have people commented on the fact that

is quite unsafe that road at present?

Public Speakers - 0:33:36

The temporary traffic management, the broken bollards,

the knocked down signs, the cones, the temporary signs

so people know where to get by, the debris,

it's been a constant since the scheme went in.

There was an RSA 3 done at the beginning of this year.

And the fact that it has taken so long for any changes

or findings to come forward or be discussed

should be a red flag.

Because I think that there probably

will be some adaptations.

But I mean, the issue really is, yes, obviously,

Beerton wants to be a village that fewer vehicles travel

through at lower speed.

But until such time as, and this is what is crucial,

until such time as the link road strategy around Owsbury

is in place, and that is still some years off,

it can't really safely achieve that.

So that, you know, in terms of transport,

I think that is the crucial thing.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:34:56

So my last question is, in this new NPPF they do sort of stress the importance of heritage.

How much harm do you think that this development will cause to the nature of Bearden and also

the sort of heritage hazards that are there?

I mean, I think I've sort of said to previous members

Public Speakers - 0:35:22

the level of landscape harm that I think it would do.

And I don't think there's any disagreement

across the board on that.

But I don't know if you've ever sort of walked that path up

and seen Barnet House and the agricultural buildings that

are there.

Frankly, I'm surprised Barnet House isn't listed.

It's an absolutely beautiful heritage house.

And to try and squeeze this in here, to me,

I just think it would just be so out of place, so out of character,

and change the character of that particular part of the village

altogether.

And not to mention the fact that it's

recognised within our own Regulation 19 that to build here would cause coalescence with

the Owlsbury Ness. And there's a policy within that to protect Bearden from coalescence.

So there's an actual policy within the draught plan. So to build here goes against everything.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Can I call Councillor Gough?

Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner - 0:36:37

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:36:38

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:36:41

Thank you, Chairman.

Just a few questions.

Is you mentioned in your deliberation

about some other housing that we'd looked at,

which was across the road from there.

There were two applications that were gonna go through.

That's situated a bit different.

Did you say they've gone through onto a pill?

or you said something else was being built in that area,

but not those two?

No, further down.

Public Speakers - 0:37:07

And it's not a site that came before committee, actually.

So you won't have heard me talk about that.

In recent months, 115 homes have been

approved for building just further down the road

in Bearden.

The two you're referring to, Councillor Gaughan.

One has gone to appeal, and one has indicated they will.

Right.

OK.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:28

Thank you very much, Chair.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:37:31

So the question I want to start looping into is, you mentioned we're pick on the road first,

the A418, which has been over the years an extremely busy road.

And for many years we used to ride our horses right through the middle of that village at

one time, but it was still busy, so we were good jockies.

But anyway, so the point I want to make is that looking at that road again, like you

said, the traffic calming you've done to slow that traffic down through your village, and

you said that you come out of there of that road and it turn left it's a

traffic coming what measure is that a higher area as you as you come to the

Public Speakers - 0:38:14

end of Barnock Way immediately immediately to your left is a build -out

and to your right a few metres to your right is a raised table okay so it's

been designed that way for a reason so those residents that live in there

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:38:28

about 14 houses come out onto that anyway?

Public Speakers - 0:38:35

Correct, it was designed on the basis of the 13 homes that are at Barnet Way.

Okay, but they come out onto that, the same difference.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:38:43

And the splay coming out of Barnet Way, the splay, is that quite wide?

I've been looking at it from above.

The splay coming out of Barnet Way is quite wide on the road?

Public Speakers - 0:38:59

I suppose it's sort of about average. It's probably wider than an old splay like, than

an old one like Burkett Lane. I'm just trying to educate a few that are

quite used to the area too. One thing I would say is that what we did

do in the early stages of the traffic calming at Barnet Way was that we had to change the

priority of the build out that was immediately to the left of Barnet Way.

So, sort of halfway through the scheme, we changed that priority because even with the 13 houses there,

it was causing issues trying to get out of Barnet Way.

Yeah. And then moving on to, thank you for that clarification.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:36

Then moving on to the schools, which is one of my subjects too, and it is a big issue all over the county,

wherever trying to get children into schools is...

It was...

It scared me then.

I felt way up.

You know, that's a big issue everywhere.

So we've got Bearton School, which is a lovely school.

Then you've got Kingsbrook.

My gosh, that's overfilled from what you say,

from what it was designed for.

And then I'm struggling.

William Harding, what about Broughton School?

Because there's Broughton in between.

There's that school.

I'm just asking questions on fishing.

and then also, William Harding is quite a journey to be honest, and then when you come to secondary schools,

from what I remember, at Bearden people would go off to either the high school or if it was one of those,

or the other school was Coslow, is that still the case?

In answer to your first question, why William Harding?

Public Speakers - 0:40:37

Because it's the closest school with space.

Not the closest school by a long way,

but it's the closest school by space.

You know, I understand that where we don't have space

as an authority, we can ask for money.

But, you know, is that the answer,

to be bussing children off to other places?

I don't know how many kids still go to Cottesloe.

My daughter went to Cottesloe.

She used to get the bus from the Red Lion and go to Cottesloe.

I don't know how many still go to Cottesloe, to be honest.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:41:20

There is a Kingsbrook Secondary School now,

and so a lot of them would probably be going there,

but again, it's a choice.

And the last question is the landscape harm.

Could you just elaborate on that for us a little bit,

because I don't have your opportunity to expand on it.

Public Speakers - 0:41:40

So the site is set in open countryside.

It is bordered by woodland and lakes,

a site of special scientific interest.

It's a lovely area.

is rich in natural biodiversity, not biodiversity, we've had to manufacture to get a net gain.

It's open countryside, the properties immediately to the north of it are heritage buildings,

heritage barns, it's very much a rural agricultural landscape. To infill here would intrinsically

changed the character of the conservation area of Bearton.

And it would, as I say, with the local plan,

and we know we've got to deliver a local plan.

And in Bearton, we take a pragmatic view

that we need to work positively and constructively

while mitigating the harm against the community,

delivering what the wider area needs,

but not to coalesce in this way.

Thank you.

Thank you very much sir.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Mahone.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:42:53

Thank you Mr Chairman.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:42:57

You spoke about we provide a bus service for the kids that take them across the, across

Aylesbury.

Who do you mean by we?

Buckinghamshire Council.

Okay, thank you.

Public Speakers - 0:43:14

and I want to refer to the 115 houses that Councillor Gaughan and you referred to earlier.

Could you remind me when was application approved for the 115 houses

and has that development started to be built out?

That was approved probably within the last eight weeks, I think.

Yeah, it's definitely been approved.

When did we last see your committee?

Between the last committee, the last time I was here at committee,

and probably four weeks back, so,

yeah, so probably I would say within the last eight weeks,

they were approved over the summer.

And has it started to be built out?

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:44:04

Public Speakers - 0:44:09

I mean, that would be very quick, but no, they've not started digging yet.

Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:44:14

Okay, I'll just let one of the officers come in on that because they've got...

Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner - 0:44:22

Councillor Ward, sorry, can you tell us more about the address of the 115 houses because we're just trying to find the planning permission?

It would be, probably, it might say land off of Jib Lane.

Public Speakers - 0:44:31

Those are the ones that have gone to appeal.

Just cheque.

Okay, we'll just cheque on to that.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:44:40

It is actually a site within the local plan as well.

Within the proposed local plan I should say. Emerging local plan, that's the phrase.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:44:57

Sorry Mr Chairman, can I just confirm you said it's included in the emerging local plan.

These 115 houses, is that what you're saying?

Public Speakers - 0:45:06

The site for the 115 houses was one of the sites that was out at regulation 19, however the application has already...

The application probably went in over two years ago. The application went in a long time ago and it was approved this summer.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:45:23

Okay, we're going to cheque on it now and go back on it.

Can you look up the records for the 150's?

No, that's alright, the officers do that.

Councillor Gournay.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:45:33

Thank you, Chair. Mine was just a devil's advocate. To me, when you look at the map,

it looks as if you're actually having an infill there, but there's going to be around the

infill part. There's going to be the green part for the newts and whatever and things

like that. Surely that's not a problem, is it, this infill?

Public Speakers - 0:45:54

It's more of a backfill because Bearden is a linear settlement and what you can see at

the top there is the house and the barns of Barnet Way which is very much on the edge

of the settlement and very close to where the site, the Owsbury Nest site, well actually

it builds right up to there.

So it's not infill, as you would imagine,

along a linear settlement.

Although it's important that we don't completely

infill along a linear settlement,

because then you lose the glimpses

into the countryside which define

its character of rurality.

But no, you can sort of see that below the red line

is very much the settlement pattern of Beerton.

Can I just go?

but if you go down further, further south, you've got it's more filled in, not so linear, isn't it?

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:46:53

Public Speakers - 0:46:57

So if you were to go south of Aylesbury Road, there's just Parsons Lane, which kind of comes off as a spur.

There's no real, there's not really anything modern like that.

That's where the other two applications are in.

That's exactly right.

Yes, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

It would have looked like that

if the other two applications had been approved.

Councillor Hussain.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:47:27

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:47:30

Thank you, Councillor Ward.

There's a couple of things I'd like to ask about.

My colleagues have touched on most of the stuff.

One is the officers seems to come down on the side

that the harm caused is sustainable by this development.

Can I have your view on that?

Can you just pull the microphone closer?

Oh sorry, apologies.

No problem, is that better?

Right, on page 42 we've got the officer has come down

on the view that the development will result

in a lower end of less than substantial harm,

setting of the conservation area.

and on the impact of Barnet House.

Can I have your view on that first?

Secondly, colleagues have touched

on all the various infrastructure issues,

schooling and the fact that,

near enough all the secondary schools

in the local area are full

and all the primary schools are full

and this does not give any new schools.

And number two, health.

Although there is a contribution,

and this is an argument I've added

on this committee before, I am flummoxed as to how contribution of £51 ,000 is going to

mitigate this number of houses and 100 new patients. We review on that. And lastly, the

fact that you keep on coming on about, which I agree with 100%, is the view of the effect

on traffic in the area coming onto the main road. From this, there'll be a rush in the

and a rush in the afternoon.

I'll try and take points in order.

Public Speakers - 0:49:19

So for the first one, obviously I disagree with the report.

And I think I said when I spoke, HE6 now

requires substantial weight to conservation

and considerable importance and weight and harm.

And being in open countryside adjacent to both the Heritage

building and the SSSI.

N6, which was not really picked up on in this report,

clearly misses this.

So I don't think that the delivery of 30 -odd houses

is enough to outweigh the harm that this does.

We're not talking about 115 that was delivered down the road.

We're talking about 30 -odd in a very sensitive location.

I agree with your points on schools and health.

We ask for money.

But all we ever deliver for that money

are busses and mini busses picking children up

at some ungodly hour, driving them

to the other side of the local town to the nearest school

where there's a space.

or we see money go towards improving.

We were promised a GP surgery at Kingsbrook.

It was built and the ICB never took it out.

So instead, what do they want?

They want money instead into improving healthcare for local people.

Well, I'm still getting the same level of complaints about,

I'm not naming any practises, but I'm still getting the same level of complaints about local practises all these years on.

Whatever the proposals were, they either haven't been delivered or have not solved the problem.

And I think that's an important point because

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:51:15

as an applying authority, all you do is ask them what their need is. And if they come back with an amount,

we're not in a position to argue it.

and also fortunately if we can condition it or indeed put it in a 106 agreement, we can follow it through.

But often that's not the case, whereas if it was to go to appeal, we're noticing a number of the appeals come back with different conditions.

So that area can be lost.

So it's important that we very much focus on what we can deliver as a planning authority

and try and ensure as much as possible that the people that we work with, the ICB and

our education department deliver.

Council Hussain.

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:52:04

The one point, sorry, I have written it down but I didn't say, was the transport links.

The report outlines the transport links as one particular bus company providing all three,

four routes through the village.

And as we've learned recently, if these are precarious times,

and if that bus company was to go,

then there'd be no public transport to that area.

I note that they say, Councillor Ward,

that they're making a contribution to out of hours

bussing.

But during bus hours, they're saying

that there'll be adequate bus routes coming

through the village?

Public Speakers - 0:52:51

It depends on what your definition of adequate is.

If we're trying to encourage people not

to keep driving into town, driving into Milton Keynes,

driving their children to school,

then it could be an awful lot better than it is.

I do have that reference of the 115 dwellings.

It's 23 01995 AOP.

Give, okay, give lane.

Councillor Paul.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:53:20

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Chris Poll - 0:53:25

So, many of the questions that I have have been mentioned,

but I've got a very specific one.

If we leave aside the development that's approved, the 115 houses, this for 38 puts increased

pressure on that junction at Barnet Way.

Now the 418, I travel along that road most days and I think after last night I've come

to the decision that I should go round another way.

when I'm going from Aylesbury to Wingrave,

it was impossible last night.

I sat for a good 15 minutes

before the traffic coming from Wingrave direction,

there was a gap enough for people to get through.

Honestly, 15 minutes, I kid you not.

So I shall go down round the A41.

So my point being is the pressure

that's put in piece by piece on that road

And I would very much like to have a discussion with whoever designed that traffic calming scheme

and demonstrate the error of his ways because to have just one -way traffic.

So those poor people that are proposed to come out, you know, there'll be 200 journeys a day just to and from school.

You know, a parent will take a child to school and come back, that's two, and then in the afternoon.

That's without a partner or husband going to work.

Right next to Barnet Way, there is a track.

So it's just to the northeast on the same side of the road

where there's two dwellings, the map was up.

Oh yes it is, down in the middle bottom,

there's two dwellings that it seems to me has a track.

So is that correct, you know the area?

That's correct, yes.

Yeah, so that's double pressure at that junction.

So I would suggest that we need to do something to alleviate the inevitable congestion there.

