Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee - Wednesday 23 September 2026, 10:00am - Start video at 1:14:58

Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 10:00am

Speaking:

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore
Cllr David Moore

1 Apologies for Absence/Changes in Membership

Share this agenda point

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer
Cllr David Moore

2 Declarations of Interest

Share this agenda point

3 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Share this agenda point

4 Public Questions

Share this agenda point

Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer
Cllr David Moore
Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer
Cllr David Moore
Public Questions
Cllr David Moore
Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer
Cllr David Moore
Cllr David Moore
Public Questions
Cllr David Moore
Cllr David Moore
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore

8 Proposed North & Central Area CIL Report

Share this agenda point

Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Michael Bracken
John Callaghan
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Michael Bracken
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Michael Bracken
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Michael Bracken
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Michael Collins
Cllr Michael Bracken
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Michael Collins
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Hannah Joyce - Head of Spatial Planning & Climate Resilience
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Michael Collins
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Caroline Cornell
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Caroline Cornell
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Dean Field
John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager
Cllr David Moore

6 Local Plan for Buckinghamshire

Share this agenda point

Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Michael Bracken
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Michael Bracken
Richard Ambrose
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Richard Ambrose
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Richard Ambrose
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Charlotte Morris - Planning Policy Manager
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Michael Bracken
Richard Ambrose
Cllr Mark Roberts
Richard Ambrose
Cllr Mark Roberts
Richard Ambrose
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Michael Bracken
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Michael Collins
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Michael Bracken
Richard Ambrose
Charlotte Morris - Planning Policy Manager
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jackson Ng
Cllr Michael Bracken
Cllr David Moore

7 Planning Team Update

Share this agenda point

Planning Report for GIH 23.9.26

Cllr Michael Bracken
Darran Eggleton
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Darran Eggleton
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Darran Eggleton
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr Frances Kneller
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr Frances Kneller
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jackson Ng
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr Mark Roberts
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance
Cllr David Moore

5 Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2027-2032

Share this agenda point

Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Winn
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr David Moore
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Jonathan Waters
Cllr Mark Winn
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Mark Roberts
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr Mark Roberts
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr Alex Collingwood
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Mark Winn
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr Caroline Cornell
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Dean Field
Cllr Mark Winn
Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development
Cllr Dean Field
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Frances Kneller
Cllr Mark Winn
Cllr Frances Kneller
Cllr Mark Winn
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore
Cllr Robin Stuchbury
Cllr David Moore

9 Work Programme

Share this agenda point

GIH Work Programme 23.9.26

10 Date of Next Meeting

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

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

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:00

Well, a very good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the Growth, Infrastructure and Housing Select Committee for the 23rd of September

2026.

My name is Councillor David Moore.

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:16

I'll be chairing today's proceedings in the light of Councillor Rauss's absence as Vice

Chairman.

I'll be chairing today.

A warm welcome to members, officers, members of the public.

It seems we have a full house here today, which is great to see.

Just a bit of housekeeping.

Just make sure your mics are close to your mouth,

because they can be a bit faint.

So close to your mouth, switch on when you're speaking,

switch off when not.

And it's also to ensure that the webcast picks

up everyone's contributions.

Just to make a point of clarification,

due to the deputy cabinet members' availability

for a hospital appointment,

we've just switched the agenda running order.

So item eight, which is the proposed North

and Central Sill Report, will now be taken under item five,

and the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy will be agenda item 8.

So thank you for your understanding there.

So we move to the first item of the agenda which is apologies for absence.

1 Apologies for Absence/Changes in Membership

Liz, do we have any apologies?

Yes, thank you Chairman.

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:01:11

We've had apologies from Councillor Simon Rouse

and Councillor Alex Collingwood is substituting on the committee here today.

We've had apologies from Councillor Penny Drayton

and apologies also from the cabinet member Peter Strachan

and we have the Deputy Cabinet Member Michael Bracken here attending in his place.

Thank you Liz and thank you Councillor Collingwood for substituting.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr David Moore - 0:01:36

Item 2. Any declarative interest? Any members want to declare any

interest relating to any of the items before us? Nope. Thank you very much.

And we move to item 3. Do I have your approval for the minutes of the previous meeting

3 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

of the meeting held on the 10th of July, 2026.

Thank you very much.

I will sign those at the end of the meeting.

We now move to agenda item four, which is public questions.

4 Public Questions

And obviously we received a number of public questions for the meeting today.

A very warm welcome to you all for coming.

So the constitution says that allows us 10 minutes for public questions.

And we received eight questions that were received by the speaking deadline.

In the interest of fairness and through my discretion

and through the Constitution,

to ensure all questioners have the opportunity to be heard,

we've allocated one minute to each question.

Sorry, we've allocated one minute to each question.

That's to ensure that everyone gets to speak.

I think that is a lot fairer

than allowing only certain people

to speak with three minutes.

So I've made that decision.

You have one minute, and we have grouped the questions by theme.

So you will get to go to speak to the public questions panel there.

You'll get to answer your question.

At the end of all the public questions,

Councillor Michael Bracken, Deputy Cabinet Member for Planning,

will reply to all those questions for the sake of efficiency.

There will be no right of reply.

You say you're one minute and then at the end,

Councillor Bracken will respond.

We are also talking about the local plan later on in this meeting.

So members have every right to pick up the questions you have raised

and they can raise that with members and the cabinet member.

Councillor Stutchbury.

Just a question, you are chair of the meeting

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:03:21

and you have some leeway.

It'd be a shame if we, for any reason in here,

all the question as members,

because I'd feel much more comfortable knowing

what all the question was.

One minute may not cover those questions.

So we should be democratically considering

the views of the public.

So I feel that the 10 minutes with 10 questions is probably tough.

I hope you'll be a bit more lenient and not cut people off halfway through because I'd quite like to know what they say.

Because it may be something we haven't thought of around the table.

So I hope you can show some discretion.

Thank you, Councillor Starchborough.

Cllr David Moore - 0:04:02

Absolutely showing that discretion to ensure everyone gets to speak within the constitution. If we want to look at the constitution,

that is something we can do as members at a future date regarding speaking times.

But you as a member as with all members can raise members questions in the planning item that is going for us

So there will be lots of opportunities to raise those questions beyond this public session

So I'm going to move to public questions now council starts for him just at the Constitution very quickly through discretion. So

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:04:31

To act accordingly so you can use the Constitution in that way if you choose to anything. Thank you

I've exercised my discretion, but thank you counts of stuff free

Cllr David Moore - 0:04:38

We now move to the first question.

This question is going to be read out by an officer.

I believe they can't make it today.

But it's regarding, so this is going to be questions relating to the item on the local plan.

This theme will be green belt assessment and the implications for site 3411, which is a site in Burnham.

I have the first speaker with one minute to run, which is Alistair Anderson.

Chairman, would you like everybody who's asked a question to come and take their seats?

If you could take your seats at the front.

Thank you.

So Liz will read this first question out.

Thank you.

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:05:18

Right.

Thank you, Chairman.

So we've received a question from Alistair Anderson, and the question is, the Stage 2

green belt assessments conclusion that site 3411 is grey belt expressly depends upon delivery

of a sang in the northern parcel. However, consultation on the late published irreplaceable

habitat appendix remains open until 20th of October, while the council senior ecology

officer has raised holding and in principle objections to the proposed sang, including

potential effects upon irreplaceable habitat, priority habitats, and protected species.

So the question is, will the Council therefore commit, before submitting the local plan for

examination, to reconsider the whole site, grey belt conclusion for site 3411, and assess

its northern and southern parcels separately, rather than continuing to rely upon an unapproved

of San whose ecological suitability and deliverability have not been established.

Thank you, Liz.

Cllr David Moore - 0:06:35

We now move to the next question on the same topic regarding site 3411 and the green belt

regarding the local plan.

We have Sarah Anderson.

Is Sarah Anderson here?

Chairman, I don't think she was able to make it in the end, so I will read Sarah's question

out.

So question received from Sarah Anderson.

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:06:53

The Regulation 19 Local Plan proposes no new housing allocations within the Green Belt,

yet the supporting Green Belt assessment identifies site 3411 as Grey Belt, while an application

for 800 homes remains undetermined.

Will the Council confirm that this assessment neither changes the site's Green Belt designation

nor establishes the principle of development and explain how it will ensure that the assessment

does not prejudice the live planning application.

Thank you, Liz.

And now we move to Miriam Henner.

Cllr David Moore - 0:07:31

Is Miriam here?

Thank you very much.

This is on the same topic.

You have one minute.

You may start when ready.

Okay.

Thank you.

Public Questions - 0:07:41

The Stage 3 Green Belt Assessments whole site conclusion for Site 3411 depends on assuming

delivery of the sign proposed as mitigation for a live 800 home development.

Does the Council consider it methodologically signed for an applicant's unapproved mitigation

proposal to influence the baseline green belt classification?

And what would the conclusion for site 3411 be if the sign assumption were removed?

Thank you very much.

And now we move to David Hannah.

Is David here?

Cllr David Moore - 0:08:11

Or is that?

Thank you.

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:08:18

No, Chairman, I shall read out David Henner's question, which is, the Council has previously

acknowledged that the Greenbelt Assessment, Appendix 7, was not correctly available when

the Regulation 19 consultation began.

Representations, therefore, remain open until the 20th of October.

And the question is, before submitting the plan, will the Council commit to the publication

of a reasoned assessment showing how the late evidence

and resulting representations affect each

of the relevant Greenbelt conclusions,

including the conclusion for site 3411.

Thank you.

And now we move to the next theme of questions

Cllr David Moore - 0:08:58

in the local plan, which is regarding the Princess

of NSS bypass.

Do I have a Ewan Nelson?

Thank you.

Do you have one minute to ask your question?

The Regulation 19 plan approved by the Cabinet is not the same as the version that this committee

considered on the 10th of July.

It replaces the Prince's Respiratory Alternative route with a Prince's Respiratory Relief

Road and adds a new requirement for necessary off -site associated works.

The plan's evidence base describes the relief road as highly challenging, that's in the

sustainability appraisal, including because it must cross railway lines and it states

that the cost of the essential new railway bridge at Summaries Road is unknown circa

30 million.

The viability appraisal also states that the Prince's Risborough site is significantly

unviable.

Given this, will the committee specifically consider the sign -ness of this new relief

road proposal and in particular whether it has a credible funding and delivery strategy?

And we'll be able to do that in the next few weeks.

So, thank you very much.

Cllr David Moore - 0:10:03

And now we move to the next theme of the local plan,

which is the Aylesbury NESS.

And we have John Charnock.

You have one minute.

You may start when ready.

Good morning.

Thank you.

At Weeden Hill, the regulation 19,

Public Questions - 0:10:20

NES 003 allocation is approximately 49 % larger

than the NES area shown in the February 26th consultation plan

and is now proposed alongside AYL06.

On the 16th of September at full council,

Councillor Strachan assured members

that all approximately 8 ,500 representations

will be considered and replied to.

Before full council decides whether to submit the local plan

what scrutiny will this committee undertake

of the council's response to objections

concerning the expansion of NES 003 and its cumulative relationship with AYL06, including

whether a further sustainability appraisal or consultation is required.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 0:11:10

We now move to the theme of consultation representations.

We have Matthew Henze.

You have one minute, or you may start when ready.

Thanks very much, Chairman.

Yes, it's not very easy confining a question today after reading 15 ,000 pages

of evidence over a six week period, but I'll do my best.

And my specific question concerns the online system called Opus

that the council advised residents to file their comments upon the local plan.

Despite this, the council closed the open system on the 6th of September, but

then proceeded to upload further material evidence

that they failed to upload

after the start of the consultation.

The council then also failed to write to everyone

who used the OPIF system to inform them

of the erroneously missing evidence.

So in addition to the obvious procedural flaws here,

my question generally is this.

What evidence did the council actually have

in its possession when it resolved the plan was sound

and ready for regulation 19 submission?

I can certainly tell members there are documents

that post date your 10th of July meeting,

but you'd have to ask me what those are.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr David Moore - 0:12:27

I really appreciate asking that question in that timeframe.

And we move to our final question,

which is related to item five

of the proposed North and Central Area Seal Report,

which is originally item eight in the original agenda pack.

We have Heather Hejdock.

You have one minute, thank you.

Good morning.

So the proposed seal charges for 10 or more dwellings

in Buckingham are between 0 % and 40 % of those for other North Buckinghamshire towns. The

report says this is because Buckingham has lower property prices, probably because it

is further from centres of employment and is very poorly served by public transport.

So the proposal is that Buckingham receives less infrastructure funding precisely because

it has greater need of it.

How does the council plan to address this apparent absurdity?

Thank you very much.

That concludes the questions.

Cllr David Moore - 0:13:21

I really appreciate the members of the public for coming here today,

out of their busy days and schedules, and to keep within the time limit.

We're now gonna move to Councillor Bracken,

who's the Deputy Cabinet Member for Planning.

There's a lot of questions there, but they're grouped by theme, and

Councillor Bracken will respond with, obviously, with officers here as well.

Thank you.

Well firstly I'd like to thank everybody who's taken the time to ask a question and also attend this meeting.

I think it shows the level of interest and the importance correctly about the local plan and indeed the SIL item also asked about.

I have quite full answers which will get into the record but I wanted to try and articulate those

but because of the technical nature of those answers,

it's ultimately going to be easier

when you see the detailed answer in writing.

So if we deal with firstly the site 3411,

in which we had a number of questions

around its classification in the Greenbelt review.

So to be clear, that Greenbelt assessment

for this particular baseline, and indeed all others,

is based on the 2025 guidance.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:14:31

and within that, that has then identified

the environmental constraints associated

with Burnham beaches, the SAC,

and it is recognised that there is a potential mitigation

that could address that through the Tsang area.

But that is not the same thing as saying

that development is acceptable on that particular parcel.

Now to make it slightly more complicated,

there have been changes in the 2026 NPPF,

which means that environmental

and heritage considerations are no longer part

of the Grey Belt test, and instead they are all assessed

through the planning application process.

So what that means from a technical perspective

is that the assessment remains valid

because it was done under the 25 rules,

but it doesn't prejudice the outcome

of the live application through the planning system.

I think there were also comments made about

Greenbelt more generally, and I would say that

the Regulation 19 plan does not allocate any housing

in Greenbelt land, and that would include

potential Greybelt classification,

because Greybelt is a subset of Greenbelt.

But the local plan, as you will have seen,

does have sufficient sites outside the Greenbelt,

and that's the reason why we have made no allocations

within the Greenbelt.

So I think to be very clear,

the assessment that we're doing here

under the Greenbelt Survey does not establish

the principle of development on any site,

and each planning application must be considered

as on its own merits against that current national policy

as well as the site -specific aspects of the Greenbelt

for that particular site.

So I think that's all I wanted to say on that,

but as I say, a more sort of detailed,

technical wording will be published there.

Dealing with the Princess Risbrough -Ness bypass issue,

I think the point I think I would make here

is that the policy makes clear that the route

is not merely intended to serve development traffic,

and is intended to provide a route

that bypasses the A410 -4010 through Princess Risba

and it would be used by through traffic.

This does mean that the route needs to be built

to an appropriate standard and these costs

have been allowed for in the technical work

within the local plan.

Specifically on paragraph 2 .4 .14 of the viability appraisal

that notes that some sites including Princess Risba

have been challenging, that the approach

which has been iterative,

and we've considered various options.

So that viability assessment models a scenario

with the cost of infrastructure spread

across several sites in the vicinity,

as well as the main nest site.

And that found that considered in this way,

the outcome was assessed as positively viable,

albeit the development likely able

to provide lower levels of affordable housing.

Now those findings do not point to a need

to reconsider whether the plan is sound in our opinion.

The local plan has also been developed in accordance

with the statement of community involvement

and planning regulations, so that will also come.

Dealing with Wheaton Hill, I think

what I would say in terms of the change relative to what you saw

in February is that we have evolved allocations

through the local plan preparation in response

to both technical evidence that has come in

and also the ongoing engagement with promoters

and indeed the wider consultation.

So what you, in the Reg 19 version that has gone out,

that is the council's final position,

and the reason for that is that the process is that

our position has been fixed,

but we will then be submitting it together

with possible changes as well as all the comments

that we've received through the consultation

to the examination which is done outside of the council.

And that's the version that is assessed

through the sustainability appraisal.

The sustainable proposal considers both

the sustainability effects of the proposed strategy

and the reasonable alternative options

examined during plan preparation.

But as the Reg 19 plan itself has been subject already

to that sustainability appraisal,

there is no further appraisal to do.

Lastly, if I deal with the question about SIL,

and I think there's a sort of inherent part of the question

which assumes that because there is a different rate

of SIL payable, that means that less infrastructure

is necessarily built in a particular location.

I think that's not technically correct.