Now I understand from a planning point of view we can only insist on so much contribution to, and what have you.

But we're seeing it right across the north of the county

with the proposals that are coming.

Its infrastructure is the problem,

and piece by piece development does not address that.

And this is just going to exacerbate the situation.

119, you've already said there's more coming.

And even further out, with traffic

trying to come into Aylesbury, we

have to do something to address that.

from your talking to your residents what do they think would be the solution to

the traffic issues that this and many other developments are causing on the

4 -1 -8? Thank you. Well it certainly would not be approving a scheme that's going

to deliver even more traffic movements onto the 4 -1 -8 particularly at this

junction. I would suggest that perhaps traffic calming needs to be

reviewed, perhaps extended to the other end of the village as well, because

you've got one end where there's very little, it's supposedly controlled by the

traffic lights creating a long wait. I was coming home yesterday from the

opposite direction from the Wingrave direction, going straight ahead into

Bearton. A car coming up behind me turned off to go to Kingsbrook, but instead of

going to Kingsbrook, because the lights were green, it did a U -turn across Mike

Gryphon Way and came out ahead of me. It's the absolute Wild West

through there at the moment and as much as traffic calming is needed and is

desirable, what's in place.

And I believe that the RSA3 will reflect this.

Will clearly require some revisions, additions,

possibly things like HGV restrictions even.

But those things are in the future,

as are the link roads, which this will, essentially,

the traffic calming will work when

the link roads are in place, well, we're assuming 9 ,000 home

development is effectively a new town.

A new town is 10 ,000 homes.

So let's not forget that the local plan

is proposing a new town on the northern edge of Bearden

as well.

So welcome to our world, Councillor Powell.

When you live in the middle of it,

That's your journey, regardless of where you're going

or what you're doing.

But the answer is certainly not to be bringing forward

these opportunistic speculative developments that

sit outside of the neighbourhood plan,

outside of the local plan, on sites that have already

been assessed as unsuitable.

OK.

Just a question.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:58:55

OK.

us all the questions for you in clarification. Councillor Ward thank you for

your time. Thank you members. Can I call now Councillor Fisher please.

Councillor Fisher you also have three minutes to make your presentation and if you

don't mind remaining seated for points of clarification on what you have said.

Absolutely, thank you. If you pull the microphone close to you, that makes you

Public Speakers - 0:59:39

more effective. Okay, thank you. Right, Beerton Parish Council asks members to refuse this

application, concentrating on infrastructure and sustainability

because these have become even more important under the MPPF. Offices

This principally rely on policy S5

to support housing outside bit and settlement boundary

because the council cannot demonstrate

five -year housing supply.

But S5 does not say that housing outside settlements

should automatically be approved

because there is a housing shortfall.

It requires the development to be of a scale

which can be accommodated, taking into account

existing or proposed infrastructure.

Has this test genuinely been demonstrated here?

We've talked about the primary score,

but there's no GP surgery in Bearton.

ICB states that Poplar Grove

and Oakville surgeries are oversubscribed

and cannot accept any more patients.

The proposed alternative at Mandeville is not

within walking distance,

and there's no direct bus route either.

This will increase traffic affecting sustainability

and infrastructure.

Walking and cycling routes are limited.

Parts of the Elsbury Road have very narrow pathways

and we've covered traffic calming as well.

Barnet Way is a narrow, twisting cul -de -sac,

originally serving just 14 houses with on -street parking

which narrows the road right beside the traffic -harmed area.

In addition, this area is Grade 2 agricultural land

in open countryside, crossed by two public footpaths

and adjoining an ecologically sensitive landscape,

including an SSSI and conservation area.

Bearden's neighbourhood plan was adopted only last year,

following a 94 % vote in favour.

This land lies outside the divine development area,

and this was the reason this committee rejected

a recent proposal for Cowley Close.

It's not allocated for housing in the emerging local plan,

and the current Council's current regulation 19 healer assesses this exact site, site 164, as unsuitable for development because of the risk of coalescence with Beerton.

It's the parish's view this development has not demonstrated it can be sustainably accommodated in an endless occasion. Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:02:08

Thank you very much.

Councillor Mahoney.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:02:24

You mentioned in your speech that it's grade two agricultural land.

What has it been used for and what has it currently been used?

What type of agriculture?

It's currently being used.

There's sheep grazing on it currently.

We've seen a couple of lovely photos by officers as well

of it.

Public Speakers - 1:02:43

But if you were to stand there now, you would hear woodpeckers.

You'd hear chiffchats.

You'd see deer, badgers, foxes, and as I said,

sheep grazing currently.

Thank you.

Councillor Hussain.

Two questions.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:02:58

The local plan was approved on 94%.

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:03:01

What was this area designated for in your local plan?

And secondly, you did mention GP surgeries.

And I know Poplar Grove is full, but I know Mandel is full as well.

So where do your residents go if they move into the area?

Thank you for those.

Public Speakers - 1:03:25

So, sorry, the first question's gone already, but let me talk

about the second question because I can remember that

and we'll go back.

So the ICB have suggested with other local proposals for housing that the developers

give funding to help fund additional staff at Mandeville. When we had, going back a few

years, with the Kingsborough development, as Councillor Ward said, there was a proposal

to build the doctor's surgery which was built, but the ICB could not staff it. So as far

is where local people go, we don't know,

but it's going to add certainly pressure to the infrastructure.

It's not sustainable.

If people can't walk to their doctor's surgery,

they can't get a direct bus to Mandeville.

They'll have to go into Ellsbury and then out.

If someone's feeling poorly, it's

really not a great solution.

It's not sustainable.

It's not friendly.

Sorry, but my first question was you said the local plan.

Yes.

In your local plan, what was this area designated as?

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:04:22

Public Speakers - 1:04:25

Okay, so the area sat outside the development boundary and was set to be used as it is currently for agriculture.

Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:04:34

So is the doctor surgery that they built still there?

I'm not sure.

No.

Hang on, hang on.

Sorry, I've only told you to...

The building is now housing on Kingsbrick.

Okay, thank you.

Public Speakers - 1:04:49

And local surgeries have been extended so poplar growth for example has been

extended. The provision was put in but the surgery wouldn't take it over. No. The ICB

wouldn't take it over because they couldn't staff it. You see the problem we

have with the ICB. Yeah.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:05:07

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:05:13

So I'm happy to give it to you.

Thank you, Chairman.

This is a bit technical, I may not have read things correctly, so I might have to go to

the officers, but it's about the mitigation for the GP surgery.

And from what I read, it looked like that the money that they were requesting would

go towards a study to see whether they could expand

the mandibule surgery.

And they had five years to do that

from the time of the contribution, which, I mean,

am I right in thinking that that may mean that there's nothing

then happens at the end of this and you're still stuck

with no more care for the patients?

I mean, did I read this correctly?

Yes, you did.

And I think that's also got to factor

Public Speakers - 1:05:58

in the 115 additional houses that have been recently approved

and where those people are going to go, those residents are going

to go for their healthcare.

So yes, there's no guarantees here, even with funding

that anything is going to change.

And even if there's funding to extend Mandeville,

you can't walk to Mandeville surgery.

You have to get a couple of busses or you have to drive.

And that's just not sustainable.

Okay, so this means that this mitigation may

or may not happen.

It's just money towards a survey.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:06:31

not actually doing it without the patience. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Gillan.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:06:37

Thank you. Councillor Stutchbury.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:06:41

Thank you Chairman. My questions have been asked by Councillor Nick Naman and Councillor Frank Waller.

Thank you. Councillor Anderson.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:06:50

Cllr Cameron Anderson - 1:06:53

Thank you Mr Chairman, thank you Councillor. I wanted to address a point which we kind of picked up on at the previous Bearden Development hearings as well, the 17th of 72 dwellings.

The importance of neighbourhood plans and yet again we're kind of having a very similar issue as well.

Is this a question?

No, no, no, this is just me addressing something and I'd like to ask a question to the Councillor as well.

In the recent Regulation 19 objections with Beerton provided,

is there anything that Beerton submitted that hasn't been addressed today

which may apply to this development today?

Is there anything which Beerton mentioned in their objections to Regulation 19

which hasn't been included in this?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:07:36

And, Gans Anderson, I can't add that because the lady has not talked about Regulation 19.

are we getting a question on what she said? I'm sure she mentioned that in the

previous, oh forgive me, maybe Councillor Waters forgive me. Is it a

clarification of that or what she said? No is it clarification of what she said?

No well then it can't be, I can't allow it. Councillor Smith. Thank you, thank you chair and

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:08:13

And you did mention transport infrastructure

and the problems with that.

And I noticed in the report that the highways officer has

said that there's a good bus service

and there's a contribution to public transport.

And so it should be fine in terms

of the quality of public transport in the area.

I wonder if you could just kind of confirm a little bit more

or explain a little bit more about what

you see is the transport infrastructure problems particularly public transport

with with this development. Thank you. I think Councillor Ward has already

Public Speakers - 1:08:49

covered the impact of getting from Barnet Way and the additional traffic

from Barnet Way out onto the main A418. She's highlighted about the road safety

audit which is possibly sat somewhere with the Epstein files I'm not quite

sure but it's not been very visible but this the public transport locally is is

limited it's not you know goes into Elsbury it goes on to Leipzig buzzard or

on to Milton Keynes it's not particularly joined up we've got no

park and ride in Elsbury that might help some of the central traffic we're talking

about additional 36, 72, however many additional vehicles

impacting traffic congestion, not just in Bearden,

but in the wider area.

One of your colleagues talked about trying

to avoid Bearden now and trying to go through Kingsbrook.

I think we're potentially pushing problems further then

into Kingsbrook, which is also a single one -lane road.

So it's just not compatible and workable for people who are going to have to travel for schools, for doctors, for work.

This brings no further employment into the village, which might mean people could walk to work, walk to their place of work.

So yes, it's just going to exacerbate existing problems. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Powell.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:10:24

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:10:26

Thanks, Jamily. This is just a very quick one. It was me that mentioned about not going

through Bearden anymore, and I certainly can go through Kingsborough. It's even worse.

As I asked Councillor Ward the extra pressure on Barnet Way and the little track next to

it that goes to the two properties, I'm looking at a picture on Google Earth, and there's

somebody parked on the pavement right next to that track. So it must be a regular occurrence.

Now it looks to have a very good vision display there, but I mean, what do, are you aware

of the residents that live on those, in those two and their attitude towards the extra traffic

that would be generated?

Yes, there are actually three houses built up there.

Public Speakers - 1:11:18

two you can see a sort of paler picture and one a bit closer to the main road. I

think they experienced some issues getting in and out of their road and

certainly building any additional houses in Barnet Way. It's currently a narrow

twisting cul -de -sac of 14 houses so adding a huge amount more to that area.

There's a lot of on -street parking at the moment when the houses were built. A lot of them had parking maybe for one car.

Or as we know, a lot of houses now have two cars.

There's a lot of on -street parking making that road even more narrow.

And it is quite twisting.

So yes, I think it's going to cause a lot of frustration.

Not just during the build, which could take, I think, up to two years to build these houses.

Not just during that time, but once they're occupied as well.

Thank you for that and Chairman I'll get some clarification in technical.

Councillor Fisher, thank you for your time.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:12:19

Oh sorry, we've got a late entry.

Last on the track Chairman.

Yes.

May I lift my arm a bit higher next time?

Okay, just a couple of questions.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:12:31

Infrastructure is always a big issue wherever we are at the moment because,

and talking of doctor surgeries, I'm just struggling on that one,

because we keep referring to Stoke Manville,

but you mentioned the populace, which is just around the corner,

about a mile away, and the shops that are there.

That's where I would have assumed most of them had gone,

but obviously not.

But there's also bedgrove surgery, which I know when we,

I've got a shake of a head over the far side,

but when we lived in that area, I knew a lot of people

that went to bed growth surgery.

So I'm just trying to add things up.

And then at Wing, which is, I know that's a bit further out,

there's the 3W Health surgery, which I know some go to.

So I'm just struggling maybe when we discuss, if,

I don't know what direction we're going to go,

but maybe any mitigation could go towards those of expansion.

But I don't know that.

So I'm just picking up on that.

It's just bugging slightly.

And then the other one was, I'm trying to see where Councillor Pole refers to the track that goes...

Councillor Pole, could you enlighten me slightly because I'm intrigued.

Directly to the south of the proposed site, you'll see maybe one of our offices can...

Is it just below these two new cottages in the middle?

That doesn't help.

It would be better that you were on yeah

That hardly even shows can we go back to the picture that we were on for a long time

Yeah, those two buildings are in the middle with the light driveway

Yeah, yes, because they were two old cottages that were replaced. There's three properties

Yeah, but I think I think what you mean the track that we keep referring to

again I'm just picking up that that is an actual right -of -way that goes past

the lakes I'm just enlightening because I think people should know it goes

through past the lakes there is a footpath that takes you across to the

outside of the lakes yes that's a footpath that comes out on to but there

but there is also a driveway for those three new houses yeah okay and then you

Public Speakers - 1:14:53

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:14:55

mentioned about in in in Barnet Way about the on -street parking

Again, I do see you know, I've known it for years always on street parking

But all of those houses that you touched houses with car parking spaces for free to full cars. So it's

Can I can I also say please yeah, that's why I want you to enlighten us on the directly facing

Public Speakers - 1:15:22

Barnet Way is a series of terraced houses like eight ten houses or something

there is some parking for them there but I think another number of residents use

Barnet Way in addition if you come out of Barnet Way and turn left there are a

number again of terraced houses who I don't think many of them have off -street

parking so again that's used by residents there and that's why I took it

down that path to educate us of why people park there.

It wasn't a prod, as I think some thought

I was going that direction.

It wasn't you educated us.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:15:58

But and then when we talk about traffic coming into Bearden,

as it does in traffic coming, has helped us, is it not?

But just outside Bearden, only by a mile,

on the left -hand side is the cemetery,

which is a crematorium which has traffic going to it

all the time.

So in and out, nice and slow.

Thank you very much for the update.

Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:16:19

Councillor, thank you for your time. Can I now call John Sylvester, please?

Mr Sylvester, you represent the Bearton Action Group.

I do. And you're objecting to the application.

I am.

You've got three minutes, when the clock starts.

Public Speakers - 1:16:40

Members, I ask you to refuse this application principally on the evidence and conclusions

contained in the documents before you.

This proposal does not comply with the Development Plan.

The Officer's Report expressly says so.

It's outside Bearden's recently adopted Development Boundary in unallocated open countryside.

Your Landscape Officer concludes that the development would without doubt have a permanent

and major adverse effect and would without doubt degrade an existing landscape character.

Importantly, the September update does not diminish that finding.

It now says that landscape harm remains substantial and gives substantial negative weight to it

and expressly identifies conflict with the new NPPF Policy N2.

This heritage position is also strengthened.

Officers now accept that substantial weight must be given to conservation and that considerable

importance and weight should be given to the acknowledged harm to the Bearden Conservation

Area.

Here, the harms overlap.

Major adverse landscape change, countryside and Grade II agricultural land loss, harm

to the Conservation Area and Barnet House, loss of mediaeval ridge and furrow, and urbanisation

immediately beside the historic Bearden Lakes.

Members are entitled to consider their cumulative effect.

There is a more fundamental inconsistency.

The council's current regulation 19 healer

assesses this site as unsuitable as has been said.

Unsuitable for development specifically

because it would result in coalescence

to an Aylesbury strategic growth area in Bearden.

Yet, to 626, this report says there would be no coalescence.

These two officers' conclusions are completely contradictory

and cannot be reconciled.

The emerging local plan reinforces the point.

It proposes around 9 ,000 homes at the Aylesbury Nest

that specifically requires a strategic green gap

to the south to prevent coalescence with Bearden

and protect the setting of the conservation area.

Why therefore, approve speculative housing on land

which the officers' own current evidence says is unsuitable

for precisely that reason.

Officers describe these 36 houses as a meaningful contribution to the housing shortfall.

In fact, they address only about 1 .8%.

Members must decide whether and what weight that modest contribution deserves

against the substantial and permanent harms officers themselves identify.

Members faced similar physical harms at William Hill Drive and Elsbury Road in May,

which were refused by this committee.

National policy has changed since then, but Bearden's landscape has not, nor has its countryside, settlement identity, or conservation area.

Ultimately, this is a question of planning judgement and weight. I ask members to give these harms proper, cumulative weight, uphold the plan -led approach, and refuse this application. Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:19:52

Thank you, Mr. Sveto. Thank you very much. Point of clarity.

Councillor Gibbon.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:20:06

Okay, thank you Chairman.

I just got a question really to do with the environment because you mentioned Ridge and

Furrow.

I don't know how sort of that, the effect of losing that, whether it's just, is that

to do with water and water flow and flooding?

And also does that tie in with Beerton Lakes and how will the development affect them as

well?

The rigid furrow is a mediaeval landscape feature.

Public Speakers - 1:20:33

It's not specifically to do with drainage per se,

it was to do with how the field systems were allocated

to the peasants prior to the act

that created the current field structure.

So it means that those fields have never even been ploughed.

It's that historical landscape and Ridge and Fyro is obviously increasingly rare for that reason.

It does have drainage characteristics but that was its primary purpose. It's historic.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:21:16

And coming back to the other bit of my question, will the development affect Bearden Lakes and the wildlife that's then affected by them?

Absolutely.

Public Speakers - 1:21:28

Bearden Lakes is a biodiverse ecological area with, which is a very valued natural habitat

to many species.

It's carefully looked after and maintained as such.

The development is pretty much up to its border.

There is a green buffer of maybe, I don't know, five, ten metres, if that.

It's hardly a green buffer if you're a badger, a fox, a deer, or whatever it may be.

So it will directly impact Benton Lakes and the valued biodiverse heritage it gives us.

Thank you. Councillor Smith.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:22:14

Thank you chair and Councillor Gibbon has jumped in really with the concerns I had about your reference to the lakes really.

And really my point, my question was going to be that in the report we're told that there is no harm associated with the beaten lakes.

There's no harm and I just really wanted to hear from you why you think this is,

we should be considering this as harmful.

Well, the Bearden Lakes is in the conservation area and

Public Speakers - 1:22:51

the report acknowledges major adverse,

permanent major adverse effect that's accepted in the report.

So it's not possible to have this development and it not substantially and permanently affect the conservation area.

It's five metres from it.

OK, thank you very much. Councillor Gough.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:23:23

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:23:27

Yeah, I just want to pluck into one as Councillor Gibbon picked up about Ridge and Thorough.

Could you just clarify where is the Ridge and Furrow

that you're discussing, please?

The Ridge and Furrow runs, well,

it's in the field that's developed.

Public Speakers - 1:23:41

It's also in the field that's called Croxley,

just to the north east of it, and to the fields to the west,

which Ridge and Furrow sits in, it features in all those,

and runs in various directions.

In fact, you can see, there you can see it there.

But it's not in the site.

It is also in the site.

It's not as apparent, because what you're seeing there

is sitting water in the furrows, which

doesn't exist on the build site.

But the same ridge and furrow features do exist there.

And that is stated in the report by the officers.

OK, so there's ridge and furrow, ridge and furrow.

Chairman, there's Ridge and Furrer and Ridge and Furrer.

You know I'm quite tight on this,

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:24:32

and so is my colleague to my right.

And I put the scanner over the top there,

and it's not showing it, but I'll pick it up

in technical with the officers.

OK, thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:24:42

Thank you for your time.

Oh, sorry.

Councillor Powell.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:24:49

You mentioned about the conservation area.

Can you explain to me exactly where the boundary is,

you know, where it is.

Because as I understand it, Ridge and Furrow,

you know, as we said, is not necessarily a game changer,

but conservation should be.

Public Speakers - 1:25:07

So the Ridge and Furrow and this application site

is outside of the conservation area.

However, it is that field.

How do I best describe it?

Perhaps the officers could point to the development field.

That's the development field.

and the dark green is the conservation area.

So you can see it's directly neighbour to it.

Thank you, and that's another thing I'll bring

up on technical because proximity

Cllr Chris Poll - 1:25:35

to a conservation area is a serious issue.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:25:38

Ms. Wester, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Can I call Robert Taylor, please?

Mr Taylor you're representing Bearden Lakes Ecology and Arts Club and you're in support

of the application is that correct?

Can you press your microphone?

Press the microphone.

Anyone who loves you more.

Thank you.

If you'd like to pull it towards you it will help us to hear you.

Is that good?

That's much better thank you.

Perfect.

Public Speakers - 1:26:22

When the clock starts, you have three minutes for your presentation.

Shall do. Thanks.

Only on the condition the development is moved west off the paddock site shall I support it.

The delegated officer has approved the application provided there were no new representations

and the applicant agreed various conditions.

However, there is new material evidence which makes two things clear.

First, that the report which the applicant says proves there will be low -end harm on

the nationally designated SSSI, off -site ponds, priority 2 woodland habitat and green infrastructure

and environment agency, cruisian carp arc site of Bearton Lakes is flawed.

And secondly, that the landscape officer's prioritisation of a non -designated heritage

asset over the previously mentioned nationally designated feature, GI and aquatic habitat

results in discordant placement of the development that conflicts with the local and neighbourhood

plans.

The new evidence is a report compiled for Buckinghamshire Council in November 2001 which

the delegated officer does not refer to.

This report shows a relationship between the proposed site and Bearton Lakes can be seen to exist only if testing occurs before the spring when the autumn rains running off the proposed site begin to reach Bearton Lakes.

The applicant is therefore wrong about a lack of impact because they conducted their tests at the wrong time in March 2015, well after the winter -born spring feeding the lakes had stopped.

Sorry, I'll just stop you.

Are you opposed to this application

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:28:17

or are you supporting it?

I'm getting to that.

No, I want to know now.

I'm in favour of it.

You're in favour of it?

From what you've said so far, I can't see that.

Well that's because I haven't got to the end.

I know.

Can I? Okay.

Can I continue?

I'll reclaim my time, yeah.

Thanks.

No, no, no, I'm just lost.

Public Speakers - 1:28:44

The applicant is therefore wrong about a lack of impact because they conducted their tests at the wrong time in March 2015,

well after the winter -born spring feeding the lakes had stopped.

Their report was in any event an infiltration test and not a hydrological survey.

It can't override this contrary evidence from the council.

The landscape officer has then recommended setting out the development west, covering

the rainfall catchment to the lakes and permanently diverting at least 50 % of the water away.

This wrongly prioritises a non -designated heritage asset over the sustainability and

security of a nationally designated feature, local green infrastructure and the flora and

that rely on sufficient supplies of clean water reaching Bearton Lakes.

If this mistake is redressed by way of a condition that development occurs off the rainfall catchment

and behind the hedge, thus inconveniencing the least number of people and environments,

then if the council must oblige the applicant, I support the application.

I have also spoken to a number of opposers who, if given no choice,

Agree construction should occur eastward of the hedge.

Not doing so will also result in longer roads,

further car journeys and greater lifetime missions

for the development, plus all that inconvenience

which will result in making an unnecessarily

long access route.

Okay, thank you.

Please move the development back west

as far as possible.

Thank you, sir.

Where it can be easily accommodated, thank you.

I've given you extra time on the three mates.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:30:21

Pleasure.

Any points of clarification?

Chancellor Smith.

And thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for that submission.

I got a little bit lost in the detail, I guess, really.

So I wondered if you could clarify.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:30:43

I noticed in the officer's report that it says that

the lakes are not fed by runoff from the field.

but you're saying that because of the positioning of this development,

the feed into the lakes is going to be substantially affected.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

And I also noticed that there is a suggestion that there's going to be

a condition, contrary to advice, I guess,

that the drainage from the site could be diverted into the lakes.

Why that wouldn't be a sufficient mitigation?

Public Speakers - 1:31:26

Your last question first, thank you, Councillor Smith. Rediverting the water back into the

lakes after it has been through an urban cycle is completely irresponsible. It's going to

collect all the dervitas from traffic, from any household waste accidents that might occur

on the hard standing. And it's the hard standing over this area with the paddock which is going

to divert 50 % of the water away from Bearton Lakes.

That is going to lead to reduced water levels in the ponds,

which is then going to lead to erosion of the public footpaths

that we've seen that go around the lakes.

And that is an imminent threat.

And this impact has not been identified,

because Buckinghamshire Council has not

provided its own report to its delegated officer that

sets out a series of deep trial pits

that were carried out in 2001 by the council

under the auspices of Haida Consulting in November,

which showed categorically that the rain that

falls on this paddock site, where you can see

the majority of that development to the west of that hedge,

is falling.

It reaches a tipping point sometime around late October,

early November.

and it starts to flow in and fill the ponds for the year.

Now, if we lose that water, then the repercussions are considerable,

and they're not covered by the applicant's survey, which, as I say,

was simply an infiltration test that talks about if we fill up this little pit,

and we time how long it goes to philtre away, then we'll know whether there's good drainage.

Well, we know there's no good drainage there.

The issue is that we cannot lose the water supply to the lakes and the way in which we secure that is by pushing it further to the west.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Gough.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:33:26

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:33:28

I find you fascinating. That was your passion about the lakes because of the amount of time that they've been there.

And the way you presented that, I'd take my hat off to you, seriously. Really good.

So could you, just looking at the way that paddock is,

could you let me know and let us know

how the sort of underground water travels to the lakes

from that paddock, please?

Does it come down or does it come across at the angle or?

Everybody agrees in the reporting,

including the environment agency,

that the water table is running to the southeast.

Public Speakers - 1:34:01

What's not clear on there is the topography,

which you can see is essentially in the top left hand corner of that picture.

That's the highest point, but the land drops off on either side of there, so

essentially the catchment area is 80 to 90 percent inside that red box.

All I'm suggesting is that you put it on the eastern side of that hedge, then the

issue is averted because you can see quite practically if you draw a 45 degree angle,

which is the southeast runoff zone, that it's not going to affect it. Or if there is some

kind of effect that it's not going to be as bad as what that is, which is an incredibly

long access road linking spiralling round, throwing all the water off into a drain that's

then going to go off to the southeast

and take it away entirely from the lakes.

And that is going to undermine the footpaths.

It's going to undermine the geological triple SI.

It's going to stop the water reaching into the,

feeding the plants.

All the aquatic life that's there,

the great crested newts.

That's a disaster of a plan that's

been arrived at because the plan was originally for 72 homes.

It's been reduced, but it's been left in the wrong place after it's been reduced.

I'm not against development, I'm for development, but in the right place.

It trained very much, and let's say, clarifying that, so it goes from the top left down across

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:35:37

at the 45, say, degree angle down to the lakes.

Am I about right?

Public Speakers - 1:35:47

Essentially, if the person with the marker can just, just so that we're clear as to where

we're going from one side.

You go to your left, left, left, left, left, left, left, left, higher, higher, but in

a bolt, they go right, right, right, towards there, there, start there.

Essentially there.

From there.

Yeah.

And it's heading down to the pond.

At the 45 degree angle.

Essentially, without a proper hydrological survey, which requires more trial pits than

a two metre trial pit that was done in the wrong place by the applicant, more trial pits

than were done by the five that Buckinghamshire Council

paid for in 2001 and left.

You need to do those trial pits

with water monitoring technology for a good year

to understand the seasonality of it.

Okay, thank you very much.

So the Ridge in Friday goes allegedly straight down,

would have nothing to do with the way that water travels

to your thing.

Okay, just one, what do you still do next?