So the viability is the main driver

of what the SIL rates are set,

because it would clearly be counterproductive

if we charge SIL at a level that made development unviable,

and so there wouldn't be any money

that would be secured in any purpose.

I think more importantly, though,

that funding for infrastructure

comes from a variety of sources,

so it's not just SIL, but also Section 106 contributions

and from infrastructure provided directly by developers.

So these are expected to remain a more important source of funding for infrastructure directly

linked to mitigating development impacts.

And in proposing the SIL rates, the Council is taking into account the cost of development,

including those Section 106 costs.

The last question, which related to OPERS, I mean, I think what we've said is that the

extended consultation period relates to specific documents of a technical nature forming a

tendencies of main evidence documents.

So these are kind of links within links of reports.

And so they have been available,

the original underlying report

has been available throughout.

Technically, because we've made these additional links

of links within the reports available,

representations submitted during those extended periods

should only relate to those additional periods

as the substantive consultation is closed.

But where an existing representation is affected by those specific documentations, then obviously representations can be resubmitted via email to the policy mailbox.

And any representation originally submitted can still be viewed by logging into Opus for those representations made by an individual. Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 0:21:22

Thank you Councillor Bracken for your responses. Thank you members of the public. I would like to encourage you to stay because the next item we're going to be discussing, Sill, as a committee and then the item after the local plan where members have every right to pick up on your questions. I really encourage them to do so.

Thank you for coming. Like I say, I hope you can stay, because we'll be asking questions to Councillor Bracken and the officers about the local plan and SIL.

Thank you very much for your time. We now move to item 5, which is the proposed North and Central SIL report.

8 Proposed North & Central Area CIL Report

We are considering this report and it forms part of the Budgets and Policy Framework.

The committee will be providing a key feedback document to Cabinet, so an important bit of engagement.

So, Councillor Bracken, once again, thank you for joining us.

And he will be obviously speaking on this item and the next.

Hannah Joyce, Head of Spatial Planning and Climate Resilience, thank you for joining

us.

And John Callahan, Infrastructure Funding Manager.

I'm going to now hand over for your report and then members can ask questions.

Thanks very much.

Well, committee, I hope you've had a chance to see through the report.

There are again some very sort of technical aspects

of what we're saying here, which I hope I can sort of cover

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:22:38

in some introductory remarks, but there may be issues

you wish to get into in questions.

So what we're talking about today is a proposal

for a new sill in the north and central areas of Buckinghamshire

and that's set out in the charging schedule

that you've been sent and there's also an instalment policy.

And underlying that, we recognise that no new tax

is ever welcome, but we do have to strike a balance

between the additional investment in infrastructure

and the potential effect of the viability

of that development.

So where we struck that balance,

the council must take into account

different development costs,

the viability of different types of development

across the north and central areas.

We also have to consider the infrastructure funding gap,

so the difference between the infrastructure needed

and the funds that are actually available.

A technical point which I think is really worth considering

is that the proposed sill is based on the current

unadopted plan, the adopted plan, sorry, the valve.

And I know that's very confusing

because we've been talking about the local plan.

But that is not in conflict with the local plan.

We recognise that the scale of the growth

require the cost in infrastructure

and the funding will only grow.

But if you look within paragraph 4 .6 on page 53,

you'll see this point that from a technical point of view,

this proposed sill for this area should be based on the VALP

rather than the local plan which is at the stage it's reached

because what that means is that irrespective of what happens

on the local plan, the sill for this area

that can go ahead based on the evidence base of the valve.

Now, the new sill will complete the coverage of the sill

in county input infrastructure funding

on a more consistent basis across the county.

It'll be complementary to what we continue to do

in seeking section 106 contributions.

It will benefit residents and businesses

because the more funds will be available for infrastructure

to support the development in these areas.

and it will also ensure that town and parish councils

receive a share, which is up to 25%,

where they have a neighbourhood plan

towards locals' priorities.

We have had a public consultation

on the proposed charging schedule.

That ran for six weeks from 24th of May,

and we're very grateful to those that responded.

In total, we received 53 comments,

and those are covered in the report,

together with the issues raised.

Obviously, we welcome comments that the committee may have on the charging schedule.

And from a process point of view, any comments that you make together with those received

during the consultation will be going to cabinet for their decision on the 14th of October

before we finalise the draught charging schedule.

From there, we will then be publishing any modifications and give notice of the examination

before submitting that charging schedule for examination by an independent inspector.

Now if, as we hope, the charging schedule is supported by the examiner,

the council will then be asked to adopt the CIL for the north and central areas.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brack.

Cllr David Moore - 0:26:00

Now we've heard a number of themes there from the members of the public and what we've discussed.

Councillor Cornell, you obviously, we spoke at the pre -meet about towns and parishes and the contributions there.

Did you want to ask a question on that?

Can I ask a question?

Yep.

It's sort of a couple of questions.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:26:15

Firstly, my parish are in the north

and house prices are much lower in the north.

So will that affect our amount of sill?

Will it be at 50 % to 25 %?

How long does it take to get paid

and what can we use it for?

Because S106 is quite specific,

but sill is slightly more nebulous, isn't it?

That we can use it for other things

other than just sports and leisure or roads or whatever?

Well, I think it does indeed work very differently

from the section 106, and I think particularly

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:26:47

when you think about the element going to

parish and town councils, they do indeed have

a lot of discretion in how they use it.

Maybe I turn to my colleagues to sort of give

a more expert view, but I think it is

a very important difference that you highlight.

Thank you.

If the viability appraiser recognises

that there is a gradient, if you like, in house prices.

And ultimately, and broadly speaking,

development of house costs is very similar to building the north

of the county as it does in the south.

But what you can sell it for is less.

John Callaghan - 0:27:22

And that is then reflected

in the differential silver rates that are proposed.

And in some cases, there is low to zero

because the viability of development just won't support that.

So yes, that may be a reflection of those lower prices

in the amount of SIL that's collected by the council.

And then, of course, the same proportion

of that lower amount will be passed on.

So that's, there is a factor there, yes.

In terms of how SIL can be used, broadly speaking,

parishes, town parish councils can use,

must use CIL in a very similar way to the way that the council uses it, which is for

instructions to support the development of the area.

The regulations do give

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:28:06

the parishes a little more

discretion. I can't remember the exact words in the guidance, but they're on our website,

or anything else which supports the area, something like that. So it does actually have a

defined in the regulations more discretion for parishes about how they use it.

So that gives a pretty broad palette of options to use it,

whether to fund existing infrastructure to maintain it or to create new play areas,

community halls, all those things which the parish is responsible.

Or to combine with other agencies, including the council,

Parishes are encouraged by the regulations to agree their proposals with the charging

authority, the council.

And that could include local priorities on transport, highways, or health.

So there is a very broad range of options.

In terms of the process of when these things are passed on, it depends on, of course, when

the development is approved and then the payment policies to when we actually get the CIL income,

which may be in several instalments.

But twice a year, my team will take the income

that we have received and will apportion the required

percentage to the parish, either 15 or 25 percent.

And whatever we have received in that previous six months

will be passed on to the parish as a matter of course.

You don't need to apply for it or request it.

Parishes we know like to cheque and keep an eye

on local developments.

and we welcome queries on those things.

Who decides on the 15 or 25 %?

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:29:53

So that's based on, it's always 15 %

unless you have a made local, a neighbourhood plan.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:29:59

So I would always be encouraging parishes and towns

if you haven't done one, good time to do it.

Thank you, Councillor Cornell.

Councillor Waters.

Cllr David Moore - 0:30:11

Thank you, Chair.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:30:15

I was on Chiltern District Council when we brought in CIL

in the south and there was a lot of good reasons

for doing that because a lot of developments

were less than 10 houses and made absolutely

no contribution towards infrastructure,

though their cumulative effect was significant.

So I think it is very relevant

this is being brought in in the north.

The question I've got though is data centres.

In reading the document, there's nothing different

about data centres.

You can see if you're doing a very large retail outlet,

you'll be paying a significant amount of money towards that,

where I presume data centres come under the 25 pound rate.

And for the amount of disruption, lack of employment

that it actually creates to the economy,

and also in our local plan, we actually

don't even note that there's a need within Buckinghamshire

for it.

So I think we will get lots of applications.

It would be good to actually have something

which particularly looks at data centres

because they are significant and have major impacts

on the area.

To first my colleagues on the general part,

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:31:31

just to go back to your original comments,

I just want to agree that I think CIL

is an appropriate mechanism and I think if I make

a slightly political point relative to others.

The benefit of CIL is it's a known and fixed schedule.

It's not a thing that can vary once it's established.

And I think that gives certainty to all people

who are involved around development,

and I think there's great benefit.

It is a better way of securing funds, in my view,

than many other aspects of the system.

In terms of data centres, I suppose I'd slightly react

to the comment that data centres are necessarily

very, have a very high impact on the local area.

I think it depends.

I think, I know from my own experience,

I've seen data centre proposals,

which I think consider wholly inappropriate,

slap bang next to a big residential neighbourhood,

for example, but I think we'd have to make sure

we understand the full impact of each and every proposal

at its particular site.

In terms of the question on the CIL

and how that relates on data centres.

I'll defer to my colleagues.

Yeah, just to chip in, I mean, a lot of these data centres,

of course, in the south, which are

outside the scope of the proposed civil charging

schedule.

But we did recognise, we do recognise the issue,

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:32:50

and we did consider that.

They would be caught by the all development catch

rate proposed for 25 pounds per square metre.

So they wouldn't be subject to no charge.

Our experience with these that we have seen come past

from the Section 106 point of view in the south is they are more,

and the SIL point of view is that they are more driven by direct impacts

in terms of air quality, which has resulted in some quite sizable

Section 106 contributions to mitigate those direct impacts.

So SIL is the ying to the yang of SIL and Section 106.

We did look at it particularly with our consultants

and did put it to them, these things are popping up more and more, what rate should they be

charged?

And their view was, well, they may be popping up, but there is not any good evidence that

they are more or less viable than any other type of employment use.

And so, although they're in the news, although we look at the data centres and think, well,

there's a lot of money behind those clearly, there isn't that viability evidence that we

point to at a public examination and say,

therefore we are proposing rate X.

And so we have applied that catch -all approach

to data centres as well.

Thank you.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:34:10

I think the key thing is if you're

building a very large retail unit,

you'd be on a much higher level.

These, which are massive sort of money -making schemes,

basically seem to be on a very low charge,

though actually they're mainly likely to be

on employment sites, but actually not produce

a lot of employment.

So I know there's a positivity, but in our own local plan,

we don't actually state there is a need for them,

so they're actually taking areas that we would use

for other forms of employment.

So there's a bit of a question.

And in the south where most of these things happen,

I know we're talking about that now,

it would be good to actually review that in the south

and the impact in their cell because it again doesn't

actually, they're all done pre -data centres.

So there's no mention of a data centre in particular,

though they are a different development than anything else.

So I just think it's something we need to be aware of.

I think just to come back, I think the point

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:35:19

of potential difference here is that the point of CIL

and indeed 106 is to mitigate the effects of development.

It is not to tax something that is, we don't like

or it has a particular economic profile.

That is not what the objective is.

The objective is to raise funds to mitigate

the impact and development.

So I think the framing that you're putting around it

is not something I would quite agree to.

I'm just gonna come back to the waters.

I can just quickly come back.

The big impact is when they're developing,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:47

they make a massive impact on the road structures

and other employment around.

So actually as they're being developed,

it can be absolute mayhem when they're being done

because of the sheer size of them.

Normally the connectivity they have to have

a whole lot of different work that needs to happen.

So actually during the construction periods

whenever they come in,

there is a major impact on the local communities.

and that's what's been found wherever else they've gone in.

I'm just going to come in on that because I think you made some really good points,

Councillor Waters.

Cllr David Moore - 0:36:19

I'm just going to add on to what Councillor Waters said.

Essentially, for example, in the south of the county, whether it be my ward or another

ward's, as we've mentioned, there's huge infrastructure impacts there, where it'd be digging up new

voltage lines, road works all the way to issues with noise and size.

Now Ealing Council charge £150 per square metre.

They're getting up to 17 million pounds of silver funding from a data centre.

Should we be asking for more?

Are we being risk averse here?

If we are facing a huge amount of data centres, by the way, have companies with huge balance

sheets, absolutely huge balance sheets, should we be asking for more, considering the impacts

that Council Waters has just mentioned?

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 0:37:09

If I may, Chair, I think my response to that is to say, I think one of the purposes of

today would be to gather comments from this committee for cabinet to consider before a

final schedule is agreed. And it sounds like one of the specific comments that you'd like

to report through is that point around data centres and whether the level of charge is

right. You've heard from John the kind of the evidence base that we've used to support

that. But I'm happy for us to kind of take that away as one of the questions from this

committee that we can feed into the decision -making for Covenant.

I think that would be very helpful if you're happy with that, Councillor Waters.

I'm very happy with that, thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 0:37:47

Thank you, if that could be noted and minuted, that would be great.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Stutchbury, you're next.

I'll move this closer because they don't work anyway, do they?

Thank you very much for your presentation and such like.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:38:01

Historically, I asked for CIL to go into the Vale plan in the District Council.

didn't go in. Historically I pushed and it's a public record I've questioned the absence

of CIL in North Buckinghamshire. I find it strange that we have a CIL policy not for

the Buckinghamshire but for different areas. I don't understand the logic of that as we

are one unitary. I do follow on from the concerns being raised about the schedule of charges.

There's been conversations about the division between North and South Buckinghamshire and

the amount of development.

It's evident that there's a large amount of development going to come forward into Buckinghamshire.

North Buckinghamshire included Buckingham where my constituent asked a question in advance

of this and I wasn't completely a favour of the answer.

So I really think that the words used were an observatory of the policy.

I think it's probably a good word. The policy doesn't reflect the realities that the infrastructure

in North Buckinghamshire isn't there. It didn't reflect the realities that we've got one train

station in North Buckinghamshire that isn't actually open yet and everybody else has got

train stations. The idea that houses are cheaper in North Buckinghamshire is probably a fallacy.

and the veil of our plan failed, though it's been referred to as the basis of the analysis,

it was never put into the plan in its agreement, even in the district days, and it was never

put into the plan when it went through council.

So that never had that level of scrutiny around what these possible charges would be until

it gets produced in the policy now, very late in the day.

I'm really concerned that this policy is going to be a developer's charter in the sense that

they will encourage development over and above and the council states it needs infrastructure

funding and this policy is not going to deliver it.

The deputy cabinet member didn't write the policy.

He's interpreting the policy.

I'd like a little explanation around that and then I'll come back.

Hopefully the explanation answers the question.

If not, I will come back because I'm a little bit vexed

by the insincerity of the amounts of money

coming to North Buckinghamshire.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Councillor Stutry.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:40:32

I think the heart of what you're suggesting

is potentially that we shouldn't have different rates

of SIL around the county.

And I think what we've tried to explain

is that that wouldn't actually work

because of the different economics of development

in different places around.

So there isn't a world, I think,

where you could simply have a single uniform rate

across the whole county unless you just said,

well, the consequence of that is there will be

a lot of development that won't take place.

So I think that it is a feature of the system we have.

But again, I think you have to go back to

this is not the only source of infrastructure financing,

and that the section 106 route stands in parallel

and on top of the SIL schedule.

And if any of my colleagues would like to add anything.

If I may, if I may also just add the point about

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 0:41:31

the process that needs to be followed here.

So the process for setting the seal rates needs to be evidence led.

As you've heard in the presentation today, once cabinet considers

and potentially agrees the charging schedule, it is submitted for independent examination.

And we need to make sure that through that process we are able

to evidence whatever the kind of charging schedule is.

So again, I go back to perhaps the point that Councillor Bracken was making,

which is it may be a desire where we get to either higher rates or

more consistent rates across the county.

But if the evidence doesn't support that, then ultimately that is not gonna be

successfully taken through an examination.

And what will lead to is either no sill being agreed or

potentially lower rates imposed as a consequence.

So we need to get the balance right.

And that was the purpose as well as the consultation that we've been through, is to share all of

that evidence base, to set the proposed rates, and to allow for those comments to come forward

to enable us to test what the evidence is telling us.

And that's what you're now seeing before you is the process that we followed.

Thank you for the answer, but it isn't really addressing the issue.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:43:04

The realities are in North Buckinghamshire, there is no infrastructure.

The reality is, as I said, that Sill was not introduced by the district into their proposed

plan which was introduced in 2021 by the emerging Buckinghamshire Council.

Sill was not put into the plan yet, into the Vale of Alsby plan, yet it's quoted as the

evidence base for your analysis of whatever that evidence base was never discussed at

that stage when the plan was being put together.

So we are very much is that analysis historical, out of date and doesn't match the realities

today would be my concern.

The other concern is we do need to accrue finances from developments to meet the needs

that we need from schools, education, health, roads and other things.

And it's evident that in the facts that 25 % goes to parishes with a made -neighbourhood

plan, 15 % goes to parishes who haven't got a made -neighbourhood plan, but your schedule

goes from 0 % to 400 dwellings, which means there may be a whole gap of people who don't

necessarily conjure it.

I understand that Section 106 will come in and maybe fill in those gaps.

I understand that.

It's just the way the policy looks.

It looks pretty weak.

It looks like a developments charter

and it will encourage development in such a way

that that may cost the council more money in the long run

because it's inability to meet the infrastructure.

So I'm not a hundred percent convinced of it.

It would have been so much better

for everyone concerned here as the district council

to actually got their fingers out

and actually when they were doing the main neighbourhood plan

the made vale plan actually done as was required,

just put sill in it instead of leaving it to be sorted out afterwards.

I don't concur and agree that the answers you give will answer the problems.

I think we're going to see huge problems delivering future infrastructure in North Buckinghamshire.

And the nest, which you've put into the plan,

large sections of that are outside neighbourhood plans,

made neighbourhood plans and in areas where the parishes have less likely years of collecting

still because they will be on the lower percentage. So I need assurances how we're going to make

sure that there's some local governance around those parishes as well in North Buckinghamshire

from to Western right out to Wing. And Winslow, matter of fact, it's got a different still

charging than Buckingham, which is only five miles down the road.

There seems no consistency in it.

And people quite rightly have come today and questioned that inconsistency.

And I don't think the answer is really, and it's not meant to be disrespectful

of address the issues, I think the policy is building up problems for the future.

If you can prove to me that that is wrong, please do so.

I think I don't have that much to add to what we've already said.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:46:15

I think I'll just go back to the process that we followed is the process we're required

to follow and the evidence does take you to a certain place.

I think what you're again saying is that you don't like the outcome of the evidence or

the process that we followed.

But that's, of course, you're welcome to have that opinion.

But I think that is the world we live in.

And so if we tried to do this,

are you proposing a single schedule across the whole county?

Is that what you're proposing?

That there wouldn't be the evidence base

and we wouldn't then implement a CIL at all.

Lastly, just coming back,

you do accept that it would have been better

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:46:55

if the district council had sorted this business out

when they put a plan,

which Buckinghamshire council had to tidy up

and take through after it failed to go through the plan.

You do accept that that would have been the better time

to have had Zill introduced at a made neighbour plan

in the full consultation within that plan,

rather than what we're doing now,

which is a piecemeal affair.

I think it would have been better for all of us.

I don't think I can accept that,

because I don't know what exactly the veil

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:47:22

when they were taking those decisions,

what their basis of that decision was.

So it's not that I don't accept it.

I just apologise for having it at this advantage.

Thank you, Councillor Starchbury.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:47:31

Cllr David Moore - 0:47:32

We now move to Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:37

Thank you Chairman. On page 53, 3 .6 suggests that there's at least a 6 billion infrastructure

gap. But I think on page 55, you said that, I think it is, that you'll raise roughly 2

billion. There's still a 4 billion short fall from where you're... So 3 .6 says, identify

So cost of infrastructure, at least $6 billion, and clearly a large funding gap based on where

we are today.

And you're going to raise $2 .165 million, which is $2 .1 billion in effect.

So you're still 4 billion shores.

So my query is, are the rates the correct rates?

How they compare to whether we are north, south, and or Oxfordshire, Berkshire, or wherever.

So have we got comparatives for other areas that are nearby neighbours, if that makes sense,

to understand?

because say if you look at somewhere like Slough, Reading,

ourselves in Wickham, Beckinsale, Ellesbury, whatever,

we're all relatively similar locations near London,

we're all relatively similar pieces.

So I'm curious to understand,

in terms of the rates you're proposing,

how they compare, so are they low or high or the rest?

And then within it, I have to say,

I'm surprised you're being that specific

on about large convenience stores.

surely it should just be large industrial development,

larger than 280 square metres.

That would be a much simpler way of saying,

if you've got a large scale development,

then there's a shop, factory, industrial unit,

whatever it happens to be,

it will cause more disruption

and it will cause more issues

than just a little corner shop, if that makes sense.

So therefore, if you just say it's all development

over a certain size,

then that would then be much more justifiable rather than just saying it's only going to be convenience stores.

So, I mean the big supermarkets are massive and they will cause disruption.

But if you're going to build a big shed somewhere or you're going to build, you know,

wherever it might be, whether it's a film studio, data centre, whatever it's going to be, they're going to be big massive

infrastructure pieces. Therefore they're going to cause in terms of electricity usage,

water usage, sewage usage and the rest.

They will be big users of those physical utilities.

Therefore, to me, in your appendix,

one I guess is the blue bit,

if you just change it to being all large scale development

by non -residential, then you could be,

you'll be non -specific about what you're,

you're not targeting one person over another,

just saying it's large scale,

therefore you charge 100 pound per square metre.

The other bit I'm surprised about is in terms of where you talk about large homes of 400 or more, or more than 10 hectares, it's zero.

I know you're going to say you're going to get 106 and get other bits as well, but actually those big sites do physically, again, lots of water, lots of sewerage, lots of electricity, lots of other infrastructure stuff, lots of highway stuff as well.

Therefore zero doesn't feel right either.

Now, you may say, well, because they've got to develop the house and the rest of it, the

boom developers do make a profit, right?

So they're not doing it for charity.

So zero just gives us, again, the wrong number.

Now, I'm good to understand if you look at that compared to wild neighbour authorities,

what do they do in comparison?

Now, if they all say we're all zero, well, fair enough, but I don't feel that that could

be the right answer necessarily.

So I'll leave it there, but yeah.

I've still got another number of questions,

but I'll leave it there.

Thanks very much.

I think on the numbers part and how this sort of ties together,

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:51:28

I think, again, to be very clear that the SIL itself is not

the sole means of mitigation of these gaps, right?

I mean, I think you understand that point.

But that, so you're pointing at different numbers

and saying this doesn't match this.

But that isn't quite the point in terms of how

this system works as a whole.

and again the rates and therefore the likely revenue

from this are based on the evidence -based process

of what they can support.

I think the second point, and I think it actually came out

in some of the earlier questions about the impact,

what CLR &D 106 is trying to do is not the impact

of the construction of the development.

I think that's quite an important point to understand

because I think some of the language we're describing,

you know, I'm gonna build this thing,

it's gonna be hugely disruptive when I build it,

that's not quite the same thing as what these are trying

to do, which is to mitigate the effects of the developments

it's built on the wider area.

And I think the last point around sort of CIL

and how this works above a certain threshold of houses

and why does it go to zero, we've had that debate also

in the local plan because it's one of the policies

that you'll see in the development management policies.

And I think we may have had some of this debate before,

but the basic argument is, as indeed you said,

is that 106 is a better mechanism,

essentially, for those larger developments than SIL,

and effectively by having the SIL there as well,

you are complicating that 106 discussion unnecessarily.

You know there will be 106.

If any of my colleagues would like to add anything on that.

Thank you.

I mean, I think if there are demodular impacts,

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:53:13

construction impacts, ongoing impacts particularly,

frankly, build anything.

Even domestic attention is a pain to live next to,

we get that.

And the bigger the construction, the more the impact,

the wider the effect.

Part of that is simply, well, yeah, that's a nuisance,

but we all want data centres, we all want, you know,

somewhere to live, so we put up with it.

If there are particular things, and we mentioned data centres

earlier in the context of air quality,

where they have these emergency standby generators

that are readily tested, if there are particular things that we can identify, then our planning

team does that with the statutory services, and they will home in on that to get a planning

obligation and maybe a contribution to mitigate that.

And that's absolutely appropriate.

As has been said, the seal, it's going too far, but you could almost say it just lives

and dies on the viability.

The impacts of construction are not relevant to that.

If it's not viable, it's not viable.

If you've got evidence or if there is evidence or we can find evidence to justify a higher

threshold in a particular area, then that would be great.

But if there's not that evidence, then that would be very difficult to sustain.

I think the only thing which I'd highlight as well is that you can look at, I dare say,

it wouldn't probably take too long to look at different rates across different areas.

and I already know for instance in London the rates are high,

of course property prices are high in London,

but also it's not just the rates,

not just the property prices, it's the policy context.

What are they seeking by way of their local plant policies,

particularly affordable housing?

What are they requiring by way of section one six

contributions and infrastructure?

And that's where large greenfield sites

typically outlay a great deal in terms of strategic site,

seek open space, community facilities, playing fields,

schools, typically anything above 700 will typically build a new primary school.

You tend not to get that in some areas.

So if you're not looking at that in the round, it's easy to form a misleading picture that

actually we're too high or we're too low, which is why we have to go through that detailed,

painful process of looking at the viability evidence in detail as it affects to this area

at this time.

Compared to when we did, the legacy authorities did the charging schedules for east and south

and west areas, the policy environment was less, was more permissive.

You didn't have biodiversity net gain, for example.

Affordable housing was whatever that was.

You didn't have the same levels.

You didn't have requirements for electric vehicle charging points, environmental insulation.

All of these tended to add to the development costs over time.

So not only do you have a geographical variation,

which accounts for the rates,

you also have an increasing development cost environment,

which tends to mean that you can require less and less

through sales work.

That's probably why.

That's valid across all development,

whether it's here, Scotland, Wales, Ireland,

or wherever, right?

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:56:16

So all of those policies will be put in place

across the whole of the country, right?

So it doesn't just relate to us particularly.

What you haven't answered me properly

is where's the evidence?

We've looked at the other neighbouring authorities

to work out what their rates look like

to see how comparable it is.

So I would like a, after the meeting,

a schedule showing me what Reading looks like,

what Oxford looks like, what Slough looks like,

because our neighbouring authorities

would give us the comparable rates.

Now if they say they're only sure to charge 20 pound

and we're charging 100 pound, fine, okay.

If you've obviously decided 100 pound, great.

But if they're charging 500 and we're charging 100,

Again, need to understand the dynamic of I get this in the round, but I still need to

understand where it relates to in terms of neighbouring authorities.

Just so I understand, because I know London is totally different to us, I get that bit,

but anywhere in the home counties, whether it's Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire,

Berkshire, we're all relatively the same distance from London.

We're all relatively the same structure in terms of towns and competing issues we have.

I haven't seen the evidence here.

So I would like to see the evidence, please.

I think it's something we can certainly take away.

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:57:27

I think, for the reasons I've indicated,

I think potentially that's misleading.

I don't, I genuinely don't know what the outcome

of that exercise would be.

It's not something we've looked at.

We have not looked to set our rates based on, well,

we're a bit like Redding, but we're not as big, and,

you know, and this and that.

That's not the approach that we've taken,

and I think we would, that would not serve us well when it came

to a public examination.

But we can certainly look at what those rates are in terms of different areas and share that information. That's not a challenge.

The process doesn't allow that as a cross -cheque, but I think as councillors it's an entirely valid thing to know.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:58:01

How does this compare? It wouldn't necessarily change anything in terms of what we would recommend.

But yes, it would be helpful to know. So I certainly encourage if we could do some follow -up on that.

I think if that's okay, if we could minute that follow -up, that would be much appreciated.

Cllr David Moore - 0:58:15

I think it's a very important point that Council Waters has also raised, whether it be about

the nil -rated issue, the charge per metre of data centres, the different authorities.

And I thank also Steve for obviously bringing that to cabinet as well.

I think that would be important if Councillor Bracken is minded to do that.

So yeah, if we could get that meted, that would be great.

I'm just looking at the time.

We've got two more speakers on this item, and that's Councillor Collins and then Councillor

Cornell.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Michael Collins - 0:58:47

We have in the past experienced considerable difficulties, disagreement even with the county

using parish S106 funds.

I think we do need assurance that the funds allocated to the parish in future will not

be used to meet the shortcomings of the county where there are possibly funding or resource

difficulties because we've had many, many disagreements

about the use of S1 and S6 funds.

And I do think we need to have that assurance in place

that when a fine amount is agreed to perish,

that that is literally a ring fence for their use.

So I think there's a couple of underlying issues.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:59:36

So certainly a SIL system, the amount of money

that will be going to the parish or town

is fixed by the formula of 15 or 25.

And so that decision is entirely with the town and parish

to take in line with the regulations that govern on

how that can be spent.

So I can give that complete reassurance.

I think the sort of underlying issue of Section 106

spending and what the priorities of that,

I think, and John sort of adds,

in terms of how this works in practise,

I mean, I think we have to respect the fact that the decision does lie with the council on that

And we absolutely want to encourage

Parishes and towns to provide input to us in those decisions

But it's not the case that the parish or the town has is the decision maker for those for how the section

Section 106 would actually work John. I think you're adding to this about that process in practise works

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:00:32

Thank You counsel. Yeah, the

Even Section 106, Section 106 are aimed at directly mitigating development impacts.

Even they are not necessarily spent in the same parish, because of course we don't live

and die in just a small parish area.

We travel beyond that.

We require transport.

We use community facilities.

Our children require education in secondary schools, which not every parish has.

So even Section 106 are not restricted to a parish, but they tend to be more localised.

The SIL, though, is for the development of infrastructure that supports the development

of the area.

And that is, in fact, it's the whole of the council area.

You could, in principle, take SIL from one area and spend it in another, but, you know,

members have taken the view that that wouldn't be appropriate, and I understand that.

Members then set out their priorities, their spending priorities, including their infrastructure

priorities in the corporate plan and the medium -term financial plan.

And it is that which directs how SIL should be used.

And it actually partly, it can be used in the favour of those areas you may not see a

lot of them, but if they need a particular piece of infrastructure, flooding for example,

you can draw on SIL from elsewhere in that charging area.

But we wouldn't, and we don't restrict SIL or even Section 6 to a parish area.

Cllr Michael Collins - 1:02:04

Sorry. The parish will decide on how they wish to use that money. Do the parish then

have to come back to county to get that, their decision, rubber -stemmed before they can progress?

Or is it entirely at their discretion?

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:02:19

Sorry, and I should distinguish. Thank you for clarifying. What I've been describing

is the council, the sill which the council holds, retains,

and which is responsible for spending.

The parish portion, the neighbourhood share,

which is passed on to the Town and Parish Council,

that is a responsibility of the Town and Parish Council.

It's up to them.

They don't need to come back to us and ask for our say so.

They are responsible for it, and if they misspend it,

then of course they're accountable for that.

They also, like the council, have a requirement,

sat on regulations about reporting and they have to produce an annual statement.

Now they don't need to come back and ask us, or the regulations do encourage the charging authority

and the parishes to work together to agree how funds should be used.

Hannah Joyce - Head of Spatial Planning & Climate Resilience - 1:03:15

I think some of the questions we're getting here are showing that we need to do a bit of training

with local members in the north and also town and parish councils about how they use their

proportion of sill. And so we will commit to doing that in the run up to this sill being

put in place if it's agreed.

That's really good to hear and you're very welcome indeed. I'm just conscious about...

Cllr David Moore - 1:03:35

Mike.

Cllr Michael Collins - 1:03:43

The ability for parish clerks to understand fully the implications.

So if we can organise training sessions that's imperative.

We'll add that to the minutes if that's okay.

Thank you very much for the suggestion.

Cllr David Moore - 1:03:54

We're really conscious about time so if we make these quick.

Councillor Cornell and then Councillor Field.

Thank you, Chair. That's really, really, really quick.

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:04:02

It's going back to the battery storage and we charge still on that.

Do we charge it on wind farms and solar farms?

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:04:11

Probably no, we don't.

The sill is a chime which is levied on floor space or gross internal area.

And a solar farm is the most clear cut example.

You haven't got any internal area.

A wind farm, I suppose you might say, has got an internal height.

But you would consider it as infrastructure.

I don't think that's what one we come across, but generally it is still is not chargeable on infrastructure

It's chargeable on new floor space

I'm sorry

I slightly disagree with it because it wind from wind France

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:04:52

But so if I'm to take up a huge amount of land in space and then then the land afterwards is not useful and

The same with battery storage in my mind, but I'm sure you're perfectly right. I think they should be charged

That's not to disagree with the comment, but that's not the basis on which CILI is levied.

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:05:07

That's a good point.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:17

Just to clarify, from what the officers just said to us, we think that that description is a national policy that doesn't allow us to charge for wind farms and or solar farms because they've said it's only internal floor space.

Therefore, it's a national policy, not one we would love to if we could, but we're not

allowed to because that's a national policy in what you describe.

Is that correct?

Cllr David Moore - 1:05:41

I think that's something that we could raise further with our, with Cabinet as it's national.

Thank you.

Very good point, Councillor Cornell.

Councillor Field, last question.

Hello there.

Morning to everyone.

Cllr Dean Field - 1:05:50

That's interesting and good news to hear

that the parish councils would get assistance

because they don't have the experience at the moment.

So that's really good.