I remember back in the day there was fishing there

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:36:48

and up sorts. What's there now?

I'll tell you about it.

Thank you.

Kansas, first with you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:36:55

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:37:00

The previous question. Please can you explain to me, you describe how you believe the hydraulics and what's is worth there.

What's been the state of the pond's water levels for us this year?

Because it's an unusual year.

It is, yeah.

And I know of places which have been having to go back

and test the oxygen in the water

because the water levels dropped.

And then you have the problem of lack of water

in established and some newly established lakes and stuff.

So what was the, just how interested,

what was the state of it?

Because there will be a change post -development

if it was built or if it's not built,

it will change that, the hydraulics will change.

That's a fine question, Councillor Stutchbury.

Public Speakers - 1:37:46

The issue is, in the aquatic environment, you've got your fish, you've got your amphibians,

you've got your insects that are using that area to breed, and you've also got inert material.

And those two elements essentially co -exist if there's enough water, and there's always

been enough water in these ponds for those two to exist. You've got the leaf matter

falling into the lakes and you've got branches and they rot. When you get reduced water,

you get reduced oxygen, that kills off the fish, that provides an environment, because

there's no oxygen, that provides an environment for fast breeding organisms like algal blooms

to grow and what we've seen in the last year is the lowest water level that I've

seen it in the 12 years that I've been an owner of managing it and what we've

also seen as a result of those water lower water levels is the undercutting

of the footpaths being exposed and you know these things need to be considered

as impacts and to say that, well, unfortunately,

as the applicant says, well, these things are going

to be OK because, you know, the problem with the lakes is

that there's too much brash in there, there's too many leaves.

That's a natural, so this is part of a natural ecosystem.

It's irresponsible to say that that's,

that the lake should be able to, it's not a swimming pool.

You know, there's fish in there, there's leaves in there,

that's the way it is.

And it's unfair and irresponsible of their report

that says that there's no harm to crossover it.

I think you've answered the question.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councillor Horne.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:39:43

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:39:46

Can I just summarise here?

And you started off at the beginning

saying that you were a supporter of this application.

However, your first statement was,

and I think you, in summary, you think this site is in the wrong location?

Well, it's a big site. Sorry, I don't mean to jump, I don't mean to talk over to you.

So, you spoke about you supported if it moved more west, is that right?

I think it has to, yes.

Okay, so in summary then, at the moment you're objecting as it stands to this application, is that right?

No, I'm in support of it.

Well how can you be in support of it if you're saying that you're not in support of it unless it's moved west?

Public Speakers - 1:40:41

I'm in support of it on the condition that it is where the developer asked to originally put it, which is either side of the access road.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:40:49

Well I... That's exactly as Councillor Mahon says, you want it moved.

I want it where the developer first wanted it, that there.

Public Speakers - 1:40:56

You want it, you want it moved.

Can only consider the applicants before us.

Sorry?

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:41:01

All we can do sir, is consider what we got before us.

Correct.

Yeah.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:41:07

That's the point Mr Chairman I'm trying to make.

Yeah. So if you're saying that you're not happy with what's in front of you,

what you want this to be moved, therefore you're an objector.

Yes, that's the point, that's the question I asked, sir.

Yes?

Would you like to rephrase it then?

Public Speakers - 1:41:25

No, I've just done it.

I don't understand the question.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:41:29

The question is...

I'm here to support it.

I mean, I want to be a realist here, okay?

Public Speakers - 1:41:38

There isn't enough housing land, the delegated officer has made that clear.

Sorry, let me just stop you.

The question before us is this.

is that the application we have before us is that.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:41:45

If you're not happy with it and you think it should be moved to all waste,

then you're objecting to it.

No, I'm in favour of it.

How can you be in favour of it if you're not happy with what's available?

That's all that's available to us.

Because it's been said it's going to happen.

No, but the only people that can decide if this happens or not is us.

Right? So that's... we cannot make any alterations to it.

What we can say is that is that acceptable?

Well you can put conditions on it.

Conditions won't move it.

But you're being asked to put a condition on it which is going to redirect dirty water back into the lake that I've been trying to manage for the last ten years.

No, sorry. I'm having a debate. I'm going to stop it.

Are there any more questions?

I'm sorry. No more questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Right, can I call Mr. Wishart, Seed and Bennett please.

Bear in mind we can only answer clarification on what the individuals have said.

If they're not speaking they won't be asked any questions.

If your colleagues are not speaking they cannot be asked any questions.

So if you're the main man, that's it.

Sorry.

Public Speakers - 1:43:37

Good afternoon chair and members and may I just start by saying this is a very comprehensive report by your officers and we give them thanks for their efforts and diligence in preparing it for discussion today.

We entirely understand that residents care deeply about Bearden and its future.

We're also aware of other applications in the area but we're asking members to determine this application on its own planning merits and in its amended form.

It has changed significantly. We started with up to 60 homes and following extensive feedback,

we've reduced it down to a maximum of 36. It's an up to number. Importantly, all development

has been removed from the western part of the site. That land will remain open.

The built form is now contained behind the existing hedgerow specifically to address

landscape, heritage, visual and character impacts. Heritage and landscape officers and

In the report, all acknowledge that those changes have materially reduced the effects

of the development.

Additionally, members will note there are no technical objections from the local highway

authority, the lead local flood authority, Natural England and other internal consultees.

The proposals would deliver up to 36 new homes, including bungalows, at least nine affordable

homes, new public open space, biodiversity enhancements and almost £800 ,000 towards

local infrastructure and mitigation.

The application before you reflects a considerable amount of work to reduce impacts and to respond to concerns.

Having assessed the revised scheme, your officers have concluded the benefits outweigh the impacts, and that includes with the new MPPF.

They are also satisfied that the remaining matters can be addressed through conditions, a Section 106 agreement, and the Reserve Matters process.

Members may be aware of the Housing and Land Supply position.

this forms an important part of the planning balance as set out in the

report which we considered to be comprehensive and fair. Your officers

have considered the neighbourhood plan, the site's constraints, consultation

responses, neighbour comments and the wider policy position. This is a

proportionate proposal in a sustainable location that meets an identified need

and which has been arrived at through listening, understanding and changing.

Your officers diligence and focus on quality have helped us to shape the

materially improve proposals before you today.

We agree with the conclusion that permission

should be granted and hope you will endorse

the recommendation as set out in the report.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:46:10

Council Goll.

Oh, let me go first for change for today.

Thank you very much, German.

Really appreciate it.

Good afternoon.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:46:25

I'd just like to pick up on a few things.

And I just listened to the gentleman before, which was

extremely interesting.

Because your previous plan was over the whole area, which

sort of answered some of his questions.

But you just mentioned, because of the feedback and

stuff like that, you moved half of just half of the

application to this side.

That feedback, did that come from consultation

with the community?

If you could enhance on that, please.

Certainly.

That's a dialogue with the council officers.

We had an in -app, pre -app meeting

towards the end of last year, start of this year.

Public Speakers - 1:47:07

And it was clear that landscape and heritage concerns

were first and foremost from council officers' concerns

at that point.

And it's because the development was west of the hedgerow

that it's now to the east of.

So the site area and the number of dwellings has been reduced in direct response to landscape and heritage concerns.

Because initially the heritage officer had raised more significant concerns with the original application

because there was also an impact on illicit building on the main road.

With the application being reduced in scale and behind that hedgerow, there's now no impact upon that property at all.

and the other indicative layout changes have also reduced the impact on the non -designated

heritage asset to the north as well as to the conservation of an area to the east by

pulling it further back from the boundary.

So the reason for the change is specifically to address heritage and landscape concerns

from council officers.

Okay, but that was just council officers.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:48:06

Did you consult with the parish council or anybody like that, please?

There was consultation before the application went in, in its original form, but not in the lifespan of the application itself.

I had one last question but I've gone dead. I'll come back. Thank you very much.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:48:27

Okay, thank you. Councillor Gibbon.

Okay, thank you Chairman.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:48:37

The new NPPF now says that it's important you take into account the quality of the agricultural

land.

Did you look to see if there was an area that would be more suitable where the land wasn't

such high quality?

The classification of agricultural land in that area is all the same.

Public Speakers - 1:48:57

So whether it had been this part of the site, the wider site,

or nearby, the grading would have been the same.

OK, thank you.

And just one more quick one.

This is just to do with biodiversity.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:49:09

Have you, is there a plan to have

swift bricks, which apparently is quite important?

And have you produced a local nature recovery strategy?

Sorry, would you mind repeating the first bullet point,

because I didn't quite hear that.

There are boxes for swifts to live in,

and not on the houses?

That would be a matter for the detailed application.

It would come afterwards, where these things would

Public Speakers - 1:49:31

be secured by condition.

But yes, that would be the intent.

They're very commonplace things to include on planning

permissions these days.

So yeah, I would expect that to be the case.

And do you have a local nature recovery strategy?

I don't know about a specific one for the site, but obviously there will be the mandatory

minimum 10 % biodiversity net gain.

The metrics we've submitted with this application show about 13%, I think 13 or 14%, for the

two typologies.

One of them is a 13 or 14 % gain and the other one was in the region of 40%.

Those are indicative figures and will be flushed out more detailed at the reserve matter stage

should the application be approved.

Okay.

Councillor Smith?

Thank you chair and Councillor Gorma has already opened up this.

Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:50:30

I need to ask just a very short question.

And that's, we clearly have to consider harm to the lake.

And I think that's one of the issues that needs to be addressed here.

And in your submission you talked about the arrangements for the site.

but I wondered have you had any consideration

about the runoff water into the lake

from the proposed development in terms of where it is

and whether the existing drainage into the site

will be affected by your development?

We have, and in the first instance,

obviously the council's internal expertise

Public Speakers - 1:51:14

are not objecting on drainage or flood risk

or contamination matters.

And I believe it was actually the previous speaker

of furnishes with some information about the sort of runoff to the lakes or not as may

be the case separately and before the meeting today.

So we were kind of aware that that may be raised.

We've had that checked out with our own drainage and flood risk consultant and the conditions

that have been suggested in the report cover options, you know, various options because

we're dealing with an outline scheme.

We're not going to have the detailed drainage layout here for you to see and that just can't

be the case.

So, but we are very, very mindful of the concerns that have been raised there.

But the conditions that are proposed in the report do allow for

options in that regard.

Because obviously we don't want to make this any worse for an existing situation,

but nor do we want to flood adjacent land either.

It's a balancing act that we have to get right.

It's probably the first time in 20 years as a planner that I've seen somebody

concerned about not getting water into their site.

I've never known that to happen before, but first time for everything, I suppose.

But the conditions in the reports do allow for

that eventuality to be considered through a detailed drainage scheme.

which will be subject to further consultation with the council's own

consultees, flood risk and environmental health as well.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Stosry.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:52:30

Yeah, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:52:34

You said a lot about what you thought it would contribute to the area

and I think it's only fair that we've had lots of questions about what it might not contribute.

I think I need to have some questions about what it might contribute for balance when we're considering these things

and how you think it will improve or not improve the area because I think it has to be

those questions have to be put and we have to hear it in balance to see if they

justify the argument. Thank you.

Public Speakers - 1:53:08

Well in addition to providing

bungalows, affordable housing

and also general needs housing it will

it will assist the council in meeting that five -year supply,

which I think as the officer said in their presentation,

there's a need currently,

and the need sounds like it's like to become more acute

by the end of the month.

In addition to that,

there will be all the section 106 contributions

that all major developments are expected to provide it.

Each scheme should wash its own face.

There's 800 ,000 pounds approximately

towards the contributions that have been requested.

I believe that's education.

I need to get my crib sheet, just one second.

Thank you.

So 25 % affordable housing, primary and secondary education,

healthcare, local bus services, and recreation.

So and that's broken down roughly as £572 ,000 for education,

£147 ,000 for sport and recreation, £36 ,000 for busses, and £36 ,000 for healthcare.

So we had a lot of discussion earlier on from previous speakers about the

concerns about how things run at the moment, bus services, health care and

all the rest of it. It's developments of this scale and larger which provide the

contributions toward these things that allow them to be delivered and this is a

very very important scheme along with others to delivering those facilities

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:54:32

for the wider area. Secondly, you've listened to debates and it's my own

ask you the question. Regardless of the outcome of this, do you opinion that the management

of the water from this site clearly needs some further consideration because of the

contaminants and there are fairly good points when you talk about what may come up. People

think what they use in their gardens, pesticides and stuff aren't any contribution but they

all add to the total ambience and the contributions of pollutants. Plus we

don't realise that when we hose the car off that we actually do

contribute to the pollutants and the oil will come off the car. We probably think it's

okay because it does. It all adds up. Would you look at working with officers if that

was the case and it was agreed on how you can mitigate that through conditions

and philtres because it can be done but it needs to be put in at the onset not

of our perspective.

Yeah, I think the applicant's actually said that.

Said that they would be working,

because when we go through the reserve matters,

that will be a requirement.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:55:44

Just to sort of emphasise what I said before

and to elaborate slightly,

there are drainage and sort of flood risk mitigations

and conditions included anyway.

Public Speakers - 1:55:53

There is also a suite of contamination conditions,

so the two things do need to be looked at together,

and they would be.

Okay, thank you, Councilman Holmes.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:56:08

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm going to try this question, but I'm not too sure if you're going to allow me to proceed.

But I'm going to give it my best shot.

The previous speaker, I'm still confused.

He mentioned that he was a supporter of the application, but that didn't seem to work

out in the end.

So if we were minded to approve this application, would you accept a condition that we would

I would recommend to go on there saying that we want this site to be moved more west.

No, oh, sorry.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:56:53

No is your answer.

You may not do it.

Councillor O 'Shane.

Well in training we were told that we could consider what's in front of us,

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 1:57:06

what we want in front of us.

All I wanted to say was you've gone through a lot of iterations for this site.