So my question is regarding the charging,

how often will this be revised?

Because there will be construction costs rise in that

over its period of time.

So how often or what's your plan on reviewing the challenges

to arching schedule?

So I think there's two things to say.

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:06:32

Firstly, each and every year we index the civil charge

against the inflation, basically.

But it's a project in construction cost inflation.

And it almost invariably goes up, although in the last five years, on one occasion it

went down, given all the calamities that were happening around that time.

So that happens as a matter of course.

At the end of each year, we calculate what the appropriate indexation should be, and

it's published on our website on the 1st of January.

So that is published, and in small increments, it accounts for inflation.

The question about a broader review, I think the,

we have been keen to plug the gap in the north

and central area, which clearly is a gap.

And I think once that is done, I think that we will need

to implement that, put that into effect.

But I think members, I know, will want us to think then,

at what point, you know, should we be putting

in place a sill which is county wide.

As has been mentioned, that would have different rates

by different areas.

I do not doubt that already.

But it would have some advantages in terms

of administration and ease of understanding.

The oldest charging schedule is from 2012.

And as I mentioned earlier, actually development costs were

lower and I suspect that we would struggle to justify some

of those charges now.

And yet, the development industry has accommodated itself to those charges.

And those are two different things.

We would have to go through the process and go through the examination and

justify our rates, taking a cautious approach.

And I think it's a really good question, which members will want us to review.

And then whether we actually review the rates and have a single charge change,

I think is a different question again.

Thank you, Councillor Field.

Thank you, members.

Thank you, officers.

Cllr David Moore - 1:08:34

Thank you to the deputy cabinet members.

Some really, really important points there raised

and some takeaways that we've obviously minuted.

Just to sum that up, we've obviously

raised the issue of still not being charged for solar wind

farms, but it's per floor space.

I recognise that's obviously a political issue.

We can raise further with cabinets from rising

to central government.

We obviously raised the north -south issues

with house values.

Data centres have been a major theme.

I think it would be really good to actually kind of compare

with other authorities about the charging per metre and the nil rate of strategic sites

issue.

I'd be grateful we could raise that with cabinet.

And also the training sessions as well for members and parishes and towns.

That would be very helpful indeed so we know what we're navigating.

But thank you very much officers and members.

We now move to our next item which is of course the local plan.

Now this obviously is a very major item.

And this is a standing item for the remainder of the year because of its importance.

6 Local Plan for Buckinghamshire

So obviously the consultation, as you know, closed on the 6th of September.

And as a result, it's still September now, the 23rd, and there's not been sufficient

time to fully analyse the response, repair of paper.

So we need to look through the huge amount of responses there are.

However, this is, we're not voting on anything today, but we are indeed receiving an update

from Councillor Bracken again,

Deputy Cabinet Member for Planning,

Steve Bambrick, who is the Corporate Director

for Planning, Growth, and Sustainability,

Hannah Joyce, Head of Spatial Planning, Climate Resilience,

and Charlotte Morris, who is the Planning Policy Manager.

So I go over to you for the local plan update.

Thanks very much.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:10:19

And I have the very easy task of simply updating you

on all the 8 ,500 submissions that we received

in the consultation and saying where we are.

And I know, Chairman, you've allocated around a half an hour for this discussion.

But if I can be helpful to try and outline what I can about where this process stands.

So as I said, and it was reported at council, we've had 8 ,500 representations.

We have been able to review some of those as they come in.

And obviously, there's a more detailed process that has to go through, which we're not in

a position to give you today.

But I think there are some very consistent themes

emerging from that consultation.

And just as this committee identified

when we've discussed this on previous occasions,

the key point is infrastructure.

And I think the overarching message

is that growth should be accompanied by infrastructure

delivered alongside development rather than following it.

I would say more generally though

that in terms of the parties we've gone out to

across all the, from water to healthcare to education

to funding from developer corporations contributions.

That has been a good deposit.

We've had across the board from all the people

that we really wanted to, even down into

the neighbouring authorities.

Our MPs have been very engaged on this.

So I think this has really drawn the full attention

through the consultation from the community.

is exactly what we were seeking to do.

I think on the spatial strategy,

I would say that obviously we've had mixed comments on that.

We've had different perspectives on how growth

should be accommodated across Buckinghamshire,

and in particular, we've had a lot of comments

on individual nest sites, the new and expanded settlements.

This is entirely to what we would expect.

I would like to say though, in relation to some of the comments that we've had on NESS,

I mean, we do understand and recognise that what is being proposed through this local plan,

Reg 19 version, does represent very significant changes in some areas of our county.

And I can fully understand why residents are concerned about this impact,

to the point of why are you doing this to my area?

And I have to sort of say that the reality is

that there is no alternative to having the concept

of new and expanded settlements.

I mean, we have a housing target, I would remind you,

of 91 ,000 homes from the labour government,

which equates to a population increase

of 40 up to 50 % in our county.

And there's simply no way you can do that

by squeezing an extra 40, 50 % of housing

on every street in the county.

You are going to have to concentrate that development

in some places, and you're going to have to concentrate that.

You will want to concentrate that in some places

because it's the only practical way that you

will get the scale to deliver the housing

number that we are required.

So I think we've made comments in previous presentations

about this that we do this because we are tasked to do

But we absolutely recognise the challenges that this creates in the community.

I think we've also just had many comments on the site specific matters and

the sort of strategic issues as they relate to neighbouring issues.

I think in neighbouring areas, I think that's been really helpful.

That's exactly what we want.

We want that detailed feedback.

So I do think we've got a very good, extensive, constructive engagement

from the consultation.

And the process from here is that the team

will be working through that to assess

those representations and they will put in responses

to those representations and as you know ultimately

that then all goes together with the existing version

of the Reg 19 document to the planning inspectors

and where it will be examined.

And all of that will be available on the website.

But that is, if I could then, back to you for questions.

Thank you, Councillor Bracken.

Wow, we've got 8 ,000 responses.

Cllr David Moore - 1:14:40

Great to see the members of the public coming here today.

I've never seen so many members of public at this committee.

It's so important that we engage with this plan

and throughout that consultation window.

So Councillor, then your hand was up first,

then Councillor Stutchbury, Roberts, Collingwood, Collins.

Thank you, Chairman.

Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:14:59

Infrastructure for this plan was put at more than £6 billion with a clear funding gap.

I think I raised this question in the last committee, at the same committee,

and we were told there was no extra central government funding and that developers and providers will provide most of the cost.

However, there is a real infrastructure issue. I appreciate that we do need to build.

The national government wants us to build.

However, my understanding is regulation 19 is the public's chance to test whether the gap is real.

And I'm not asking whether the studies have been done or previous studies have been done.

We've dealt with that in the last meeting.

But what I want to know is, since this has gone to the public, has there been any new timed funded commitment,

whether it's water, sewage, highways, schools, or health, across the county that wasn't indeed July evidence that's now been committed?

Or is the funding gap still as substantial as it was when we last met?

Thank you.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:16:01

I think the short answer to that is that no, there has not been any additional thing from

central government or the other bodies that you mentioned.

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 1:16:10

Could I just add, I think part of the process has been to engage with the various infrastructure

providers.

So obviously we are still working through their detailed comments, but in many cases

is they will be looking for conditions

or specific requirements to go into the plan

to make sure that they can also plan

their own investment decisions

around providing infrastructure.

So there's a lot more detail to work through,

but Councillor Bracken's right,

we're not in a position,

and we certainly haven't had any additional

funding commitments as part of the consultation process.

Thank you for that clarification.

if that's the case, when will this committee

Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:16:52

and our residents know if anything comes true?

I mean, are we expecting a certain timeframe

or is this gonna work through, you know,

for the next five, 10 years?

Because you can appreciate it causes quite a lot of anxiety,

particularly in my patch, residents are come writing in

and say, well, we are already in full capacity on roads,

we're in full capacity on schools, et cetera, et cetera.

So a couple of points I would make.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:17:19

So on the first part then, we are having active conversations with,

for example, water companies.

This week we've spoken to Anglian Water, really encouraging that they are wanting to talk to us.

They want to understand our plans.

They are understanding our plans and they're working out how to build

that into their strategic plans themselves to make sure infrastructure is in place in time

for when the developments come on board.

So really encouraging conversations,

but no specific extra funding in terms of that question.

And then in terms of when do we expect any announcements,

I don't think we'll hear any official announcements

before we submit the report and before the examination starts.

So I think it would be, you know,

we will continue to have those conversations with providers,

with government, and whoever we need to.

Richard Ambrose - 1:18:07

But we're not going to hear anything

before the plan gets submitted.

Thank you very much.

Councillor Stutchbury.

Thank you.

Always a pleasure to ask questions.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:18:18

Richard, you and I spoke on many issues around infrastructure

and we did brief you on issues in Buckingham around,

you stated that you were talking to Anglia Water.

Are we talking to Water Resource East England about the necessity

to the water shortage in the Grove corridor area which is known are we

talking to Defra about that I am aware because of my work in supporting people

in this area that this will the whole issues of this is going to come up

before Angela Eagle and Emma Hardy,

because you will be aware you had the briefing,

which we did a motion on a council,

which got sent to a different committee,

which is where it's gonna necessarily be considered.

I fear that we are not in a very good position,

our evidence base round, the analysis round,

that element of what we need,

because those, you state AngularWater looking at it,

I also know that AngularWater

working on large sewage provision.

None of that is in the plan,

and all we got in the plan was a one line, strap line.

There is a project somewhere in North Buckinghamshire,

and no granularly detail in the plan.

Also, the plan didn't recognise the use

as a major water corridor.

it's sort of like a little stream that flows out to the wash. So I fear that

there was a missed opportunity there and I know that Buckenshire is a very long

place and it does have more than water companies. Many of the applications that

come forward, which is not your fault, they refer to Thames. We don't have Thames

in North Buckenshire, we're angular water and we're closer to affinity water than

we are to Thames. Have you had any conversations about that and what level of those conversations

have come forward? Because the plan's got to be manageable. It's got to meet the future

growth and it's got to manage water resources, sewage and drainage. There is a girth of all

of those things which have not been met. So I'm interested to know what side conversations

you're having, whether it bears any reality to what's actually taking place in the cross -boundary

discussions between Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, Bedfordshire, and unfortunately not

Buckinghamshire at this point.

Richard Ambrose - 1:21:16

I guess, I mean, there's a lot in that question, but I guess...

In short, the question is basically, I'm explaining the detail of it, and the question is, what

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:21:24

Please explain to me where your connexion to all those things and water resource England is

Not body looking at all this I presume you are in contact with them

Richard Ambrose - 1:21:36

Well, we've been talking to the providers within Buckinghamshire. So Anglian affinity Thames water

Other utility providers. We've had no official objections at all. I think those conversations are positive

and

understanding of how we can work together to make sure things are in place at the appropriate time.

I think it's probably also worth pointing out that this Reg 19 consultation was the first time that we've

specifically identified different sites and so those conversations will continue right up to submission and beyond.

But yeah, I don't think I can say much more beyond that,

but we continue to have lots of conversations

and positive conversations and it's two -way.

Thank you for that answer.

We'll talk again.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:22:29

The other fact with it is that the way the plan has done

in the NES, and I accept the cabinet member's expression

of why whatever and the development of the sites.

might not agree with it by its explanation.

What work has gone on to talk to us,

our neighbouring organisations,

like I pick up the South North Antsar,

not particularly pleased at the moment.

I pick up that Milton Keynes perhaps feel

they haven't been consulted

because of the large amount of development

which is in other members here's wards

adjacent to the Milton Keynes boundary.

I also sat for a planning application in Milton Keynes to listen to the application at appeal

to see what was said.

Can I have some assurance of what level of conversation is taking place?

Because the Vail Plan failed through one of the objections was not consulting your statistical

neighbours and it's a very important thing to keep sure that it actually takes place.

It's not in the plan.

The Nest doesn't say that apart from it alludes to it.

I just need to be sure that those conversations are taking place because if they don't, the

objections will be quite linear, I just imagine.

Charlotte Morris - Planning Policy Manager - 1:23:47

So we have been having regular conversations with neighbouring authorities and also at

the county level as well, so looking at issues to do with transport, education provision

and those wider issues.

So just to confirm that we are having those conversations and we will continue to have

those conversations.

Our neighbours have also submitted a representation as

part of this consultation, which we are considering at the

moment and having those follow -up conversations with them.

So you referred to a previous local plan that failed on the

duty to cooperate here at Aylesbury.

So the duty to cooperate has actually been revoked, so

that's no longer a legal requirement to have duty to

cooperate conversations.

However, it's still within national policy that we have

to engage collaboratively.

So this is something that we have undertaken since the start

of the local plan process.

So it has been iterative,

and we have been having those ongoing conversations.

Thank you very much, Councillor.

I didn't know the legislation had been lifted.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:24:50

It still states in government legislation there's a legal

obligation to cooperate.

If you can send me the piece

where it's actually been amended and changed.

I looked it up and it still sits there on the website, duty to cooperate.

So if there's been a major change, I don't read everything.

I'd love to see where it actually changed the legislation because it still states over you 1991.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Cllr David Moore - 1:25:20

Just conscious of the time, so we'll get through, keep our questions concise.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:25:25

Thank you very much.

You've indicated that of course we're now looking ahead

at the examination process, so it's really a question

around that aspect and our anticipation of that.

I know in the local plan, we've obviously heard a lot

about the green belt protections and the fact

that there aren't any green belt sites allocated,

but we know there's been speculative development

and we've lost green belts because we haven't had a plan

and five -year land supply, we know those issues.

So the question then is examination, what are the risks

of it passing the soundness test examination?

Because that opens up a risk to the green belt.

And also, there's an indication of the examination timetable being

about seven months, but I think I understand from elsewhere

that the examination process of other local plans goes

on considerably longer in many cases.

And again, that would mean that we again would continue

to be exposed to speculative developments on Greenbelt.

So I just wanted to understand what your concerns are

about the risks of getting the examination process.

So if I could start on that.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:27:00

So I think it's probably just worth sort of reiterating,

maybe we have to sort of think about the risks.

There have always been risks.

And from the last time we talked about it, I think as part

of that analysis and discussion,

we talked about the risks for the process.

So, I mean, maybe if I could suggest to the teams as how

to respond, we should be focused on have we picked up anything

through the consultation that has changed the risks

to that process from where we were previously.

And obviously we haven't completed the detailed review

of the consultation, but that's probably how I would suggest my

colleagues sort of come back to you on that.

I think the only thing I would add around that is

Richard Ambrose - 1:27:40

that we still believe the plan is sound.

We believe we've got the evidence behind that is robust.

So we are, you know, we need to look at all of these responses

and we need to respond to them, but it hasn't changed the view

of the soundness around it.

But we will be entitled to, you know, review all of those

and if we feel that modifications are needed,

we would put those in place.

but we're at a very early stage.

The consultation has only recently closed

and we're going through those.

So we're starting off with the key ones

like the neighbouring authorities

and the infrastructure providers and stuff.

You know, we've got an order of that,

but there's still a lot more work to do.

But nothing so far makes us think that the plan is unsound.

And what about the timetable?

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:28:33

Because I think quite frequently examination processes take a lot

longer than seven months.

Yes.

And that's slightly out of our hands.

Richard Ambrose - 1:28:39

We will submit by the end of December as we're required to.

We haven't got the full timetable

of when the examination will start.

We think because Buckinghamshire, you know,

has a high number of housing that we will be fairly high

in the priority order, but lots of authorities,

and it isn't just us, lots and lots of authorities are trying

to meet that 31st of December deadline.

And so, can't give any assurance whether it will be seven months or a year.

But it, you know, it's, I think we're saying it's probably going to be end of 2027,

beginning of 2028 before it gets fully adopted.

Thank you, Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:29:22

If I may, very quickly, this is picking up a point that was raised in the questions really

about the gap between the green belt assessments that we use for the local plan

and the development management policies now in place

with the changes to the MPPF in August 26.

And so that's a, is that a risk to the outcome

of this whole process?

I think there is a risk there.

I think the further we go down the line, you know,

Richard Ambrose - 1:29:46

we've got more defence against that strategy

and what we're trying to do.

But there is a risk.

There's pertinent questions there.

And regarding government deadlines,

they're shifting sands as LGR has proved that one deadline means there could be

Cllr David Moore - 1:30:03

any time in the eyes of this current government. We now move to

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:30:10

Councillor Collywood. Thank you Chairman. Slightly surprised we only had a verbal

update because when we had the meeting back in July, because I actually substituted back in

July as well, I was under distinct impression we would get a summary of where we were

with eight and a half thousand responses.

Because we knew roughly then what we were going to have.

So I was expecting at least thematic, even generic.

So there was eight and a half thousand responses,

6 ,000 are generic, 2 ,000 are site specific.

And then, but I didn't get any sense of that yet.