This must have included traffic modelling.

Can you elaborate a bit on your traffic modelling and what the generation will be from these

36 properties and your ingress and egress onto the main roads.

Public Speakers - 1:57:41

Sorry just confirmed with my colleagues there. So yeah the transport assessment

that was submitted with the application shows in the peak AM and PM times 20

movements per hour and we have no objection from the local highway

authority they've assessed that on the basis of what's been submitted and

obviously we're well aware from the discussion earlier on about the about the

main road and the concerns with the existing traffic calming but that's an

existing issue to that and it's not the fault of this or other developments for

that but yeah highways are satisfied that the development is except acceptable

in planning terms with regard to its highway impact thank you okay thank you

Councillor Gough?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:58:21

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:58:24

I remembered what I forgot, Chairman. It's an aged thing, especially trying to follow Councillor Mahoney at the back with his little detour, I thought was very clever.

Just focus on your question.

Okay, I was trying.

So all it is is just coming back actually,

because Councillor Smith and I are on the same track

when it comes down to that water mitigation there.

So I'm really pleased a few of us have picked that up.

And I know that the applicants have mentioned

about a condition.

What I would like to ask if a condition could be,

if we decide to, is that the applicant would work

with the lake owner to make sure that he would be happy with the drainage system or whatever

because there's philtres and that they could put in. I don't know if that could be...

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:59:18

If all we have today in front of us is an outline planning for sure and the only things that we can

decide upon whether it's suitable in this location and the highway's access they're the only two

items that we have say over. I totally understand what you're saying, but when it comes back

with reserve matters, that would be one thing that they would want to look at.

Yeah, I agree with that, Chair. What I like about every application is where

I see a number of conditions. Yeah.

Because the conditions are protecting our communities.

Sure. And if you don't do that, and it goes somewhere

Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:59:52

else, we may not be able to. And I agree with you, Chair, but all I'm

and I understand it could be done on condition,

all I'm just trying to do is just poke in slightly

to see if the applicant would be prepared to consider that.

I think after the discussion today,

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:00:08

it'd be very wise to consider that.

Yep.

Okay, any further points of clarification?

Gentlemen, thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairman, could I request an adjournment

for 15 minutes please. Oh yes, yeah. Sorry? Yes. Thank you.

4 25/01867/AOP - Land Off Barnett Way, Bierton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5DN

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:00:40

We'll have a 15 minute break. Right, good afternoon again, let's resume our meeting.

We're now going into a technical session where we have an opportunity to raise

technical questions with the officers and I will run this by subject. So we'll

looking at various subjects related to the application and then ask them in that order.

I hope you're agreeable to that.

And the areas we'll be looking at is obviously highways, ecology, changes to the MPPF, weight

as allocated and the site plan.

If that's the case, can I have your first technical questions on highways?

Councillor Hussain.

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:01:33

Can the officers, the applicants stated that the modelling,

modelling for traffic modelling for the area

and for the site as is and the application.

Can the officers please elaborate on that

and also how much it adds to the main road,

that traffic adds to the main road

and whether the figures they stated were correct.

Yes, similar lines, more specific.

a figure of 20 vehicle movements per hour was mentioned.

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:02:07

I'd just like to know how we arrive at that figure.

Is that over a 24 hour period,

so that's 480 vehicle movements per day?

Or is it over a specific period?

The other one is looking at the Google Street View,

There is the house on the corner of

The lane

I'll tell you but our barnet way

parks on the pavement

So affects the vision display. I realise that's outside of the applicants control

But it's within our control and I'd like to know what we might do better

Thank you, sir. My was very similar actually

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:03:01

The visions play coming out of that road is not good at all, but whatever they say, because on your right hand side, left and right hand side, the trees are blocking the view and as Councillor Pollard said, we've got a car that parks on pavement.

We're going to have significantly more traffic coming down. I think that really has to be looked at because that is going to be dangerous.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:03:20

I didn't have my microphone on.

But the mayor would hurt me, which is great.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:03:37

What I would like to know is the accumulative effect of traffic a bit.

Because we all know the lumps and the bumps have been designed for the traffic.

I mean, that's there.

But the accumulative with the application that's down at Gibb Lane and other possible

applications in the area how that would affect this because one just leads to

another.

Shall I go through? Yeah. So the application was supported by a

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:04:14

comprehensive transport assessment that undertook junction modelling as part of

and that was considered by the Highways Authority and found to be acceptable in

terms of the movements that's also within that transport assessment

considered by the Highways Authority. I wasn't too clear on whether you were

referring to construction traffic movement or whether it was more broadly

or so. Not normally construction traffic outline you know permissions but a

definitive figure by the applicant of 20 vehicle movements per hour I suspect is

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:04:58

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:05:00

once the residences are occupied and I would like and appreciate if you can't

but I would like the technical understanding from highways methodology

how that number is arrived at so definitively.

So in terms of how these numbers are arrived at,

is they usually look at a typical development

that's comparable to this to assess and to come to a conclusion

on the type of vehicle movements that could be anticipated

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:05:29

as a result of a given development.

So that's the transport assessment that was submitted to us

accompanying this application included the relevant information relating to

movements and the modelling etc and that was considered by the Highways Authority

and found to be acceptable. So I can't, I'm afraid I can't go beyond that but you

know we have the recommended conditions within the report. The Highways Officer

isn't in attendance today but there is no Highways objection. The relevant

and information submitted has been considered

and found to be acceptable on parking on a pavement.

That's not a matter that they have raised

or raised concerns about.

And there isn't a condition relating to that either

included in the report.

So the two recommended conditions relate specifically

to the CTMP and in relation to the visibility splays.

and that's what's in the report today.

Was that 20 movements in the peak hours or during the course of the day?

That's probably the most.

I think it's typical movements on average throughout the day.

That's as you've read it or understood it to be, right?

I'd rather fear that without the transport team being here, we could assume that it's

a number that's plucked out the air.

It's half the number of dwellings per hour equals the vehicle movement.

So it's a desktop study.

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:07:18

And I would appreciate knowing that information before I can make a decision at this stage.

you can tell me that no that'll be under reserve matters but that still leaves me

with a vacancy in my thinking of what is the impact of this development on that

junction with that car that parks there if it's there on Street View then it's

there a lot of the time and that leaves a doubt in my mind thank you chairman

Thank you.

Counsellor Shane?

I will say, my answer to my question

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:07:53

is having built models myself, they're built on averages

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:07:55

and ideal situations.

The situation in this particular area

is that they cannot walk to school,

they cannot walk to the local surgery,

they cannot walk to any local shop.

So everything they have to do, they have to do by car.

or by a bus.

They cannot do anything, and I mean anything,

shopping, food, anything, health,

locally where you can say, okay,

there's a convenience store around the corner

where they can pop and get some bread.

Or the surgery is only five minutes away,

all the schools across the road.

So whereas the model, and I accept those built models

when I worked in the city, are built on averages

and ideal situations.

I don't believe it would apply to this particular site

for the reasons I've just said.

I've looked at the trip generation,

so if I can provide some clarity

in the transport assessment.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:09:03

It notes that there'll be, during peak hours,

32 two -way movements, both in the morning and the evening.

That's within there.

I'm not sure where you have got your figure of 20 throughout the day, but looking at the transport assessment

It was from the applicant. Oh, okay. I'm not entirely sure where that has come from but looking at

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:09:27

paragraph 6 .4 of their own transport assessment it highlights that there'll be

The peak trips which are going to be

32 two -way movements during peak hours is what I have before me and that's

In terms of your question relating to modelling, if it's about what's been taken into account

here, then they have taken the local contacts into account and gone into detail in their

transport assessment about what services are available to residents and where they anticipate

the trips would be.

So I don't think it's a case that a figure's been plucked out of the air or it's not contextual,

because this is clearly contextual and I can see from reviewing it that it does take into account

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:10:25

what services are available within Bearton and its surrounding area and what trips are anticipated on that basis.

And that's what's been assessed by the Highways Officer in response to or looking at the transport assessment

and on that basis there's no objection.

Is there a figure for non -peak time?

I can't, I'll have to look into it.

Yeah, you can keep looking. We will come back to you on that.

I'll have a look into it. Counsellor Tait.

To follow up the officer, two things.

Okay, you're saying that they take contacts.

Remember, they have to drive or get some transport to work,

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:11:10

health, school, or shopping.

Everything you need to do for your household,

you're gonna have to drive, number one.

Number two, having said what you said,

you said that they take contacts into account.

And they've taken up your word for it.

But then the next question, the obvious question is,

are those movements acceptable onto an already packed road?

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:11:40

So the NPPF is very clear in terms of how we assess highways impacts and it

says refusal on high -risk grounds only justify where the impact is severe. Now

taking in yeah I understand there's concerns about the traffic around Bearden

you know we've heard that today but we can only go by the evidence before us

and that has been considered by the Highways Officer.

They have raised no objection.

So they have found that the additional trips can be accommodated

and absorbed on the existing highways network.

On that basis, we wouldn't be able to reach a different conclusion on the evidence.

To drive there tomorrow morning.

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:12:23

I have driven there and I appreciate your concerns.

Cass Quayle.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:12:26

Having driven down Bearden Road recently, because I want to have a look at this,

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:12:30

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:12:33

there is going to be a lot more traffic coming, and the traffic on the A4 and A8 is not, in my humble opinion, properly managed.

The traffic coming is not brilliant. And you're going to have all these cars coming out.

Where are you going to put them? Narrow road, can't pass anything, people going to school.

I think it's going to be very dangerous.

No, only to say that I appreciate that, but it's been taken into account in coming to

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:12:59

the conclusion that the High Risk Officer has reached.

Okay, thank you.

Right, now we go on to Ecology.

Who's got questions on Ecology?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:13:13

Councillor Smith. Thank you, Chair. The main question really

Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:13:32

is in your report, paragraph 4, sorry, 6 .336, you say that we should afford neutral weights

to the issues around the lake.

And we've heard an awful lot about how important the lake is

and how valuable it is as an asset to the community.

What I wanted to know really is that

if this committee disagrees with that,

that direction in your report,

and we decide that there is significant weight

in terms of the value of the lake

and the effect, the harm to it,

how will that affect the balance as you see it

in terms of this decision.

So that was the first question.

The second one was really about,

again, we heard in the submissions about back,

I think back when this land was owned by the council,

by Ellesbury Vale District Council as it was then,

there was a report done about the importance of the drainage

from the local surrounding into the lake

that kept it at an appropriate level.

there's no reference to that report anywhere that I can find.

And I just wonder why that is and why there isn't any reference to that.

That report really.

And final question really is that looking at the local plan.

And again, one of the submissions from residents was about this area was excluded,

wasn't considered appropriate for development within the local plan.

And can you just confirm whether that's correct or not?

Okay, I'll start off with the lake and the waiting.

From an ecological perspective,

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:15:14

that has been considered by our ecology officers.

And they have not identified,

what they have done is recommended a couple of conditions

to be added to ensure construction is to undertaken

in such a way that it does not harm the environmental features here.

In terms of drainage, we have consulted the relevant specialists.

I'm not a hydrologist, but as part of our assessment of the application, we have consulted

the local flood authority and we have consulted the environment agency and others.

A lot of information was exchanged, there was some back and forth in relation to drainage matters.

It's not fixed yet because this is an outline application, but what they are satisfied with is that there can be a solution that will not result in undue harm in compliance with our policy requirement of I4 and I5.

that the development can be accommodated without causing additional drainage impact,

and that there is foul capacity in the sewage network that will not result in.

And there are three conditions in relation to that recommended in the Officer Report that have been included.

So, taking into account the consultee responses, I don't think we can come to a conclusion that there is harm.

We can't evidence that there is harm either from a drainage perspective or an ecological impact perspective.

And on that basis, I couldn't recommend to you that you attach weight because we can't evidence that there is harm.

On the

point about the local plan, I can confirm that there is a large

new and expanded settlement proposed to North of Beerton as part of that.

It does include specifically in the policy itself that there should be a gap between that development and Beerton to avoid coalescence.

So that is correct.

And I can confirm that this site does not form part of the allocation for development.

So this is coming outside of a local plan or neighbourhood plan process, so that is correct.

No reference to a report from 2001. That was undertaken in 2001, many, many years ago, so over 25 years ago.

The concerns raised by the gentleman that addressed the committee today were put before the LFA

to understand whether or not that changed their conclusions, and it hadn't.

So again, there's no evidence base to say whether or not the 2001 report is still relevant today.

I don't know whether conditions have changed,

but what I can say is based on the assessment

of this application and its impacts on drainage,

there's no evidence that there would be some impact or harm,

whether that's in terms of ecology harm

or drainage impacts, there's no evidence.

I just want to come back in a bit of clarity.

You talked about coalescence.

In the report, it says it isn't, it doesn't coalesce.

Yet in the Buckinghamshire plan it says it does.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:19:04

Now clearly the plan carries a small amount of weight at the moment as it's progressing through.

So which which should we take most emphasis from?

Okay so just, it's very important that we look at this in the context of the policies before us.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:19:31

Local plan has just been through Regulation 19, carries limited weight.

Even with the NESS expanded settlement, I don't know if it quite...

So, the new and expanded settlement includes quite a large allocation.

what that does specifically is specifies that there should be no coalescence with Bearton.

It doesn't include this site. So there is a gap between this site and the NESS allocation.

In terms of the weight you attribute to it, I have to take you to the NPPF and the direction

that it gives us in policy D .M .4. So a new national planning policy framework is split into

decision -making policies and plan -making policies.

Policy DM4.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman, can I just clarify something here?

I thought that the new MPPF that come out on the 17th of August doesn't take effect on that until the 31st of October.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:20:43

No, that's not correct.

The, no, I think you're referring to the national scheme of delegation, which is entirely different.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:20:56

The new MPPF took effect immediately from the 17th of August.

So DM4 relates to emerging development plan proposals, and I'll just read directly to

give you information, which says, when preparing considering development plan proposals, it

goes into detail says, developed proposal should not be refused on the grounds of being

premature other than in limited circumstances where both the developed proposal are so substantial

its cumulative effect alongside development proposal would be so significant that granting

planning permission would undermine the plan making process.

That is not the case here.

This is not going to undermine the plan making process.

It does not affect the allocation.

we cannot run a prematurity argument

in terms of this application and its relationship

to that nest allocation.

It isn't included in the nest allocation,

it is outside of the nest allocation.

The nest policy relating to that site

and the development to the north of Bearton

specifically includes a policy

stating that there shouldn't be coalescence.

So the expectation is that there would be a buffer between the net allocation and Bearden,

whether or not this development does proceed.

I hope that provides some clarity on that issue.

Yeah, it does.

So that was the ecology area we looked at.

Oh sorry, go on, sorry.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:22:30

Well thank you for the explanation you give so far.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:22:41

What I need to understand to consider it properly around the ecology is the whole consideration

of the site when it was, the ecology report was compiled.

Was it compiled when the larger site was being considered?

Was it compiled again latterly?

Because there is a difference between the two sites, either the negative or positive

impacts of the site and the mitigations that may have been in it to be assured

whether they're contiguous or what were done. The other thing is to go back to

when it was done, which was some time back, we were not in the situation we

are now where pretty much every summer until we know any difference going to be

really dry, really, and the jobs,

water's gonna be in supply.

So did it, in its report,

was it able to assess that possible change

or was it something it didn't consider?

Because I think it's really key in understanding

how it all works because the trees around it

will also be affected by the climatic change

and they will take a certain amount of water

which they need.

So we do need to have to understand it in its entirety.

Okay, so I'll take those in turn.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:24:11

The first question relating to whether the ecology assessment relates to the amended plan,

I can confirm that it does because there was an updated ecology report submitted

in May of this year to account for the amended proposal.

So it is an up -to -date position that the Ecology Officer has commented on and that we are looking at.

In terms of considering climate change impacts, the Ecology reports can only take into account the guidance at the time.

So if the relevant body, the Chartered Institute for Ecologists, and I don't know if it's over,

CIEAM, yes, if they decide to then update it to account for climate change impacts,

that's something that they will have to do in the future.

But the Ecology Report can only be prepared and provided for taking into account the guidelines today.

and the ecologist has considered it and considered it to be acceptable for the purposes of, or within the guidelines that are available and the parameters in which they have to prepare these reports today.

I could come back on it.

The thing I do want to understand is in, because you're doing, you can't,

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:25:38

we can't set conditions till we meet again if we do whatever the decision is.

Were the discussions about the managing of this

development, because we learned a lot about that, um,

water area or lake or whatever, um,

which we probably didn't know, was it able to look at that in its ambience,

you know, the fact that the pollutants and stuff in the property,

or was it not a big consideration?

Because I don't know how the land drains left to right because I can't see it,

but it depends how the land drains.

Okay, we have already discussed the triple S, the lake and the drainage to the lake,

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:26:28

So I can't, I don't want to go over that again because I think that question's been answered.

But in terms of whether the SSSI site was considered in the Ecology Office's recommendation and considerations,

the report clearly identifies that it was.

And as a result of that, a condition has been recommended.

So there's a construction environmental management plan condition

to make sure there is a functional natural buffer between the site and the

SSSI and as part of that it's expected to demonstrate that any construction

related impacts are minimised and avoided where possible.

So subject is securing that. There is no impact identified to the SSSI and

again we couldn't sustain any objection given the Ecology Officer has found it to be acceptable.

And that condition can be carried forward into the reserve matters.

Councillor Gormel.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:27:37

Thank you Chairman. Two questions. One of them is you need to educate me on something.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:27:43

When you look at the conservation area, if you could bring that up, because I'm just interested

something. You passed it. So when we see the green area is the conservation area, and it

literally flows through the village. Why is Barnet Way not in the conservation area? It's

just a question to what I understand.

Well, the conservation area was assessed at the time and it's that linear part of it that

was considered to be what contributes to the significance of the conservation area, therefore

it's that area that's within the conservation area.

Thank you.

And the last question is, we talked about the Ridge and Furrow.

I know now we tend to, we're very protective on Ridge and Furrow, aren't we?

but you know, looking at the plot that's been referred to,

that's got bridging fire, I'm struggling on that one,

but you've done a report on that,

but because it does help with the water flow

that goes to those lakes and the lakes are a big issue.

What's there within those lakes is a big issue.

So I just would like that clarified

because looking from above,

there are some lines there, but they're quite wide,

but stay there.

Thank you.

So when you look above, so the field that we're looking at in the red, you can barely see,

whereas if you looked at the one natural enclosures above, you can really see the ridge

and furrow flowing down towards the lakes.

Am I correct?

And has it been discussed on that to help with that water flow to those lakes?

I think the discussion needs to be had, Chairman, with that gentleman that was here,

because that I'm just looking at assuming of how that would work.

So would I be right? Was that rigid?

I'm not sure the officer, I've got a question. She's not sure.

I don't know.

What I'm saying is I'm not sure what,

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:29:54

whether it's the rigid furrow that he was concerned with per se.

I think he had no, no, he wasn't. He was, yeah,

he had concerns about the,

the way in which the layout may or may not impact Bearden Lake.

Now in terms of Ridge and Furrow, the officer report is quite clear that it's remnants of Ridge and Furrow.

Remnants, yeah.

Remnants of local significance as opposed to something that is of regional or national significance.

And on that basis there is an objection to the impact on Ridge and Furrow.

I get that and that's what I just dug into it.

Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:30:34

But yeah I was just clicking above and I would have thought the field above would be a service provider for the lakes too.

Yeah, people look at ridge info in different ways.

Some look at it as a means of slowing water down.

But it's not.

Some of us use it as a bath, Chairman,

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:30:44

during the winter period.

OK, Councillor Pole.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:30:55

Again, on the conservation area, I'm interested.

So we often talk about proximity to the conservation area

causing harm.

So we've got two aspects that we need to consider.

So that's the farm complex and building and the lakes.

Now, in the report, 6 .204, says,

results in lower end, less than substantial harm

to the significance of the Bearden Conservation Area.

I'm a fan of analysing language, why it's been doubled down on the emphasis of less harm.

But it does say harm, so does it cause harm? Does it cause a little harm? But why the doubling of the...

So if I can help you, it's the language of the old NPPF which no longer has carried through.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:32:03

So we used to have substantial harm which was the equivalent of bomb damage or less

than substantial harm which is the other category and it could have resulted in any level of

minor harm to quite a lot more harm.

And the new NPPF has stepped away from that language.

So we now have a new test in the NPPF and that is set out in part five of the update report.

So we have attached great weight to the significance of the heritage asset, which is a conservation area.

There is a low level of harm identified, so we can move away from the less than substantial harm language,

and it's a low level of harm identified because there was a change to the setting of that conservation area.

But there is a retained natural

boundary, etc.

You know as part of this application there has been and they have reduced the size and scale of the application to respond to that

context and in that context

the officers have considered that the benefits outweigh the heritage harm identified.

So that is the conclusion that the officers have reached.

Thank you very much for explaining that.

So is the result of the changing of the NPPF,

Cllr Chris Poll - 2:33:32

that the site boundary has been increased

or the reduction in the number of dwellings,

is that a consequence of it?

No, there's no change to the NPPF.

Sorry, there has been no change to the application

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:33:43

as a result of the change to the NPPF.

It's as a result of the feedback given by Conservation Officer and the Landscape Officer at the time.

The applicant has gone away and made amendments to this scheme, and it's this proposal.

That's to improve the buffer, the natural retain buffer along the eastern edge, and to retain a buffer along here.

So that is the change that we were referring to, but there hasn't been a change as a result of the MPPF.

Good, okay, thank you. Can we move on now to the MPPF?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:34:23

If any people have questions, or who've actually just raised them, I think.

Any further clarification on the MPPF or changes?

Councillor Stutchbury.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:34:41

What we need to know before we come to a determined position on this,

and I think it's very relevant because this is the first time we've considered an application since the change,

is what is the...

What obligations does that leave on us

in terms of planning terms to meet those changes?

And not in not recognising those changes,

would that have an effect on the way that a application

would follow through afterwards?

Because I think it's very important

we don't rush into this in the way

that we would have done previously

because there is immense change in the way it's done.

I think we need to be talked through, and I'll come back if I need to have a different additional question.

Okay, so let me just run through, I mean there is the update report that's before you,

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:35:39

but perhaps it would be useful for me to clarify the NPPF.

So the previous national planning policy approach was undertaken under what we call Paragraph 11D,

which was a tilted balance exercise, the benefits must outweigh the harm.

We're now looking at the proposal now falls to be considered under policies S3 to S5 in terms of

assessing whether they're within settlement or outside settlement. This falls outside settlement.

So I talked you through the consistency, the definition in the glossary of the NPPF and where

Local plan policies are inconsistent with the NPPF. They are given limited weight.

So local plan is relevant in so far as defining the boundary of Bearden, and that is given full weight.

But where it limits the numbers of housing coming forward within the village, we can no longer give that aspect of it.

We have to give that limited weight because that's materially inconsistent.

So the assessment falls to is it within settlement or is it outside? This is outside of settlement boundary

as defined both in the neighbourhood plan and the local plan and then that then

requires us to consider

in light of our fibre housing lands by position whether or not policy s5j is

engaged and

the

Councillor Ward made a, took you through that exercise,

but I'll just take you through policy S5J again.

Policy S5J, sorry, there's a lot of pages

and it's a lot bigger than the document I was used to.

So I'm just going to take myself back to policy S5J for you

and take you through the considerations on the S5J,

which are, yes.

Development which would address an evidence unmet need, so where we don't have a five -year house and land supply,

and it's quite a substantial shortfall at the moment, three point seven, three years, which is going to drop further as of 21st of September.

And then it goes on to say where the development would be physically well related to an existing settlement,

unless the nature of development would make this inappropriate and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account existing and proposed

availability of infrastructure or the second test being comprised major development for freight logistics, which is not relevant. So it is

that first part J I and

officers consider this is

physically well related to the settlement in that it's sitting between

built form to the north and built form to the south.

And officers consider that it is of a scale

that could be accommodated, taking into account

existing and proposed availability of infrastructure.

Now, I appreciate, we've heard from Bearden Parish Council

and the residents and ward councillors

to their views on the capacity of existing.

It's just that when we are looking at applications,

we're also going to take account of the impact of that proposal.

We can't take into account existing deficiencies.

We need to understand what the impact of the proposal would be,

taking into account that context.

And that's the point in which we have to make a decision.

Now in this particular case, we have had, you know,

it's been subject to statutory consultation.

We've had responses from Education Authority, Health Authority, etc., the ICB highways,

none of which have raised concerns on that basis.

I don't think we'd be able to support any objection that there isn't capacity to provide

this development in this context.

So that's the test under S5.

And then that then you need to, yeah.

So that's, we've taken that into account.

Then there are other policies.

So there is a six relating to the neighbourhood plan,

but in the Bearden neighbourhood plan

doesn't allocate any housing.

So on that basis, it doesn't benefit from the protections in policy S6.

For heritage, that's set out in part five of this report.

That test has been taken into account, and it's considered that the benefits of the development

would outweigh the low -level harm identified in terms of heritage.

In terms of the landscape and visual effects, there is conflict with both policy BE4, sorry,

NE4 of the local plan and policy N2 of the NPPF.

Notwithstanding the officer has identified that in the overall balance, in the context

of the council's five -year housing land supply position.

The benefits of this proposal, including the contribution towards additional homes and affordable housing,

along with the other contributions secured, would outweigh the harm identified to the landscape.

So that's the recommendation.

So hopefully that's...

There was a second part to the question.

Can I just come in there for a minute?

We've been so used to talking about the tilted balance.

All along we've spent a lot of time on it.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:41:44

The tilted balance is effectively gone,

except S5 replaces it.

So now they can look outside the development area

and considering it on the speculative build,

where we've got a short supply of land,

it effectively replaces the tilted balance.

I'm sorry, and one thing I didn't touch on is the NPPF is also clear about the waiting

you give.

So in the past we've given weightings of significant, etc.

In terms of the NPPF, it now directs us to give substantial weight to meeting the need

for homes.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:42:24

So.

That's the second part of the question and thank you so much for taking through that.

The second part of the question was aimed at what the effects are of not agreeing something

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:42:40

because of the policies where it says because we will have, officers have stated quite eloquently

that there's policies and agreements which are in place.

Now, previously, we were always advised that those cannot always be protected in an appeal

situation if we vote against it.

It's one that we need to know, is that worse now than it was before, or always then having

a negative decision to the thing?

It's important that we know that because it's only the policies which are in it,

which where we have influence to steer the development to improve it and to protect the

environment that the development comes into. And if we lose those, then we very much

lose any steer on how the development will fit into the area that it's going to.

Am I wrong in that? If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

Okay, so perhaps I can help.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:43:52

The proposal does conflict with parts of the development plan.

That's the neighbourhood plan and the local, Vail of Aylesbury local plan.

But national policy under the NPPF, as I have talked you through earlier,

but just now as well, expressly forms part of that decision -making process.

It's an important material planning consideration.

Any approval or refusal will have to be taken into account

based on a case -by -case basis.

You'll have to assess the site in its context,

and then each application has to be assessed

on a case -by -case basis.

In this case, we don't have a five -year housing land supply.

It is a significant shortfall.

and the revised NBPF directs us to look at the harms against the benefits.

It doesn't direct us that every site outside of the settlement boundary is going to be acceptable.