So my concern is this committee is supposed to have

full scrutiny of the responses and what they mean

and what they don't mean,

and what changes that might require.

Then again, in terms of timing,

you said by the end of December,

are we gonna have additional meetings?

Are we gonna have, you know,

to get this thing done properly?

Because I think to be soundness,

you have to have full scrutiny, right?

So I'm slightly mystified as to why we haven't got

at least some understanding of 8 ,500, 6 ,000

or generic and 2 ,000 site -specific.

The other bit that then concerns you slightly

is the fact that your GreenBud assessment

has now had to be extended to the 20th of October as well.

So I don't know whether that's just Green Belt Assessment

or is it and or Grey Belt Assessment as well or not.

I assume it's just Green Belt Assessment

because there's two or three things

that weren't loaded up correctly for whatever reason.

Because my understanding was that we would have to have

this committee and Cabinet have scrutinised

all of that process before it then goes through full council

which is sometime in November.

So the clock's ticking, so please can you give me a clarification and some assurance

that this is going to, there's a clear order and a clear process to make sure this thing's

done fully and robustly in the right timeframe.

I think it's really just getting to the heart of the process we're following.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:32:05

There is another opportunity, but do you want to walk through that detail?

Yeah, thank you.

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 1:32:09

So you're right.

This committee will see the more detailed analysis

ahead of any final decision.

So I think we've got another meeting,

I think as the chair has already said,

this is a standing item on this committee.

I think the next meeting's in November

prior to any decision.

So that's when we plan to bring the more detailed responses

to this committee.

I don't think we've made any secret of the fact

that the process that we are in is a very tight process.

The deadline for the 31st of December is a difficult one for us to hit.

We are working at completely full tilt to make sure that we hit that deadline.

But we are very confident and we remain confident,

despite the fact that we've got 8 ,500 responses,

we remain very confident that we will continue to meet that deadline.

So, and just on one very small point,

you mentioned about the extension of the consultation.

And that's right, we have extended the consultation for

a number of very technical documents.

And there is one technical document that sits behind the Greenbelt assessment.

It is not the Greenbelt assessment per se that is being consulted on.

up to the 20th October there is a technical document that supports that

um that with that wasn't correctly uploaded and so that's the it's that document specifically

that the consultation has been extended for not the wider Greenbelt assessment

and absolutely we will be meeting again on this uh next meeting where we'll be tackling that

Cllr David Moore - 1:33:55

so yeah thank you Councillor Collins. Yeah thank you chairman uh as an officer

Cllr Michael Collins - 1:34:03

or officers, you need to assess a site's suitability in terms of the MPPF. Over the years, we have

used planners who do not necessarily live or know anything about our county. And some

of the assessments that are made are made without accurate and detailed knowledge of

the county in which we live. As a resident, sorry, as a Councillor and a resident of this

I have a responsibility to present the case of my residence before the committee.

My concern is that the disproportionate of loading is causing great concern across the county.

I understand and I accept the Councillor Bracken's comments about we are literally within hours away from this deadline.

But the fact remains, as a councillor, and I believe a lot of councillors,

we don't approve of the way this disproportionate loading has been,

is being loaded onto us.

And there is a great concern there.

We have a situation where we've got quite small counties,

small resident communities that are being overloaded disproportionately.

I do understand the reasons why you're doing it, but at the same time,

We have to accept that our responsibility is to the residents of this county.

And I do understand also that the directive is coming from government and they've given

us a very, very difficult task to meet this requirement and said whether it be 91 or 95 ,000

houses.

But it's causing great concern to us.

To put it bluntly, we as councils are at the pit face.

We face the communities head on at our parish council meetings and it's causing great

concern. My concern is we as a county

Councillor have been losing confidence

with our residents because of the way

that we've progressed with this

particular plan.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:36:12

I completely understand. I think you're bang on that we are,

you and other Councillors have been on

the receiving end of a lot of feedback

but I would also say that is our job.

we are there as councillors to engage with the community.

And I think in all these situations,

the best thing you can do for your residents,

and I would also speak directly to residents,

is use the process that exists to provide the feedback

you have on the specific sites.

That's why the consultation, I think, has been a success.

We've managed to give that opportunity

in accordance with the way it should work

for residents to provide that direct input.

You did make some comments a little bit about, you know,

we have planning officers who don't know their area.

I wouldn't like to associate myself with that in the general.

Of course, we're a large organisation

and things will never be 100 % perfect.

But I think if there are, I think those are those ones,

I think we have to be very specific.

There are specific things that are not being picked up,

then I will always encourage people to use the mechanisms

that are there from planning surgeries which are available to councillors and parishes and towns,

as well as just providing the feedback through the system through specific applications or indeed

on this consultation. Thank you, Councillor Brecken. We have two final questions. Councillor Waters

Cllr David Moore - 1:37:36

and then Councillor. Thank you, Chairman. I actually would like to support Councillor Collingwood

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:37:41

in terms of the area I'd like to see from the team

is from consultation that's taken place,

what are the areas where the council will be putting forward

on their own additional paper to the inspector,

areas of amendment and why that's sort of been accepted,

and the areas on the consultation which have come through

where actually that hasn't been accepted for any change

and the reasons why so we can get to see that earlier,

as early as possible so we can actually try and add

or amend that, because that's the crucial part.

The only bits the council are gonna do now

is what we finally put in as an additional paper

in terms of what we would like to see amended

from those consultations so it can't go into the 19.

That would be key.

That's additional, that's not my main question.

The infrastructure side of things,

we know that is one of the big issues,

and getting infrastructure on time.

We obviously have a lot of housing in the north,

and poor roads, and infrastructure, and rail,

and busses which don't connect.

And currently, that is one of the big gaps to get.

That's where the big money will have to be spent,

and some of the key areas that people are concerned about.

In the south, we are relying on quite a lot

of these speculative applications already being

taken into account in terms of windfall,

and they are not necessarily coming with infrastructure,

though they are in the local plan numbers.

At what point would the inspector

be looking at it and saying, actually, the gap here

on how we actually are going to deliver the infrastructure

is so big that actually we put various sites in question?

And that could be a soundness issue,

because it's got to be fed in.

If actually you're saying, yes, we've got all this,

we've got this plan, we kneeled all these roads,

we've got absolutely no idea how and when

that's gonna get built.

I'm not quite sure whether the inspector

looks at that in detail, or whether they get,

oh well, I'm sure you'll sort it out in the years to come.

I think that's the infrastructure part

we're all looking for, in terms of why we keep asking

where is this funding gonna come from,

because the infrastructure within sites is easy enough.

It's the infrastructure connecting employment areas,

on major towns, the Aylesbury rail link, all those things,

the things which are particularly missing.

There's probably quite a few points in there.

I think the first point about the process

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:40:18

and the role of the committee in scrutinising,

I think we've been very transparent

about what the process is,

and that process to review the detail submissions

that we have, and those come to conclusions

which you will be able to see.

I think, to be clear, the decisions will be

on the cabinet side of the table,

but of course, those decisions will be then

subject to your scrutiny.

You made a point about some of the speculative applications.

I think it's not to say that they are not taken

into account in that infrastructure.

I think I'm correct in that technically.

And the ones that have been approved,

the planning system in the usual way

Seeks to ensure that they affects of those are mitigated as well. I think would anybody else

Think I'll just add another Charlotte might want to come in as well on this but the inspector will look at

Richard Ambrose - 1:41:15

Viability deliverability of all the sites and obviously we've done that as part of putting the plan together

We've done a whole viability assessment sustainability appraise or you know and all of those things but definitely is something that the inspectors will look at

Charlotte Morris - Planning Policy Manager - 1:41:35

Just to add to that, deliverability and phasing is a large area of work, which my team are

currently working with landowners and developers for the proposed sites to make sure we've

got upstate information from the developer when they think these sites will be available

and how long they expect the sites to take to develop, which often depends how large

the site is and what infrastructure is required for that.

So we do have to have lots of detailed information about this,

particularly for sites which we expect to come forward

within the first five years.

So the tests for that are quite stringent.

We have to demonstrate that they're available now

and that they can be brought forward.

So as well as going through all these consultation responses,

we're doing a lot of work about deliverability and phasing.

Thank you.

And now for our final question, Councillor.

Cllr David Moore - 1:42:24

Thank you, Chairman, for allowing me

to have a second question.

Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:42:27

At the last committee hearing, we were told that,

and obviously in the report,

that no data centres were allocated in the local trial

or draught local plan because the need was judged nationally,

not locally.

Officers then accepted that that was

for speculative applications.

Now, as cabinet members would know, back in the field

when Jared's Cross has a data centre coming forward as part

of the national scheme, that in my opinion is a test case

for this county, but it will not be the last.

I think there's another one coming around in High Wycombe.

Larger data centres are treated, as colleagues know,

as nationally critical infrastructure.

The Secretary of State in Whitehall decides.

This council does not.

Unless we have, maybe through the local plan, a written role

that applies across Buckinghamshire

that protects our residents.

So Reg 19 asked the public to comment on a plan

that allocates no such sites

and offers only a criteria policy.

I mean, what I really want to know is,

will the cabinet member offices confirm

that Buckinghamshire has no say on the back -and -seal scheme

or any future schemes across the county?

And if so, what from the Regulation 19,

responses on power, water, transport,

and the green belt will be put forward

to the Secretary of State, and what written influence would

this council have on the next application that comes forward

to Whitehall, wherever it lands.

That's where I'm coming from, and I think that's quite,

you know, given what I've seen happening across the county

and across the country, this is of concern.

Thank you.

I think you make a number of points

that are absolutely correct.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:44:04

I think the policy that the criteria -based policy

was extremely important.

I know I was personally involved in some of the discussions

we had on that.

I think it is a really, really important policy.

So I'm not aware of the comments that we've had

on that aspect through the consultation yet,

but I think that's another area we'll absolutely want

to get completely correct.

In terms of the NSIP process, I believe we do have

the ability to feed into an NSIP decision.

and we are consulted, but obviously as you say,

the decision does not lie with us.

But specifically, what I wanted to know is,

with the Reg 19 consultation that's

gone out across the public, say for example,

Beckonsburg and Jarrus Cross, what

have we had from the 8 ,000 responses and residents given

to us that might be applied, that might go towards criteria

policy or shaping the criteria policy for data sensors?

Thank you.

I don't think we've looked at the,

we've looked at the sort of the detail on that specific policy but it is an

area which I think is extremely important. On behalf of the residents, I'll be grateful.

That's time Councillor Loon, but thank you very much. Thank you officers, thank you

Cllr David Moore - 1:45:17

members. There's a lot of topics we covered there, you know, all the way from the

fact of this huge housing target the government has dumped on us. By the way, it

is a mandatory target and we as a local plan, as a council, we have to make that

local plan all the right one for us. We have to make sure that as you know as

we've discussed before it is sound and that we get it in on time.

And there's some very important points raised.

Infrastructure funding remains a huge problem, the lack of funding for central government.

We're good to get some clarity on the duty to cooperate.

I know that's been revoked, but what is expected now, especially with our neighbours?

And there's a lot of other points raised there.

And like I say, it's a standing item.

and this is going to be a more substantive item at the next meeting.

But thank you for your questions.

7 Planning Team Update

We now move to item 7, which is the planning team update, which will review the work and

resources of the planning team.

So we'll have Councillor McElwain again.

I appreciate you have to go soon for a medical appointment.

Thank you very much for your patience.

And for Derek Eggleton is going to join us, who is head of planning, policy and compliance.

and obviously Richard Ambrose as well.

Thank you Steve for coming.

And yeah, you may start when ready.

Cllr Michael Bracken - 1:46:37

Well, on this topic, and I'd like to apologise to you, unfortunately, as the Chairman said,

I have to depart shortly, but you were in very good hands with my colleague Darren,

who's been across this, and I think if I could just add some sort of political comment

on the report that you've seen and the data you've seen, this comes out directly from

on the concerns that you have seen us express

and you yourselves have expressed

on getting things moving through the system

in the most efficient way.

And though the report identifies,

we do have challenges,

sometimes the rate has changed in the past,

that throws up a backlog

just because of a big bulge of applications.

But the underlying point in the instructions

from me and the cabinet member

are that we want to see this system work

as efficiently as possible.

And the goal we aspire to is that if a well -made application meeting all the things that it

should do with all the supporting evidence that it's required to comes into our system,

that it can go through the planning system within the statutory period.

And I think we absolutely acknowledge that has not always been the case.

But as a work in progress, I think we've got some very good positive news to report.

Now the report specifically has some data around the

verification process that is the process when people

make applications just to sort of ensure that it has

all the right things in it before it goes into

detailed consideration.

That process had gone awry, but as you can see in the chart

on page 41, we have now got that back to the position

where it should be, which is that applications that come in

are validated in real time,

what very efficiently issues are picked up by the team

and at least that part of the planning process

I think is now best say working smoothly.

The work though doesn't end there,

the important thing and the sort of the asks of the team

is we now need to make sure that the whole process

including that we move on to the next stage,

the actual process to make sure.

And as part of that, we particularly want to get into

to understanding what are the bottlenecks

that sometimes are causing those timelines to drift.

And that's the sort of the next phase of the work

that we want to get to,

so that we have a planning application system

that I think is delivering what we as counsellors

would want to see for our residents.

Darren, do you want to?

The only thing I would add to what Michael has said there

in terms of the validation work

is a bit of a snapshot of where we are today.

Obviously, the report was written a while ago to meet the deadlines for this meeting.

Darran Eggleton - 1:49:23

Those validation stats are, as I just checked a second ago, now at 226 and at seven days.

So we've trimmed that even further to where we were even at the time of writing.

We receive around 240 applications a week.

We're chewing through as many as we're receiving and a little bit more.

And we think that's probably a kind of sustained position of where we'll be going forward.

and that we're then, so we're currently on track

to hit our five day targets by the end of the year.

The other thing I was going to add into that,

that Michael said, as he's already said,

is that 70 % of applications are valid on receipt,

which means we're still chasing 30 % of those,

we've still got officers going back,

and we're putting out the reasons for those.

They are very varied at the moment,

it's plans not being right,

its details not being submitted, its BNG calculations, etcetera.

But we are trying to get working with the developers and the applicants in order to

try and smooth that process.

But again, as Michael said, there's no point in us validating applications and having a

whole bunch of them valid if we're not going to determine them.

And we've got a number of strains of work across the planning service, whether that

be through PPAs or your core areas or your majors.

and we are looking at all of those in order to try and make the service as a whole work very smoothly.

Over to you, Chairman. I haven't taken any questions.

Thank you, Darren. Thank you, Councillor Bracken.

Cllr David Moore - 1:50:54

Firstly, congratulations on reducing the validation backlog,

because I know this has been an issue that members have raised, residents have raised.

That's really welcome to see.

Good to hear what further work will be done to tackle that further.

Members, let's start with Councillor Cornell.

Thank you, Chair.

I saw a random question.

On October 31, everything changes really in planning,

doesn't it?

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:51:15

So what are we going to do then after October 31?

On October 31, are you referring to the call -in procedure

for committees?

Darran Eggleton - 1:51:26

From a planning delivery point of view,

we still make our decisions in accordance with the legislation.

There is no transitional arrangement,

so it is a cut -off date.

We are working through at the moment with our committee

chairman which applications are going to go to the committees between now and the

31st of October. We are prioritising the schedule one applications in order to

get through as many as we possibly can. I've been working closely

with the chairman. I've seen this morning with the list of the ones for

Davis area needs and South for example has gone from from 21 down to six with

applications have been are either being refused and therefore taken away from

the need for them to go to committee.

But we're also seeing some applicants that are withdrawing their applications,

presumably to resubmit them after the 31st of October,

in order to save committee scrutiny.

Now, that's a loophole in the system and

sort of failing of there being no transitional arrangements.

But from a decision making point of view, we are carrying on as per legislation.

Thank you very much. Councillor Waters.

Cllr David Moore - 1:52:38

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:52:41

Yeah, I'm pleased that we've got this report, but I think one of the things we want to log here as councillors, particularly myself, I've been involved in planning for a long time.

We have gone through a period where the planning team has not been able to keep up with the workload and has not been fit for purpose.

and I had concerns originally when there was the freeze

and removal of contractors and was told

when the numbers went up, we would be able to flex back up.

That was the cabinet member who told me that,

not the deputy cabinet member.

What we've got here is situations,

and this service is a paid for service by the applicant.

It is not a service like many others where it just purely comes from council tax.

And when we don't get it right, and a lot of the officers have been told not to respond

to applicants because that would be wasting their time while they were doing the validation,

I have got applications which have gone to appeal, which then costs this council money

because no one responded to them.

This is digging us out of a hole,

and hopefully this is gonna put us back on track.

Some of the new team, quite a lot of the new team

are talking about are graduates, some of them are high level.

What we are going to have to do is build a team

with the expertise in it that is gonna be able to cope

with a new local plan with significantly higher numbers

if we don't actually deliver on those higher numbers,

the local plan will go back to us

not having the five year housing supply very, very quickly.

We've got a transition period of a couple of years

when we're gonna sort that out.

We do need to get this team fully up to running

and fully planning for that future need,

not just where we are now.

And I think a lot of the team leaders

have been dragged into doing the actual work

and a lot of sign -offs haven't been happening.

As someone who's been a vice chairman for a while,

I'm still getting people coming to me,

asking what's happening with the application,

and I'm going through to team leaders

who keep saying they're gonna deal with something

that's already been written.

So it's not all nice and cosy as it looks in the report.

We've still got a long way to go to get this right,

and I'd like to feel that we really understand

where the problems were,

and this is not gonna happen again,

because it's a paid for service,

and if we get it wrong, as with some applications,

we're giving back the fees now,

as we've had to with Chepian -Wickham Council,

and various other places.

So, and then others are going to appeal.

So it's starting to cost us money,

because it's not working properly.

So it needs to get fully back on track.

Yeah, thank you, I absolutely agree,

Darran Eggleton - 1:55:47

in terms of where we've been, especially with

us having to return any fees under the planning guarantee.

That's not acceptable as far as us officers are concerned.

We are in the process of reviewing that resource.

As you can see from the report,

our resource is fairly high at the moment.

We've come out of a bit of a hole,

of quite a few vacancies out the back of the service review.

We filled those.

In addition to that, we brought in five extra contractors

to help churn through some of the volume

using some of that extra income that we had.

One point just to make in terms of the work

and what they're doing, once the local plan moves up

towards examination and onto being adopted,

we anticipate and will likely see a drop

in the number of speculative applications

and the applications coming in,

which will be more of a plan for applications.

So the actual load is probably going to stay around the same.

We don't anticipate them both saying hi.

So that's what we're planning for,

and we are looking at that resource at the moment

to make sure we have that in place to do that.

And one of the things which I'm doing in the team

is to release some of the pressure from the team leaders

by making sure that those applications are being dealt with

by that extra resource that's been brought in,

and that will be brought in on the assumption

that our resource assessment requires it.

Thank you.

The bit I didn't mention was I do feel the team,

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:57:21

as individuals, have been put under significant stress

and pressure, and I know that has helped either

because of this resourcing issue.

So I just want that from personal discussions with people,

that's what I feel, and I don't think that's right

to the council if we're not on top of things,

people do suffer and then we've had some illness

on the back of it.

Thank you, Councillor Waters.

We now go to Councillor Stutchbury

Cllr David Moore - 1:57:49

and then Councillor Nella and then Councillor Roberts.

Firstly, thank you for the report.

I have obviously have concerns about how you can manage

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:57:58

this service or my valued colleague resources.

Just in, you can only comment on the area

that you really know because Buckingham's very large,

speculative applications.

There's about 3000 houses in speculative applications

already sitting as applications or pre applications,

which are trying to get their way through

before the Buckinghamshire plan

in just a small area around my ward.

There's also your point was a good point made about their timing of putting their applications

forward, one which was going to put 500 or 600 houses in, stated they would do it as

you suggested after the 30th of October, which meant that they were going to try to put their

works to the local advisor to deal with past that level of scrutiny.

There is going to be more of these applications coming in, ones which didn't make their way

into the nest.

And this was an application which I listened to the discussion the other day, never made

its way into the nest, didn't get through the site allocations, wasn't at the site that

the council felt to bring forward.

The real problem I have with those is because how are we going to manage them as a whole

because they're going to all be under different terms and conditions than the hopeful plan

through plan. So by the time you get to the plan, we may already have half the numbers

around Buckingham which you have already put in the plan, all gone through planning because

we are weak because of the position we are in with the land supply. And I worry about

the team's ability to manage those extra applications, which was always going to happen, and that's

just North Buckinghamshire, and there must be others.

And I expect in South Buckinghamshire,

there'll be lots of speculative applications

to avoid the plan because of the policies

around the greenbelt.

So I worry whether you've got the resources

and whether they're, we are resourcing you enough

within the team to deal with this sudden urge

of development.

I'm seeing it locally where I live.

I'm just imagining it must be everywhere else as well.

If it's not, it proves that the seal policy is working because it's making Buckingham

North Buckingham the cheapest place to develop, but thank you

So just to pick up on the first point

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:00:40

Around on the number of units so if there are five application for five or six hundred

dwellings that won't have any impact in terms of that going to committee for a committee scrutiny or not because that won't that will

remain an application which will hit the threshold

in order to do so.

It's only less than 10 which are in the schedule

one applications which will have to be determined

by officers going forward.

So if you've got an application for five, 600,

that will still have committee scrutiny

through the strategic if necessary.

The other point is to say that we are in a window

of opportunity for developers as you know

with no five year housing land supply,

out of state local plans,

and spectrum applications coming in

and our plan having a limited weight.

So that will gain weight as it goes

through the examination process.

So it's a full weight once adopted.

So the officers that are determining those applications

in line with the amount of weights

being attributed to them.

And I suppose the only thing I can say

from the resource point of view

we are reviewing it, we are looking at the number of applications we have at the moment,

the anticipated flow depending on the size of the sites which are submitted and under

to be allocated in the plan in order to be able to deal with them in the manner in which

we think they're going to come in depending on their sizes.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:02:13

You are failing your resource enough to deal with what roughly is 3 ,000 plus possibly another

800 elsewhere, but these are just entering your workload while you're doing the NES,

while you're doing all these other plan works. My worry is I'm taking assurance that the large

applications will go to committee, one of them 1750 houses outside the development plan area.

I'm sure that we're going to see this pattern. Are you resourced enough because

We need to make sure that you are resourced enough

to make sure that you can actually validate

these things properly so that things don't go adrift.

Because this is an unwarranted period of time of workload.

Are we, you know, we're not resourced enough to do it.

Things won't happen or things will go wrong.

Not through mistakes but through pressure.

And that's the assessment we're doing at the moment

to understand whether or not the resource we have

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:03:16

and is sufficient or whether or not we need to bid for more

and that's what we're doing at the moment.

But I absolutely taken board your comments about or concerns

about resource to deal with the workloads.

Thank you, Councillor Starchbury.

Councillor Nella.

Thank you.

This is a follow on from Councillor Connell's question.

Cllr Frances Kneller - 2:03:39

Obviously 31st of October means

that call -ins effectively disappear.

So what is going to be the impact for town and parish

councils who currently comment on planning applications

through their own planning committees in relation

to applications coming in that area, and particularly schedule,

I mean, obviously schedule one and schedule two

come through the process.

Does that effectively mean that the town and parish councils

drop out of the system?

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:04:17

So the legislation around the national scheme of delegation

requires a local authority to scrape out

everything in their constitution around calling.

And that's the work that's been done,

that's the item that went through full council last week.

The next stage of that will be the,

constitution review group assessing and setting out

sort of what that's going to look like going forward.

So at the moment, the call -in procedure is,

as per the central government,

have set out in their national scheme.

So the decision around whether or not

something goes to committee is the gateway test.

And there will be a request for the officer and the chairman to undertake the Gateway Test.

And Town and Parish Councils can ask for that test to be taken for any application.

Whether or not it formally does or not is a matter for the constitution, a matter for the council to decide.

But at the moment, anybody can ask for that test to be undertaken.

Thank you.

I was particularly interested where we have planning committees at town or parish level

who currently do feed into the process.

It is more advisory than anything.

But does that mean with particularly schedule one, the necessity for or the requirement

Cllr Frances Kneller - 2:05:55

for town and parish councils to be engaged at that level disappear?

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:06:03

I don't think so at all because I think we as officers are still very keen to understand

and what those local issues are,

and what those local issues are being brought forward

by those town and parish councils.

So I'd absolutely encourage everybody to continue to engage

in that planning application process

and to deliver those comments through to the officers

in a normal way.

Thank you.

Suppose in many ways council,

the we as councils become statutory consultees

Cllr David Moore - 2:06:25

like parish and town councils on schedule one.

Councillor, we had Councillor and then Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:06:36

Thank you, Chairman. I understand that there's about 145 live planning appeals and about

40 live enforcement appeals. So I also understand the Council won about 84 % of the enforcement

appeals. That's a good win rate, but how much money is being spent on appeals and how many

of the 145 appeals are non -determination or delay cases? Thank you.

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:07:02

I don't have any of that information in front of me, Councillor Givens, so I think I'll need to take that away, Chair, if that's okay.

Cllr David Moore - 2:07:06

Of course, yeah, if we could just, if we could request a written response, that would be much appreciated.

Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:07:14

Yes, I made two points. One is a topic that I've raised several times in this committee previously, is about the extensions of dime.

So it's great that we've got some stats on it now.

I see that the current figure is around 31 percent relying

on extensions of time.

So my question really was what would you be viewing

as an acceptable level of extensions of time?

I mean, there are invariably going to be some,

so the figure won't be zero.

But if it's 31 percent now and it's zero is not feasible,

then what would be the target?

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:07:55

I would anticipate that target being around 20%, so no more than 20 % of all applications

go through with an extension of time.

As you say, there's always going to be issues for the officers to be looking to deal with,

and if there is a way in which we can approve an application by dealing with those issues

with the extension, that's a bit of use of everyone's time rather than a refusal and

the appeal.

However, where we are giving extensions a time, I'm expecting a very low level of those

to then run over the extension.

But I think there's been a criticism, and understandably a criticism in the past, whereby

applicants are giving an extension a time until the end of the month.

The end of the month comes and goes and no decision.

So that's an area of focus that I'm really working on at the moment to get that message

out to officers to give EOTs where, but only for a reasonable amount of time and one that's

also realistic so that people know when they're going to get their decision.

Okay, thank you very much.

That's quite reassuring, so thank you for that.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:08:56

The second question I had was, I had a case recently that was a pending application, been

pending for quite a long time, and the feedback I got was that it was a case of one that was

have been waiting for the Chiltern Beachwood sack mitigation.

But what I'm not familiar with, and the committee I don't think is familiar with, is how many

pending applications are in that backlog of Chiltern Beachwood sack mitigation.

And if those can get dealt with, that would be housing that would be adding to the commitment.

So I don't think I know what that figure is and I don't think we've seen that figure presented at all

And again, I don't have that in the reports or in front of me

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:09:46

I am aware. It was around 3 ,000 houses and we have a list which we're working through

We now have a strategic saying coming online

And yeah, the officers are working through those with the legal team to get the under the relevant undertaken written

So again, Chairman, perhaps I can,

yeah, send some data out on that afterwards.

Yes, please, again.

Yeah, get it.

It would be helpful if we could understand

what those figures were, particularly in relation

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:10:15

to the local plan assessment coming up.

Absolutely, and we'll get that edited.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 2:10:19

And finally, Councillor Collingwood.

Thank you, Chairman.

Following that theme from Councillor Roberts.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:10:25

5 .4 does say it goes from 55 %

extension of time down to 31%.

I don't think we're gonna get that luxury going forward because certainly the ones I'm seeing come through on strategic sites

Are just saying it's here eight weeks or 13 weeks if you don't do it in the out of 13 weeks

It's going to be a straight. We're going to non -sublation. So I think that number

Is is is very high and my concern is what resource we got particularly now and October

Because I think it would still follow through to end of the year anyway

Because I know it says later in the report you said yes got additional resource being provided with another 90 ,000 pounds for additional resource

But I'm concerned because I'm seeing a downtime on uniform in the report. I

Don't think we're gonna have that choice. So what additional resource do we is the committee need to

Request that either gives you to make sure because we know this

Your local plan going on the background anyway, and you've got then this other scenario where the D happens

I'm going to give you that extension time,

whether you like it or not.

And is there a second group where the extension time

is due to consultees who have not responded,

but almost you're going to have to say, well, I'm sorry.

We're just going to determine without our environment agency

or Natural England or wherever it might be,

because they just haven't responded in relevant time.

So it's sort of giving me a bit of nuance

of how we're going to manage that between now

and the end of the year.

Because I think that 5 .4 category of 31%,

I think we're not going to get much luxury going forward,

to be honest.

I think we're just going to have to just get on and just deal

with them.

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:12:03

And we have seen some of that, but predominantly in core area.

What I would say is that that 31 %

has been on trend of what we've seen over the last three months

as opposed to being just a snapshot of at the time which

it took the stats.

So, it is accurate in terms of the direction of travel.

And our experience is that applicants and agents are happy

for that on the basis that, as I was saying a second ago,

a basis of knowing that we're going to deliver

on that timescale so they get a decision.

And then at that stage, they can say to their clients,

well, we're going to have a decision by the end

of next month.

I know it's over time.

but at least we'll know what it is.

And at that stage also,

that it's likely to be an approval

because we're looking at an EOT

as opposed to just a refusal now

where we've got unreasonable issues.

So that's how we came to that figure

and also what that kind of looks like.

And again, in terms of resource,

that is all part of the review,

speaking to the head of majors

around the resource that they need in order to be able to pick up the applications as they come through.

So, I suppose a lot of the answers at the moment are probably in that review of where that resource is and what we anticipate we're going to need.

Will you come back to us with that requirement? Because to me, I think, as Councillor Walter said, I think the team is doing a fantastic job under extreme circumstances,

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:13:39

if that makes sense, and extreme pressure.

And certainly from my perspective, being one of the gem,

I want my team to have the time and space

to go through all the applications

exactly as they should do,

but at the moment they're literally

running from one to the next, if that makes sense.

So that's where it's coming from as much as, yeah.

If we need to give an additional push to the cabinet

saying look, because of this circumstance,

this sort of circumstance you've got on the next,

we need to give them the additional resources

to support you as a team,

then I'd be the one saying yeah, let's do that.

So that's where I'm coming from.

Darran Eggleton - Head of Service for Planning Policy and Compliance - 2:14:12

So Chairman, in terms of when, as there are requirements that need to go through the budget process

in order to any outcome to the assessments to decide whether or not they are going to be real or not,

and whether they're going to be through a realised, obviously it's down to your discretion as to when that item will come back

in terms of that review.

Cllr David Moore - 2:14:35

Thank you Councillor Conlon, thank you Darren, I think that's all the questions.

First I'd like to echo, you know, we fully recognise those pressures on the planning

service.

It's great to see, looking at the KPIs, that that backlog is going down.

As Councillor Collinwood and Councillor Waters and other councillors said, we want to ensure

that the planning service has all the support it needs, and if that means we communicate

that to Cabinet, then we're happy to get that minuted that we write to Cabinet about that.

Appreciate the Cabinet member and Deputy Cabinet member isn't here right now, but obviously

I'm sure we can put that into the minutes.

Really good to see the progress made.

Absolutely echo the cross -party concern

about the scheme of delegation.

I think it's really concerning

that central government has essentially taken away calling

powers for, you know, for a vast number of applications.

And as a result, as Darren mentioned, our constitution has

to be changed because of that statute.

So I hear that.

But thank you very much for your time.

will continue to monitor progress and you know as the 31st of October deadline looms

as Darren says there have been a number of applicants that have withdrawn

nonetheless we are honouring the call -ins that you know we have made to our residents and doing

all we can in the powers we have but thank you Darren thank you officers for your time.

Before we move to the next item I know Mark and Belinda have been waiting so patiently

I'm just going to have a three minute comfort break.

So let's say 25 pass and we'll return here

for the final item of business.

Thank you very much.

5 Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2027-2032

Cllr David Moore - 2:16:08

Thank you members, thank you officers,

members of the public watching.

We now move to item eight, which was item five.

And it's a pleasure to introduce Councillor Mark Gwynn,

cabinet member for housing, Belinda Deimert -Smith,

head of housing assets and development,

and also Deborah Wickham, interim service director

for housing may be attending, and Steve as well is here.

And this is obviously on the homelessness

and rough sleeping strategy update.

There was a member's briefing on the strategy

on the 2nd of September, I understand,

and the committee received this slide pack

where we're gonna have a presentation

and the consultation for the draught homelessness

and Rough Seeding Strategy Plan is open from the 14th of September all the way to the 25th of October.

So we have an opportunity to provide a formal response and after our questions today and after our presentation,

I'll ask for some volunteers, four or five members from across the parties to form a working group

to essentially deliver a formal response to that consultation. Thank you very much. Over to you.

Thank you Chairman and good afternoon Members.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:17:26

As you said, the public consultation is now open and runs until the 25th of October.

This is an important opportunity for residents, partners and people with lived experience to help shape the final strategy.

And today I'm going to briefly set out why a new strategy is needed, what it proposes and the evidence behind it.

I also explain how people can respond to the consultation and how members can help us reach

out across their boards.

The aim is to give the committee a clear overview and to encourage broad participation so that

the final strategy reflects local experience, builds on the strong work already underway,

and his focus on the outcomes that matter most to residents.