What we've done is had a look at the NBPF in context of this site and this proposal before us

and advise that taking that into account,

taking in the benefits and harms in this particular case,

with officers consider the benefits outweigh the harm.

So housing land supply is a material consideration

and it's an important one,

but it's not the only consideration.

Landscape, visual, heritage harm,

and those policy harms have been identified

and they've been given relevant weight in the planning balance by officers.

But the recommendation arises from taking that overall look at the case

and that overall balance, not just because of the housing and land supply position on its own.

So we've found that yes, there are conflicts.

Those conflicts have been identified and addressed in the report.

but taking into account that very substantial benefits of providing housing in a context of five -year housing landsplike,

it's considered, it's not outweighed. So that's the, that's how officers have arrived at their recommendation.

Thank you very, very much.

Thank you. Councillor Owen.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:46:19

Thank you Mr Chairman. We've established that this site is outside the local plan even though you give it moderate weight, if that, against the plan?

I'll give it no weight against the plan.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:46:40

No, so the relevance now is that the local plan establishes the settlement boundary

and the neighbourhood plan establishes the settlement boundary.

The policy itself, the S1 to S3 policies within the valve,

So where you've got policy S2 which directs how much development must come forward in a given settlement,

we have to give that limited weight because it's materially inconsistent.

And we are considering S4 and S5 and this has been considered under S5J.

Okay, so you've given it very little weight against the...

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:47:25

Okay, now I'm going to come to, because I haven't been around many parish councils,

Burton's neighbourhood plan is probably the most up to date.

It's just over a year old, okay?

What weight, if any, did you give the fact that it was outside the neighbourhood plan,

Burton's neighbourhood plan?

So if I can direct you to policy S6, that's specifically, so this is S6 on the MPPF.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:47:51

It takes you back to it.

It's okay, I'll just go through it.

For development proposals involving the provision of housing, the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects where proposals would conflict with a neighbourhood plan, provided the following apply.

The neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made and, not an or, and,

the neighbourhood plan contains allocations to meet its identified housing requirement.

Which it doesn't.

And Bearton neighbourhood plan does not include site allocations.

So on that basis, the weight to be given to the conflict with neighbourhood plan policies needs to be reduced.

So what you're basically saying is that the neighbourhood plan, Burton neighbourhood plan is not worth the papers written on, is that right?

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:48:54

No, if you look in the update report that we provided at section 7, we've explained

Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner - 2:49:07

that the revised MPPF continues to provide that enhanced standards and status as Zainab

has just described to you.

But the Bearden neighbourhood plan doesn't benefit from that enhanced protection under

national policy because it does not allocate sites for housing development.

So offices therefore, we have to consider it and we're satisfied with the conclusions

it set out in the committee report in relation to the neighbourhood plan.

We can't give weight to the fact that the site is outside of the settlement boundary.

Other parts of the neighbourhood plan, yes, we can give weight to.

But that one does not benefit from the protection.

Can I ask the officers whether the infrastructure test has been passed according to the MPPF?

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:49:59

It has. So that has been considered and officers consider it does meet that test.

Okay.

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:50:13

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:50:16

Mr. Chairman, this may not be the place to think, but the officers, sorry, the officers

have come, pointed out a major failure here, not on our part or not on their part, but

on the consultees' part.

Now, as the officers said quite correctly, they cannot second guess the various consultees,

and especially health and education.

Now we, all sitting around this table,

we know the issue with health.

We know the issue with education.

Can I ask, as a non full -time member,

and bearing in mind that the council,

Buckinghamshire Council, is a member of the ICB,

whether this issue can be raised,

that the fact that what they're putting to us

on these new applications

does not bear any common sense test.

You're absolutely right.

And I did raise that with the Select Committee,

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:51:14

because we were getting, in some places,

whether it was a CCG, we got nothing.

Absolutely nothing at all.

The ICB, we thought, was going to make

such a huge difference.

The examples we've had recently,

it doesn't seem to relate to the issue.

And I think that's where the growth in infrastructure

and housing select committee needs to look at that.

On this one you've got a figure of £56 ,000.

Now I've got cousins who are consultants and that's not even a third of their income.

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:51:48

So how are the 100 houses which would generate say a multiple of two and a half, two hundred and fifty people?

We had a public meeting in Twyford the other night and there's 23 ,000 down by the ACB.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:51:59

I mean that would not even cover, well I won't insult any member, it just wouldn't do it.

But that's where we are.

I think it's something that could be taken forward.

In terms of what we can seek, it has to meet Regulation 122 test in terms of legal agreements,

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:52:24

So that's where the ICB has sought a proportionate income.

We can also not raise income for an application

to fund revenue cost for health.

There's been very clear sort of case law

and so on on that.

So it is on the physical, yeah.

Sorry officers, I was using that as a facetious example.

But you know, about 56 ,000 from a property site

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 2:52:53

that's going to have 250 people is neither here nor there.

That's what I'm saying.

And I'm not blaming the officers here.

That's all the points on the MPPF.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:53:06

We talked about weight, and I think

we've covered that quite well.

Site plan, I think we discussed the site plan,

the previous site plan, the latter site plan.

Everyone's happy with that?

So if there's no further technical questions,

Can we go to open debate?

So, the site, we need to talk about...

Oh, sorry. I will go to it.

So you asked a question of where is the...

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:53:36

Yeah, you've asked a question of where does...

Sorry, I'm going the other direction.

The Gibb Lane application sits.

So there it is.

So this is the site location plan.

In terms of the Elsbury Road, there is only emergency and pedestrian cyclist access.

And the access is taken from Kingsbrook Development itself onto the Gibb Lane.

So that's for the 115 dwellings.

And then this is a... Sorry, it's not facing the right way.

Sorry, I didn't catch that.

Sorry, so let me just explain.

This is 115 houses, but there is no access to the site other than emergency access, pedestrian

cyclists access.

Sorry, it's not orientated correctly.

It's the north, the Bearden village is actually located here and this is the Aylesbury Road.

But essentially it's saying that there's a separation between Bearden and the Gibb Lane.

And the Gibb Lane site is accessed through Kingsbrook.

And you can see it connecting through here.

And the built form has been set away from Bearden itself.

The only access from Bearden is emergency and cycling and pedestrian access.

I have to regret the listening to all the officers' reports, taking into consideration

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:55:31

the weight we can put on what the residents have said.

The limited weight, which we've been now guided

that the local plan offers

because it hasn't got development

and the emphasis on development,

not the weight on development

and the situation with the five -year land supply.

If we didn't recommend this to be approved,

we would run a huge risk of it being approved in any cases without substantial conditions to protect the residents

which the officers can put in place.

And this isn't a situation that we've got.

So I have to propose that we agree the officer's recommendations is not to do so, could be very gung -***

and it would probably come back to us in any case as the other application has already come back,

which is on the screen, which we turned down,

has come back, will be coming back.

Is that one on appeal?

That one's on the front side.

There's another one on appeal, isn't there?

So the other site isn't this site here.

This one was approved in June for 100.

Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner - 2:56:50

But the one that you dealt with some time ago,

he wants to go for 75 houses.

And that was under the previous conditions,

not the present conditions, which gave us more grounds to make a disparaging remark.

So officers recommended approval, committee refused, it's now at appeal.

I'm not making it because it's what one wants to do, I'm doing it because it's what one

needs to do because of the risk of the residents getting a development which is unmanaged.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:57:17

Thank you, Mr Chairman. We're at a situation again where the fundamental argument here

is that at the end of the day, we haven't got a five -year land supply. Now, the question

Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:57:53

I'd ask is from the time we didn't have a five -year land supply up until, I think the

officer said the 21st of September, I would like to know if every planning application

in Buckinghamshire that was approved in that time, if they had been built out, would we

have a five year land supply? And the answer is probably yes. So there's no our hands are

tied here. Because there's no there's no obligation or no incentive for a developer to build out.

Because the less they build out, the more planning applications they can get. And this

This is a worrying situation that I raised the other day in a meeting with the cabinet

member. I think I will certainly be doing it. I think as a committee we should be writing

to the cabinet member and to the leader, urging the government to put some sort of pressure

on these developers that as soon as they get the application approved to build

out because we can approve 1 .5 million houses here in Buckinghamshire.

If not one gets built out they just keep coming, they keep coming, they keep coming,

they keep coming because all they're using is exactly what the officer has

said earlier and rightly so, the five -year or lack of five -year land

supply trumps everything completely. So I am not going to make a proposal at the minute,

Mr Chairman. I just wanted to lay that out there because I believe we're being handcuffed.

Thank you, Chair. Caught me on the way. I'm going to be really brief. I think there are

Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:00:09

substantial concerns with this development as there always are. I think they've been really very well presented by residents of Burton.

But it's very clear that the

officer's report

really lays out that they don't carry sufficient weight to to oppose this this application.

The one that remains as a significant concern is is the impact on that wonderful kind of conservation

ecological area around the lakes, which really bothers me, but the officers have made it

very clear that that doesn't carry substantial weight. So I'm left with a position, as Frank

has just, Councillor Mahoney has just made very clear, that we have no choice but to

support the officer's recommendation in this case.

The point you're concerned about can be brought back about reserve matters.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:01:05

Yes, thank you.

Councillor Huxley.

Thank you Chairman. Listening to all the debates, it's been a bit of a heart and head situation.

Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:01:16

I take the thoughts of Councillors and Officers on all the things we've heard about, shops and the usual things.

I go back a little bit, but as a former deputy cabinet member for transportation, I worked

very closely with a Bearden Councillor who was passionate about the speed situation through

Bearden.

It took several years to get the speed limit down to 30 in Bearden, and it also took quite

time to get a speed camera. I'm not a great fan of what is now in operation in Beerton,

because I think this development doesn't go along with the traffic calming in Beerton.

Having said that and hearing all the arguments from the officers, one of me says I'm mindful to go against the officers, but I'm also mindful to go with the officer's recommendation.

And that's probably the way because I don't see there is any other option. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Cone.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:02:46

Cllr Raj Khan - 3:02:49

Okay, Chairman, thank you very much indeed. First of all, can I say it's a very well comprehensive

report you have and I think everything has been put very eloquently across, but I just

feel, as I said before, I mean putting developments before infrastructure is not something I can

I find it at odds with some of my colleagues.

I think we're making decisions in haste.

Every application that comes here comes on its own merit.

Every application has to be treated on its own merit.

I am not, I mean, the improvements have not been put

in place beforehand.

Doctor's surgery, schools have not been looked at.

And we are making our, you know, our assumptions that everything is going to be okay.

Substantial travel does not offer anything, no vision.

I cannot see our beautiful countryside that Bearden is, and I once represented it, being

just put place of housing and housing without the right infrastructure.

One of my colleagues said he was caught in the traffic for an hour going through that place.

In real... Let's get real.

Bearden is not easy to get through, access it, and putting more houses there can only put extra burden.

I can only say that if my colleagues just are frightened of the appeals, then why are we sitting here?

We might as well allow it and allow it to go through because we just want, we're worried

what will happen in the bill.

A decision has to be made to protect all residents and that includes the residents of Bearton

because we are here to make a decision, what we feel is the right decision.

I don't buy the fact that the threat of the inspector overturning our decision is taxpayer's

so are the residents of Bearton.

They deserve that safety where it's due.

We cannot just, due to officers' recommendation,

and with due respect, the officers do a sterling job for us,

we can't just agree with them for the sake of agreeing

because we have no choice.

We have a choice, but it takes some boldness

to make that choice, and I have to say,

I am willing to put myself forward, and I will say I would not agree with the Office's

recommendation, and therefore I would be making a proposal that we do not accept this as status

quo. My colleagues have already said infrastructure is a serious issue. Kids, trying to get them

bus passes, trying to get them school allocations. I don't know how many of us are parents now,

and how many of us are working with residents,

getting placement for schools is not always easy.

And asking them to put their child two and a half miles away

across the town centre is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

And it would be, in my opinion, the wrong thing to do,

making a decision because we've got some threats against us.

Let the threats be there.

We are there to protect all residents and not just some residents.

I cannot support this application and I urge every one of my colleagues to not support

this recommendation that's put in front of us today.

By doing this, I feel we are letting the residents down at its entirety.

Traffic is a mess already and imagine with our proposition, we will make it even messier.

So therefore, the infrastructure, schools, education.

I mean, we have kids in Buckinghamshire sitting in their homes because we can't find them a placement.

And we are just bogging things down on people because we think it's okay, it looks well on paper, and we should agree with it.

No thank you, and I'm not going to accept this officer's recommendation.

And I make a proposal that we do not accept this officer's recommendation.

and I urge every one of my colleagues, please do not vote in haste for the sake of voting,

or it's the easier option. We need to stand for the residents of Bakimshia.

I urge you all to support my recommendation.

Okay, thank you. Is that seconded?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:07:46

We already have a motion that's been proposed in the second that we'd have to take first.

Was it the second? Was this all right?

Yes, I called that.

Okay, sorry. Sorry, my fault.

No, I just didn't see the second, that's all.

Mr Chairman, can I just make another comment please before you consider going through a vote here?

No, I'm not considering going to the vote. I've got a lot of people who want to talk.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:08:10

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:08:15

Councillor Paul. Thank you Chairman and yeah I mean I agree with

Cllr Chris Poll - 3:08:20

everybody here so the short piece that I want to say is that yes we have a

housing land supply shortage and we we all know you know some of the reasons

why that is. Now in the recently published Greenbelt review, I was looking at Chiltern

and South Bucks. You know Chiltern, and I'm trying to find it, it's a 164 page document

and I haven't got the search facility on my iPad, but Chiltern delivered 37 houses per

year. Whether that's the last four or five years or going back to when they last updated

their plans in 97 and 99. So our problems up here are down to elsewhere in the

county and when we became unitary it became our problem. Now the I realised

that this proposal is outside of ALP outside of the Bearden neighbourhood

development plan I'm a strong supporter of NDPs but I'm afraid the NDPs are now

worthless. Unless there's allocation in there well I don't think there's many

many that are.