The case for change is straightforward.

Our current homelessness and rush sleepers strategy expires in March 27, so we need a

successor strategy in place for the next five -year period.

But this is not a starting again.

there's already a great deal of strong work happening across Buckinghamshire and the new

strategy is designed to recognise that and bring it together and build on what is working well.

It also gives us the opportunity to ensure our local approach reflects the latest national

guidance and expectations. The key message is that it's an evolution of our approach,

not a reset, and it retains the strengths of current practise whilst making sure we're ready

for the years ahead.

It's important to set out what the context of our homelessness is.

And since 2023, more than 14 ,000 homelessness assessments have been completed.

That's around 360 every month.

So demand for temporary accommodation also continues to rise.

This places pressure on households and services.

One of the reasons behind this are the high housing costs.

And average private rents are around 1 ,467 per month, while average house prices are

approximately 188 ,000 above the national average.

Homelessness is also connected to wider pressures, and this includes things such as domestic

abuse, mental health needs, and affordability.

These challenges reinforce the need for early intervention and coordinated work across not

just housing, but health and support services as well.

In putting together the workstreams, first officers reviewed the statutory and national

policy context, the previous strategy, and the published evidence base.

The evidence base brings together the wider Buckinghamshire picture.

It includes population and deprivation, housing supply and affordability, health and wellbeing,

and the needs of vulnerable groups.

Second, we analysed significant local and national data to understand the scale and

direction of change.

This included homelessness approaches and outcomes, temporary accommodation, rough sleeping,

and housing market and affordability pressures.

The detailed analysis is published in the accompanying evidence document.

Third, we tested the emerging findings through online surveys, stakeholder workshops, and

discussions with internal and external partners, housing providers, members, the Homelessness

Forum, and people with a lived experience of homelessness.

Bringing those three strands together allowed us to triangulate the evidence, challenge

our assumptions and ensure that the priorities and action plan reflect both the data and

experience of people in Buckinghamshire.

Who helps to shape the draught strategy? We also worked as one system with our statutory

health, housing, voluntary and community partners. And this insight helped us understand where

services are needed to connect more effectively around our residents. As it says, their charities,

the Buckinghamshire Homelessness Forum and people who lived the experience brought an essential

practical perspective, testing our assumptions and helping to ensure that the strategy reflects

how homelessness is experienced locally.

The key messages that no single organisation can prevent or resolve homelessness alone. Delivery

will depend on continuing to work collaboratively in partnership across organisational boundaries.

I'd also like to thank everyone who has contributed so far. Their engagement has strengthened the

draught and the partnership approach will remain central as we finalise and deliver the strategy.

So what have we learned?

There's a very high level summary of the key points emerging from the evidence

gathering and discovery stage. They are not complete evidence -based. The supporting data

analysis is sat in detail in the accompanying evidence document.

First, rise in demand. The number of households approaching the Council for help continues

to grow, increasing the importance of intervening early and preventing homelessness wherever

possible. Second, people have greater complexity. Many residents are presenting with several

connected needs across housing, health, safeguarding and finances. So an effective response must

be coordinated across services and partners. Third, increase pressure on temporary accommodation.

Families are spending longer unfortunately in temporary accommodation because affordable

move -on options are limited. This reinforces the need to reduce the time people spend in

temporary settings and improve routes into housing. Fourth, the need for better long

long -term support. A home is essential, but housing alone is not always enough. Some residents

also need help with employment, wellbeing, tenancy sustainment, and community integration

if the outcome is to last.

Finally, the importance of lived experience. People who have experienced homelessness and

rough sleeping have contributed to this strategy, helping us understand how services work in

practise, and test whether the proposed priorities respond to real needs.

Taken together, these findings provide the bridge from the evidence and discovery work

to the vision and the three priorities set up in the following slides.

I'll jump over this one, but the strategy also outlines how emerging local and national

policy has helped to set the context for our policy.

The proposed vision statement is a place where homelessness and rough sleeping are prevented,

crisis is quickly resolved and individuals and families can thrive in a safe and secure homes.

This vision deliberately puts prevention first. Where a crisis does occur, we want to resolve

quickly with the right support to achieve a safe and sustainable housing outcome. As I said before,

no single service or organisation can deliver this alone. Partnership working, early indication of

risk and coordinated support will be central to turning the vision into practise.

Next slide please.

The three key priorities, the first is early and targeted prevention.

This is about identifying households who may be at risk of homelessness as early as possible

and providing the right support before a crisis occurs.

The second priority is the management temporary

and supported accommodation pathways.

Where homelessness cannot be prevented,

our aim is to provide people with accommodation

that is safe and suitable,

while assisting them to move on as quickly as possible

into settled housing.

The third priority is long -term housing sustainment.

This focuses on helping individuals and families

not only access permanent accommodation, but also to maintain it.

So priority one, as it says there, strengthen housing device and prevention services.

Improve our triage and assessment are our first contact.

Increase early intervention activity, work proactively with our landlords and housing providers,

and improve referral pathways across council services.

Priority two.

Next slide, thank you.

Whilst prevention remains our overall aim,

some households will still experience homelessness

and require suitable temporary accommodation.

Our ambition is to therefore ensure anyone

who becomes homeless has access to accommodation that is safe

suitable while supporting them to move on into settled housing as quickly as possible.

The data on the slide highlights why this priority is so important. We currently have over 400

households living in temporary accommodation with families spending an average of 200 days there.

Coupled with rising demand, limited affordable housing and increasing private sector rents,

this creates significant pressure on both residents and services.

By working closely with accommodation providers,

registered providers, support agencies,

we can improve access to suitable accommodation

and create more effective move -on pathways.

The Homelessness Service carries out a robust review

of these key statistics every Monday.

This regular operational review enables the team

to monitor, demand closely, and make timely decisions

and interventions to manage pressure,

resolve issues and to move on people where possible.

Next priority, please.

Sorry, it's the same priority, but a bit more, sorry.

So our key commitments under priority two

were improve move on pathways,

reduce time spent on temporary accommodation,

improve accommodation quality and suitability,

increase access to affordable housing options,

and strengthen partnership working with registered providers.

Our success measures are shorter stays in temporary accommodation, reduced B &B usage,

increased move -on rates, and better outcomes for vulnerable residents, and a reduction

in children spending over 12 months in temporary accommodation.

Priority 3.

As this diagram shows, homelessness is often driven by a range of

interconnected issues. These could include mental health needs, domestic

abuse, financial hardship, unemployment and socialisation. Simply

providing accommodation does not remove these challenges. This is why long -term

support and partnership working are so important. Housing and health services

support providers, employment services,

community organisations, all have a role to play

in helping residents maintain their tenancies

and build suitable futures.

So under this, our things are to improve

post -accommodation support, reduce repeat

homelessness, work with partners to support long -term sustainability and to strengthen

opportunities for residents to build community connexions.

Our success measures will be to increase tenancy sustainment rates, reduce repeat homelessness,

improve wellbeing outcomes, better employment outcomes and greater independence and housing

stability.

As it shows there, there is a statutory public consultation, as I said, that's already

underway and there are some lived experience and workshops that are taking place today

in Alsbury and Wickham and I think about 20 people I think have signed up to come to those.

And there's another one in Chesham on the 15th.

So the role of members, as it said there, you will have a really vital role to play

in making sure that people engage with the strategy to comment there and to make sure

that we're going down the right path with it and to signpost residents who are experiencing

housing difficulties to get that available support that they need.

Just a quick outline of what the consultation asks.

There are, as it shows, there are four main questions there which I'll leave up on the

screen for you to look at very quickly.

And finally, the timeline and next steps which we'll put up on the board deck.

Obviously happy to take any questions that you have.

Thank you, Councillor Wynne, for that presentation.

Cllr David Moore - 2:31:24

Such an important topic to support the most vulnerable in society and I know as members

There are some many moving storeys that we receive in our inboxes that we help with temporary

accommodation and things like that.

And before I move to questions, I just have one quick question.

Is there going to be a drop -in covering South Bucks?

Because I noticed one in Wickham, one in Aylesbury, one in Chesham.

Is there going to be one covering the South Bucks area?

We don't have one planned for the South Bucks area, but we can arrange one if there feels

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:31:47

like there is a demand for it.

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 2:31:48

I think as a member representing South Bucks way I think because we don't have any towns

Cllr David Moore - 2:31:56

there's an assumption that there isn't homelessness but it exists just because we're known as

affluent leafy South Bucks.

I think it would be productive.

Happy to pick that up.

In fact we actually had only planned for Aylesbury and High Wycombe and it was a result of the

member briefing that we held earlier this month that we created the Chesham one so we're

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 2:32:13

more than happy to pick up additional ones so we'll pick that up David thank you.

Thank you, thank you very much.

Council Waters.

And Councilman.

Thank you.

Cllr David Moore - 2:32:22

Thank you for the document and what it's looking at.

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:32:26

I think it's got a lot of good intentions.

There are elements in it which have always

given me concern in terms of some of the figures.

Two years ago, I was raised at full council.

The target of 500 affordable houses a year

was not a target, I said at the time,

because it was fixed year on year on year.

And I've never in my life been in any business anywhere

where you don't stretch your target every year.

That has been flat in a time when there has been

huge amounts of need and that keeps growing

and that's obviously in the report.

To have that as a flat target,

though we've got six houses more on average a year,

that isn't really what we should be looking at

and I think each year it should have been revisited

in terms of saying okay, how do we make this

a stepping stone to get nearer to some of the needs

that we have.

The other outcomes, I think particularly

is we have multiple needs that are gonna come in

within this, and I know in the past we have had units

which we ourselves, the council, run,

but there was a limit because we're not registered

as a housing provider how many we could actually

have of our own, but that has been increased

as far as I know, and is there any intention of doing that

because hopefully that would bring down some of the costs,

but also have areas where we would have,

particularly for us sleepers and people coming in for that,

more ability to have a rounded support,

because once people get homes,

a lot of the other stability comes on the back of jobs

and everything else that go with it.

So there are a couple of things.

The meat, I know this is the outline of the intention,

but the meat of how we actually dig that into the outcomes.

Thank you for that.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:34:17

And the last question first, if I may, that is very much the intention to bring things

like support, so job and training support is very much part of this.

And I was very keen personally that that should be in there because you need to help people

to get out of the situation they're in.

They're in this recurring thing of homelessness or rough sleeping, and we need to change that

somehow keep doing the same thing,

tracing into temporary accommodation.

I don't think it's the right thing.

And as a council, we need to work together as one council

to work together to try and solve those issues.

And that's very much what the strategy sets out.

So yeah, that's in there.

That's strongly within that strategy.

And I want to take that forward.

And also, there's going to be a sort of,

I hope I've got the right title this time,

because I often get it wrong,

a working group of cabinet to actually look at this.

So people from adult social care, from planning,

and from children's services to actually work

and then to try and then look at those employment opportunities

and make sure that this one council approach

is actually working across council.

So officers will be involved in that as well.

On the numbers, of course there is a local plan

that's coming forward.

So those numbers will then thus increase as we go forward.

So that number's got to be a lot higher as we go forward,

as you probably have realised.

So that was the target then with the local plan.

It's a lot higher than that.

I'm sure you can appreciate.

And it's like 25 % in the north of all the houses planned,

and 40 % of all the houses planned

will have to be affordable.

And 60 % of those will have to be at the most affordable rate

at social rented, which I think was a target

that we had put in there, which is quite sort of innovative

that we've actually put that in there.

I don't know if you want to add anything there

if it's up and under.

Yeah, actually just to go to your last question

around the different type of provision

and you'll have seen on the sort of front slide

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 2:36:20

of the presentation, there was a visual of some homes

in Aylesbury at Bunning Mews that the council delivered

in partnership with Fairhive that is just to focus

on rough sleeper, entrenched rough sleepers

and that's giving them that step up sort of accommodation

to help give them the real targeted support

and intervention to help make them back on their feet,

get their independence skills,

getting the tenancy sustainment skills,

training and employment as Mark said.

So that type of approach is definitely things

that we're still looking at expanding and doing more

and having conversations with RPs and others

to bring forward other sort of solutions

that are more intermediary type housing solutions

for them as well.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:37:13

And just to add to that as well, you've probably seen Eastern Street in High Wycombe has come forward and announced already a facility, Ardenham Lane House, that's a sort of housing first, I think, that gives them that wraparound support. So that is already happening, but we would like to increase that as we go forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Waters. Councillor Roberts.

Cllr David Moore - 2:37:26

Yes, thank you very much, Chairman.

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:37:30

I'd like to pick up on what you alluded to there, the local plan, because I look at the

strategy and there's very little in the strategy that you can object to in isolation.

It says some really great things.

But the elephant in the room is the local plan is not going to deliver the housing that

this needs.

It sets out in the local plan.

and it's gonna deliver less than half

the affordable housing need.

And I'm not, I don't recall there being specifically

provision of temporary accommodation within the local plan,

but maybe there is.

So the elephant in the room is that

there just simply isn't enough.

And that doesn't seem to be addressed in the plan,

the housing strategy.

So I'm just wondering how you're going to address that aspect that there just isn't enough.

You referred to, for instance, the 60 % social rented, 40 % in the south, but there's very little housing being allocated in the south.

It's nearly all being allocated in the north of the county.

So for meeting the temporary housing needs

and the affordable housing needs in the south,

it's going to be significantly stressed.

So how is that going to be addressed

in your housing strategy?

Yeah, if I may, I think just in terms

of the overall approach towards providing affordable housing.

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 2:39:03

And so when we're pulling together local planning,

as you'll have heard earlier today, one of the key tests

is around viability of developments that come forward.

So of course, if we take a pure approach from an affordable housing perspective

and in effect, try to deliver all of the affordable housing

need through the local plan, then ultimately we'd

deliver nothing because actually none of the developments would be viable in order to do

that. So we need to set the right balance in terms of trying to maximise affordable

housing provision whilst accepting of course that that in and of itself is not going to

address the overall requirement just from a purely affordable housing need perspective.

One of the other aspects therefore that the kind of homelessness strategy is focused on

is not just provision, although provision is important,

and where we are delivering that provision,

making sure it's the right provision, but also prevention.

So we also do a lot of work as well

around trying to get upstream of where issues might be arising.

And that might be in relation to things like family breakdown

or issues around private rented sector,

and actually giving advice and support to people

to make sure that they are capable of kind of moving on into more suitable accommodation.

And it may not necessarily always be a home that's provided through the local plan system,

an affordable home. There may be other more suitable arrangements and it may actually

be giving people more support to stay living in the family home for longer, for example,

which is not providing a new home, but is actually just giving people a different route

to follow that avoids the homelessness issue.

So there's a lot more work and activity that we will be doing and do do

in the housing service to try and make sure we get to the preventions before we get

to having to deal with the problem through temporary accommodation.

Just one other thing, just to address the point you were making about the split

across the county in terms of new provision.

So it has always been an issue that the overall level of growth in the north of the county outstrips that in the south of the county.

I mean there's an obvious constraint there which is that the south of the county is largely covered by Greenbelt, which is in and of itself a break on development.

And it's also right to say in the new local plan,

that kind of split is replicated in terms of the allocations.

It doesn't mean to say that there is no growth proposed in the south of

the county, because there are already proposals that are in existing local plans.

There are windfall sites that will come forward as well, and

there are town centre allocations that will come forward as part of the local plan.

And I would anticipate that the broad proportion

would continue to mimic or mirror historic rates.

So I think that in and of itself, the local plan is gonna be

delivering something that we've historically delivered.

I think the challenge for the housing service is to A,

work with the new provision that's provided.

But B, to really maximise that kind of prevention activity.

Just to add to what was said there as well, one thing to make sure those affordable homes

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:42:40

do get built is that I've asked for us to make sure that we get affordable housing pipeline

together so every development we will work with the developer, have you identified an

RP partner to work with to build those affordable homes, try and identify one.

Then are you using available grants?

Are there any sort of MHCLG grants that are available that you could be using to make

sure that those homes get built?

Not just to sit passively by, let the developer get on with it and then tell us that they're

not viable.

We need to actually work with them to do that.

The thing about the sort of split in the north where it's 25%, unfortunately one of the faults

of the planning process that has been introduced by this government is they want us to do

to build extra homes, but they don't want to put any money in for the infrastructure.

Everything is relying on the developer to provide that.

If we were to then put 40 % affordable homes as was inferred there, we just wouldn't get

them.

It just would not happen.

They say they're unviable.

We have to try and deliver them through Section 106, which is difficult and a long and protracted

process to actually do.

We are delivering some through section 106.

We've been quite successful this year in delivering or identifying over 160 deliver,

many of them in the south.

But as was inferred there, there is obviously this thing between the south being mostly

Greenbelt and there's quite a lot of Green members, but quite a lot of members from the

south here.