When we did them, we allocated land.

They were built on immediately.

And so we don't have any, unless we update and say, oh yes, we'd like another 100, then

you know, it doesn't help us.

This proposal doesn't deliver the infrastructure required, but that's the national scheme.

That's the figures that we have to work with.

So what I'm left in conclusion with is that a government have decided that we are going to have these houses whether we like it or not.

Whether they suit or not, whether we've got the infrastructure or not, they don't care.

They've made a commitment to deliver all these houses and they're going to make us do it and become unpopular in doing so.

I don't see we have a choice.

If we do have a choice, as Councillor Kahn says, to oppose this, it will be appealed

and successfully challenged.

And the final nail in the coffin is that if we refuse this and it goes through on appeal,

then that counts against us.

And even then, we still got the national scheme

of delegation which will cancel this committee

and I expect by the end of this year,

we won't be sitting here ever again.

So I'm very sorry.

I think it matters not which way I vote.

I think it'll go through.

I think this afternoon has been, you know, instructive.

I've learned a lot.

I might like to go fishing in that lake if it's possible.

But I think there's nothing we can change here.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Cornell.

Oh, sorry. Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:11:25

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 3:11:27

I'm backing Councillor Stutchbury because I don't...

I think it's a bad development, but I don't think we're going to be able to stop it.

And I think if we say no, it's going to go to appeal,

but the government will pass it and we'll be...

And there's nothing we can do. I think it's pretty poor development.

I don't think it's been thought through thoroughly.

I think the access is dangerous, but I'm going to back council's subject because I don't see that we're going to be able to say no

Council you're saying I

Think by all accounts the committee has done

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:11:56

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 3:11:58

Its scrutiny job three and a half hours on one application the new record in my book

but I

as councillor poll

Said find myself in a difficult situation

Although I fully understand all the technical reasons and I fully have sympathy with the officers,

they are beholden to their consultees and the consultees don't do their job in our view as councillors

in the common sense solution that what we see with our own eyes and what we feel with our own bodies

when we go down that road on any morning, even on a Saturday morning, go down that road

and if you're not stuck for 20 -25 minutes, I'd be surprised.

And the last couple of days, because there's been roadworks, they're doing a big pipe along the...

I've been going around to get to Wing, I've been going through Wig Church, believe it or not.

So, that's one thing. And the other thing is, as I've said to Mr. Chairman, on the ICP, they're not doing their job.

Because to ask anybody to get to a surgery in Mandeville, good luck to them.

Because I am actually a patient from there and I live not too far from here on Vale Road

And to get there can take my record is 15 minutes five zero

to get from my house and Vale Road to Mandeville surgery and

Well, whereas they'll make you wait an hour to see them if you're five or ten ten minutes late for your appointment

Your appointment is deemed void

So that and the other thing that's killing and filling up my email and my

people coming to my office is education. People are moving to the area, especially

in Kingsbrook and in Berryfield, moving to the area and they're saying right oh

there's two big schools there, can we get our kids to walk across the road to go

to that school? No it's full. We've got one kid from Berryfield being shipped

all the way to Prince's Risborough,

at our taxpayer's expense,

because there's no space in AVA, primary or secondary.

So all those factors bear in my mind,

plus the, although you said the infrastructure test

you feel has been passed,

I feel, in my humble opinion, it hasn't,

so because of those reasons.

So I'll be voting against the motion to approve.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:14:33

Okay, thank you. I'm picking up on Councillor Cahn's point. Infrastructure is a vital part

for any development, but we always do it afterwards. The reason we do it afterwards is because

the builders pay for it. Whereas we should have a structure like we had in Milton Keynes

where they built the roads first and the sewage first and everything else. And here we are,

we're always trying to catch up. It makes a complete mockery of everything. And to have

say, Dr. Surge rebuilt and not occupied, really does answer the question, what is going on.

Now, I've got a couple more people just to take their final views and then we'll go to

a vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like Council Poll, you kind of agree both sides, you understand both sides of the argument,

Cllr Cameron Anderson - 3:15:23

But I'd urge colleagues to stay away from the defeatist argument of eventually central

government would push it past us anyway.

Because whether we like it or not, there is national factors taken to account that we

are only just over two years away from an election cycle anyway.

And so there will be forthcoming changes to MPPF, national planning policy, et cetera.

We have to consider Bearden's already taken 115 houses.

We're already having, you know, doctor surveys being built and then turned into facts and

things like that, which is absurd.

Where we're a committee within our own right to make these judgments, we are the elected

body which is responsible for making these decisions.

Yes, the central government may in the long run make it more difficult.

Yes, there will be changes to planning policy.

But right now, we are the ones that have got this.

There's budgeted money there for appeals.

and at the moment I think that this committee

should stand our ground and I'd like to support

Councillor Kahn and his motion.

I'll urge my colleagues to do the same.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:16:31

I borrow Councillor's dutch briefs when required.

Okay, so a really difficult position

Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:16:43

and I brought this up again last week.

going to get quite awkward that we have a noose around our neck.

And that's what tends to control us at the moment. Like you say,

we could go against the officer's approval,

but then we lose all the conditions if it did get appealed at the end of the

day. And there is a big concern every single time. And as much as I do,

and you know,

I struggle with that because there's one thing I don't like and that's being

bullied from above, but that is what's happening. So we're in a position,

But a lot of work has gone into this, you know, to look at the different bits and pieces

and some conditions are there.

I will be hated in Bearton from now on because I will be siding with the officers because

if we don't, it will go through, go to Peel, come out with condition, and then the village

could really, really lose out.

I have a lot of compassion for that village, and I'm sure they won't have it for me no

but I'm looking to help protect them and will be siding with the officers.

Thank you. Councillor Starchbury?

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:17:52

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:17:55

I think one of the things with this situation, and I think Councillor Powell sums it up very well,

in the sense that we inherited no development in South Buckinghamshire.

At the moment, nothing's happened in South Buckinghamshire, it hasn't happened for a long time,

and we're having development in North Buckinghamshire.

We, in the district council days, we would have had a five -year land supply now, and

we would have been in a very strong position here, and the chairman and the officers could

have made different recommendations to what they're having to do today.

So we're in a North -South divide in the sense that the north of Buckinghamshire is having

to swallow the development.

We're having to swallow the difficult decisions, and we're having to actually take the legal

advisor of our offices to actually get our way through this.

I live in Buckingham and listening to the display about 30, 40 houses, we have a development

coming down the road for 1 ,750 houses and the 600 development, which are coming from

the same conditions.

So I find it really difficult because my community is going to get those on the very same conditions

that we've got today.

and they'll probably be done at strategic sites,

but they'll be sat at the very same difficulty

that we've got with this deliberation,

but for many hundreds, maybe several thousand more houses

in Buckinghamshire, all under the same problems,

all under the same thing, and it's part of the problem

that we've got through becoming a large unitary,

and it's part of the problem that we've got

through government changes in planning.

And the fact is, we've never built any houses,

And I think the point made about government should have put some powers in to say that

you should build what you've already got planning permission on would have been a good thing.

But we're not there.

We can't invent the law in this meeting.

We can only operate within the recommendations, the legal positions that officers give us.

If we don't do that, we then doubly let people down because we don't put the conditions in

to protect them.

And in an ideal world, if we've been in the days of district council planning meetings

where we would have had a five -year land supply, we'd probably be able to make a different

decision because we'd have a five -year land supply.

And it's very sad, but it's the truth.

And sometimes the truth has to be said.

And we can say this two years to an election, we can say all that.

It means nothing because today we've got to protect the residents in six months time with

that application and the conditions that all we've got.

So we have to back the officers and trust them to deliver those conditions to make this

development sound.

as uncomfortable as it is.

Thank you, Cathy.

Councillor Gibbon.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:20:29

Thank you, Jeremy.

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:20:35

I really do feel that we underplay the effect

that children not having a place in a local school has.

We just sort of say, oh, you know, they'll have to get a taxi

or they'll have to go by bus or whatever.

But I know situations where it causes,

is if they go by cab, tremendous stress on these children.

Parents are driving two hours a day

because there's no place for them to go locally.

They're in danger of losing their jobs.

It's having, I think we just underplayed the effect

it has on individual families.

And again, with the hospitals,

I'm very unhappy about this mitigation.

I mean, as I said earlier,

that it's just money to go towards a survey.

Nothing may come at the end of it, unless I'm wrong there.

And again, I get letters from so many residents where they can't be seen,

it's putting their lives in danger, they're in terrible pain, they can't get it treated.

And I just wanted to say that I feel just sort of having numbers and things,

you've got to look at the real -life impact this is having on people every day.

That's all I wanted to say.

The problem is we can't lay that at the door of the developer.

What the developer is saying is they're going to build so many houses

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:21:47

and therefore what amount of money does the ICB need and how much do education need?

They're the people letting us down.

The ICB to build a surgery and not to take it up is appalling.

But you can't blame the developer for that.

And I think that's the difficulty we're finding.

Yeah, so that's where we are.

Right, I'm about to go to the vote.

Cllr Frank Mahon - 3:22:24

I agree with everybody around this table and I haven't made a decision yet because I have

to figure out whether I'm going to gamble, and I do gamble, but I'm not sure I want to

gamble with other people's lives and livelihoods. Because, do I gamble and object to this application

and gamble the fact that the good suite of conditions could be wiped away by the Inspector?

Or do I go with the Officer's recommendations, hoping that these conditions will protect

our residents?

That is the million dollar question here today. Whether I'm prepared to gamble might take

me a few minutes to figure it out, but at the minute I'm edging towards not gambling

with people's livelihoods.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:23:56

Well, I don't know about gambling because as a Muslim we don't gamble.

Cllr Raj Khan - 3:24:06

But I think we have a real case. I just hate being frightened into a position.

I hate being bullied into a position.

I think we have to do the courageous and the right thing.

It may not be the right thing, but we cannot take a decision for the sake of a decision.

It's really, really important that whatever decision we make today

will have effects on the lives of people in Bearton.

We think we're protecting them, but are we protecting them?

Let's look at reality.

I dare any of you to go and drive in Bearden today, this evening, and what's changed?

You got some infrastructure that they're going to help with?

No.

Look at it.

It's in a mess already.

You are just going to add to this issue again and again.

I cannot allow my conscious to just go with the status quo.

I think it would be wrong.

I think to use this card of the inspectors is a coward thing for me.

I cannot just go with it for the sake of it.

You talk about gambling, but if I did gamble, I would think it would be a win -win -win situation

because we are fighting for the cause that we believe to be right.

And it then puts a question mark.

If we are just going to be making decisions from whatever officers, and I have a lot of

respect for officers, I think they do a fantastic job.

We just spent three, four hours here.

We might as well just go through and say, thank you very much.

We agree with everything that's put in front of us.

Let's leave it as it is.

We all agree with it.

I think it would be a coward thing to do, and I'm not prepared to accept this.

And I urge every one of my colleagues here that please, if there are the money that's

put aside, by doing the inspectors, should be used because they are taxpayers as well.

The people are better than the taxpayers.

And I think to say that we are going to be paying the expense, so be it.

they do pay taxes and it will be wrong to just accept it for the sake of accepting it.

Thank you very much indeed.

Okay, thank you.

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 3:26:39

Right colleagues, we have a recommendation to go with the officer's recommendation which has been seconded.

We'll go to the vote of that. All in favour of that please show.

Seven.

Those against?

Five.

Any abstentions?

No.

That application is being carried.

Colleagues, I'd like to thank you for your time this afternoon. It's been a long afternoon. Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you.

Cllr Cameron Anderson

Reform UK

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 Niknam Hussain

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Andy Huxley

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Raj Khan

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Frank Mahon

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Chris Poll

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Gregory Smith

Green Party

View profile

Cllr Robin Stuchbury

Independent

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, 9th September 2026 at 2:00pm

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:00

1 Apologies

Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 0:02:13

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:19

2 Minutes

3 Declarations of Interest

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:42

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:06

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:03:12

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:24

4 25/01867/AOP - Land Off Barnett Way, Bierton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5DN

Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 0:04:01

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:14:22

Public Speakers - 0:15:01

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:18:36

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:18:53

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:19:10

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:19:24

Public Speakers - 0:19:37

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:21:41

Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:21:46

Public Speakers - 0:22:22

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:23:30

Cllr Raj Khan - 0:23:34

Public Speakers - 0:24:45

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:25:36

Cllr Raj Khan - 0:25:40

Public Speakers - 0:26:21

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:27:32

Public Speakers - 0:27:52

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:28:25

Public Speakers - 0:28:32

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:29:20

Public Speakers - 0:29:57

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:30:19

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:30:49

Public Speakers - 0:31:18

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:33:23

Public Speakers - 0:33:36

Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:34:56

Public Speakers - 0:35:22

Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner - 0:36:37

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:36:38

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:36:41

Public Speakers - 0:37:07

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:28

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:37:31

Public Speakers - 0:38:14

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:38:28

Public Speakers - 0:38:35

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:38:43

Public Speakers - 0:38:59

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:36

Public Speakers - 0:40:37

Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:41:20

Public Speakers - 0:41:40

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:42:53

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:42:57

Public Speakers - 0:43:14

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:44:04

Public Speakers - 0:44:09

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:44:14

Nina Hewitt-Jones - Principal Planner - 0:44:22

Public Speakers - 0:44:31

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:44:40

Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:44:57

Public Speakers - 0:45:06

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:45:23

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:45:33

Public Speakers - 0:45:54

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:46:53

Public Speakers - 0:46:57

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:47:27

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:47:30

Public Speakers - 0:49:19

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:51:15

Cllr Niknam Hussain - 0:52:04

Public Speakers - 0:52:51

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 9th September 2026 at 2:00pm