I mean did any of you want to give up your green belt to actually push forward

Affordable in that I'd expect not and I'd understand you're not doing that. Let's face it

Just may I know our town council actually put forward the the the

Have disappointed they were with the number of town centre sites that were included and allocated

Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:44:40

So we'd be expecting

more to be provided than has been allocated.

Now the point I wanted to come back on was it is important at this point that you mentioned

about some of the investment that you're making in trying to get those affordable houses delivered.

It would help draw that out in the strategy if that was a strand that was drawn out more strongly.

I think.

Thank you. Take that point and that's one we should take forward I think.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:45:14

Excellent, that would be very useful. Councillor Stutchbury.

Cllr David Moore - 2:45:16

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:45:20

Well firstly, can I thank the team for when they helped me with cases and support to resolve that.

I do recognise the cabinet members will and his team to help and support and it would be really wrong to suggest that wasn't the case.

That said, I need to ask some indicative questions.

You will be aware that the government policy 2026

puts about 36 billion pounds available to local authorities

to deliver social housing.

You stated in your slides that you would work

with all parties to achieve delivering social housing.

So first question was what works going on to see whether we can qualify for any of that money.

And in that first question is how are you going to then replicate that to make sure we can

support the delivery of houses because we have nationally about 180 ,000 children sleeping in

social accommodation not suitable and that's just not where we should be in 2026. Second question is

you would be aware because you and I have been batting back questions for 200 ,000,

a very long time, Mark, and we've always managed to remain friends.

And I'm not always in agreement, let's say.

You were aware of the 2024 Anthony Nolan report,

which was commissioned on the request of a motion I took to council in 2020.

And that report did offer analysis around delivering social housing.

although I disagree with the findings of the report,

but that's me.

I think we need to look at that report

and see how that report could,

with the government policy on social housing,

has changed the narrative,

because when that report was commissioned in 2024,

the 2025 policy on social housing wasn't published.

I believe that analysis of that report changes now.

And lastly, can you make that report public, please?

Even though it's a public report, it's been commissioned by the council and has never seen the light of day on a public website.

I have to keep recirculating out my own private stack of policies to bring it back up.

It's not on any public website.

And I think that this referring to something that other people don't know about is really not good.

We know about it because we've found it back.

So lastly, can you do that?

and I look forward to your responses

to those staged questions.

Just take the last question.

There's actually no reason for it not to be public

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:48:10

and just chatted and yeah, I think we can do that.

First time I think you've made that request,

but we've always been happy to give you a copy of it,

et cetera.

I think you asked a written question for council

and as per that written question,

I mean, one of the things is that it's not set,

nothing that's set in stone.

It's something we can look at and we will continue to look at.

There may be, for example, specialised housing,

which we may want to build ourselves as a council

because they're difficult to provide.

It could be cheaper for us to provide it.

So it's never an answer that we're never going to do it.

But we could do it in a limited way, as I said there.

But also, that $36 billion is also available to councils,

but also to housing associations as well.

And the advantage that housing associations have over us is that we would only have one

source of funding, which is to borrow it and to use our own assets to actually borrow against

it.

Whereas a housing association could go out on the open market and borrow, and therefore

in theory they can build more houses as a result.

So not only do they get their slice of that 36 billion,

they can also get a slice of the outside market,

working with partners, which we necessarily can't do.

Also there's a problem of land and of staff,

which would limit us going big bang,

let's now become a housing provider.

But it's something that's under constant review.

Because we, as you say, having children, for example,

in temporary accommodation, it's something we really shouldn't be doing.

It's really not the best place to have children in homelessness accommodation.

Imagine you're doing your exams and you're having to sit in a shared room.

It's something that I personally want to somehow change and to give them better facilities,

making sure that there's internet access, for example, that's reliable that they can

use to do their homework or a space where they can actually do that to make it easier.

but the best thing would be then not a force to be in there and that's hopefully what we can work towards.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:50:31

So you're seeking partnership ways of resolving and drawing down on that 36 billion pounds over 10 years.

We're here continuously. We need more money for infrastructure mantle in press releases.

This is money for infrastructure social housing which is available and we should jolly well take it.

The issue is in South Buckinghamshire as stated and known that as Jonathan said the target

is not high enough to grow but I think there was a sort of explanation around that.

I think we should stretch ourselves on our delivery of more affordable units.

You state windfall sites.

Yes there's going to be lots of windfall sites.

I referred to 3 ,000 of them earlier.

I think that, Mark, please go away and look at that policy.

The council needs to change its strategy to house its residents.

It needs to change its strategy to house its residents.

If it needs to be a player in social housing, it needs to be a player.

Even if that's a partner, not a deliverer, we just need to stretch it

because we can't have this situation where money's available.

We need to make sure we take it.

And I'm sure that's what you're going to do.

But there has to be a political will to actually take the money.

Thank you.

As I said before, and in the answer to you and the previous answer, we want to work with

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:51:55

developers and with the partners, social housing partners, to make sure that that money is

made available to them.

So if there are grants that they can put their hands on, we very much want to push them to

do it and make sure that they are taking advantage of them, to make sure that those homes are

built and that they stretch themselves to actually build them as well.

It's not just about us building them, it's about making sure that they build them as

well and us pushing them to do them.

As I said, sitting passively by and waiting for them to do it is not the way ahead.

We need to actually intervene in this.

Thank you very much.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:52:34

Cllr David Moore - 2:52:35

I just wanted to also reassure you that from that first tranche of funding that was released

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 2:52:39

a couple of weeks ago and the announcement of strategic investment partners at Homes

England made. We obviously were not on that list but there were some registered providers

that are not currently operating in Bucks that we've been in touch with as a result

of that list being published. So we are working hard with them and they're really interested

to see what we've got in Bucks and what we can do in partnership. So we are exploring

all those opportunities as they come forward and we're also in really regular dialogue

with Homes England about this next tranche that comes forward with this

notion of council homes coming forward as well so we are really engaged in

those conversations to see what comes forward and taking all those

opportunities that meet BUCs requirements and needs.

Great thank you and yeah we could get that report

Cllr David Moore - 2:53:22

circulated that would be very helpful especially for our working group that

will form after at the end of this meeting

so thank you very much. We next have Councillor Collingwood.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:53:35

Thank you. Just on that last point, maybe Councillor Stachboui could maybe use his influence

on some of the existing MPs to actually get us on those lists, because we do bid for things

all the time, but we deem to be too affluent. Now I've got the biggest deprivation between

super deprivation and super affluence in the whole country, but I'm deemed to be the rich

MPs in your political equation to actually push forward,

saying actually, whether it's in Buckingham where you are,

whether I'm in Marlowe, where we both have deprivation

and requirements, then it'd be really, really helpful.

Because obviously, those MPs should

know that that's a requirement, whether it's

going to be in Buckingham, Aylesbury, Wickham, Marlowe,

Beckett, or wherever it might be.

So if you could use your influence,

that'd be really, really helpful.

I can assure you, and I talk to all members of MPs, I've been talking to Conservatives all summer.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:54:37

I'm sure that I talk to them, and my position is what I am now, I talk to everybody.

Absolutely. But yeah, interestingly some of them don't get that, we don't get that feedback.

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:54:49

But we do genuinely bid for things, particularly like from New Homes England, and we got the square root of zero back from the government, right?

I've got my two volunteers for the working group, so thank you.

So my question is about, so recently we've obviously put through the new temporary accommodation

piece in Eastern Street, which is great.

But what I was trying to work out in my mind once that was put through, it was great.

I think it did, it was 13 bed spaces I think off the top of my head.

But I couldn't remember in my mind what does that do for the wider area of say Wickham

and or South Buckinghamshire, you know, in terms of numbers we need to help and support.

what additional ones do we need to provide ourselves on that basis?

So you've got, so obviously it's one location,

obviously the one in Wickham will be there, there's Desbox.

But what I don't know in terms of the numbers we're dealing with,

cuz I can't see it in the report,

what else do we need to do as a council to help support those sort of numbers?

So is that sufficient for the time being, or based on this five year strategy,

what else do we need to be doing in addition to the social housing providers

on ourselves to actually help support that.

Because the cost of temporary accommodation is astronomical,

as you know, right?

So we need to try and reduce that down.

So I don't know what sort of quantum for the next five years

does that look like.

Thank you.

I don't have a number for you.

That's what your actual answer was looking for.

But what I do have for you is the,

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 2:56:14

we've got another piece of work that we're

working on at the moment.

That is the supported accommodation strategy.

We're doing the evidence base for that,

which will drill down even further into those detailed cohorts of the type of provision

that currently is mapped across the council, not just by us but by other providers as well,

and what the forecast need is and understanding what that gap is.

And that will give some of those answers a little bit more

to what you're talking to at the moment.

Obviously, a lot of this strategy is predicated on us putting a lot more effort

in the partnership working and in the prevention space.

And I think really it's about that pre -front door activity to stop people coming

into even needing the TA.

So that's kind of a slightly roundabout,

but that's where we're really putting a lot of effort

into making sure we actually don't need the TA places,

that will be part of that wider supported accommodation piece.

And sorry, the other thing I just want to add in,

we did get a bit of the Rough Sleeper funding

that was announced last month as well.

So just to reiterate, and that's what's been identified

to help bring that Eastern Street project forward.

Great.

Councillor Cornell, then Councillor Field,

then Councillor Nella.

Thank you very much.

Cllr David Moore - 2:57:21

I'll just say a brief, where there is, do we have a North

back drop -in centre?

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:57:24

Homelessness.

I think she's going to do a consultation.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:57:33

Oh, for the consultation.

So we've got one in the Ellsbury library.

We've got one in Wycombe library.

We've got one in Cheshire.

We'll pick one up in the south.

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 2:57:41

That's what we've got as drop -ins at the moment.

We have had a leaflet drop across the county from our TA

sites and wider through our charity groups

that we're working with for our outreach,

work in rough sleeping space.

But happy to pick up another venue

if that would be something in the north that you'd prefer.

Well, Donata Buckingham is quite a big part.

And it goes right up to Westbury from Aylesbury.

Yeah, of course.

If you've got nothing up there, I think we should have some.

Buckingham Library is probably a good venue for that,

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:58:07

wouldn't it?

That would be the best place.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:58:12

So can we note maybe two more location suggestions

Cllr David Moore - 2:58:16

in Buckingham and in South Bucks would be very welcome.

Thank you.

Councillor Field.

Good afternoon.

Cllr Dean Field - 2:58:28

For those who, for the benefit of those watching, maybe, can you tell me the major differences between this draught plan and the previous version?

And has there been lessons learned from the previous, which are now in here?

And my other question, and I try and keep it as short as possible, there's a lot of

reasons we see why people are homeless.

And I totally agree that wherever they're living, if we can try and keep them in that

environment before they go into temporary accommodation, it's a win -win.

What are you doing, regarding, I'm an employer myself, what are you doing to reach out to

employers and what they can do to help.

And with all the construction we're having within Bux, I

dare say there could be lots of things developers could be

doing regarding employment if they wanted to choose the

construction industry.

Thank you.

Just to take that last point, very keen on doing those type

of schemes if there are those available and the employees

available to do that.

Cllr Mark Winn - 2:59:39

So really a shout out to them that bugs are looking for those types of opportunities.

I've heard about one or two, but if there are any developers that want to get involved,

by means of getting in touch with us and we do that, I think Belinda was going to answer

the question about the lessons learned from the previous strategy.

Yeah, I'd say the lessons learned from the previous and the point of differences,

I guess, between what we've currently got and what we're going toward is a much stronger emphasis

Belinda Dimmock-Smith - Head of Housing Assets & Development - 3:00:05

on partnerships. So this has been really co -developed with partners and in a really meaningful way.

We've had many workshops. This is the first time we've introduced that lived experience,

actually speaking to people who've had homelessness experiences or rough sleeping experiences.

So that is a much richer sort of engagement that we've had to actually populate. And because

of that, we're getting much more buy into the action planning. So the current strategy

feels very much like the council's doing all the heavy lifting, if you like, albeit that's

not the case in practise, but to read it, that would be the feeling that you get.

Whereas this one, I think, is a much broader joint approach in terms of the delivery of

it, what's expected.

I think those partners are all coming from the same place, understanding this isn't just

about a home.

This is about helping people to be ... Helping them at the right time, getting much more

early intervention.

That would be another big point of difference.

Getting them before the crisis actually happens.

Using all those networks that we've got across all the partnerships to pick up those signs

and to get that sort of early conversations going,

noting that one of the, I think the second highest reason

that people present as homeless to bucks at the moment

is a fall away of family support

in the terms of the homes that they're in at the moment.

So if we're doing that much more early engagement

with those people, then it will be much better,

rich picture.

So I think that's a major point of difference,

getting that much earlier intervention,

thinking about that pre -front door activity

and doing it as a wider network and as a partnership,

and then monitoring it together as a partnership,

taking ownership of those actions,

not just seeing it as a council sort of document

that sort of sits there and dust it off every now and then

and come back and update it every five years.

It feels much more like this is a working tool.

The funding that we're getting from central government

is another way that that's kind of driving that through,

which would be a big point of difference as well.

Although they're giving you with some funding,

they've taken 43 million away from,

So I just want to point that out for the people watching.

Cllr Dean Field - 3:02:03

Thank you very much.

You don't have to be a mathematician

to see what central government does

with their funding formulas.

Cllr David Moore - 3:02:09

This is Councillor Nella.

Thank you.

I've got two points I want to actually raise.

We know that there's been on average

Cllr Frances Kneller - 3:02:22

about 500 homes provided over the last few years.

And the first quarter figures show

that 70 affordable housing properties have been completed.

So that during this year, if we carry on at that rate,

there will only be about 300 new homes.

That's not even 20 % of the 1600 affordable homes the council's

evidence says we need.

In addition, there's 5 ,388 live Buck's Home Choice applications.

and there's 407 families or households in temporary accommodation.

So we've got quite a conundrum to quite square that circle.

I was really pleased to see priority three is actually around long -term housing sustainment.

That really is important because amongst the 5 ,388 applicants,

there is a household of nine members living in a three -bedroom house.

Due to family circumstances and composition, the Home Choices system says that they can

only bid for a six bedroom home.

But that prevents another conundrum because there aren't any.

We don't know what our housing providers are building, whether they've got any in the stock.

We understand not, but we don't know what's coming down the track.

So my first question was very much around

Do we know or do we influence the?

size and type of properties that are being built as

Affordable homes or do we just take basically what we give them as they come up on on schemes?

The other point is that for that particular family a four -bedroom home possibly with two rooms downstairs would alleviate

quite a lot of the stress and pressure for that family,

but they're not allowed to bid for one

under the home choice arrangements.

So I'm really asking what hope or flexibility

in the home choice process can you offer that family

and others that will be similarly affected?

Thank you.

Thank you for the question.

I don't know about, obviously, the circumstance

of that particular family,

but obviously the housing needs assessment has been done.

Cllr Mark Winn - 3:04:35

and we can use that to identify the homes that are required.

For a particular family,

there may be sort of things we need to go out

and sort of innovate.

There's people within homelessness accommodation

that are large families,

and actually to house them is difficult,

but it's not impossible.

We need to work together with our RPs, et cetera,

to try and make sure that that can happen.

Do we need to procure a house that's two together

and then not one together?

Can I just come back that they are an RP tenant

Cllr Frances Kneller - 3:05:12

and home choice and the system for housing associations

doesn't enable them to be able to house them

into something more suitable?

Yeah, I mean, they have a very large family at nine.

So they are going to be difficult to accommodate.

If you let me know about the individual case,

we can actually look into that.

Cllr Mark Winn - 3:05:29

But sorry, you wanted to stay.

Could I just add, just because part of your question

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:05:38

was just about how much influence we have on the provision of kind of new

new housing on on on sites.

So obviously, as council when I said,

we are starting point is our housing needs assessment which sets the kind of

parameters around which the schemes that we're looking to provide.

As well as there being individual consultations from within.

so internal consultations between the planning and the housing service

that seeks to influence the mix and provision on individual sites as well

again based on what the evidence is telling us the need is.

So those conversations and those consultations do happen

both at a strategic level and also on an

operational level.

Cllr David Moore - 3:06:30

Sorry, Kansas -Stutchbury.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:06:36

Just some clarity, because the Buckinghamshire plans

on the 2024 MPPF, which the affordability targets in that

aren't as rich as they are in the 2076 MPPF.

If I read it right, the new policies in the government

policies, any plans that came through after that,

they're likely to have larger affordability numbers

in, so if the plan theoretically gets passed under the current legislation, the affordability

numbers demanded by the government are lower in that than they are in the future numbers,

which seems very difficult to understand. What would happen if the plan was sent back?

Would it then be reconsidered under the 2026? It wouldn't change the site allocations, but

the affordability numbers and demand from government would go up in that plan and the

to deliver affordable would rise. Is that correct or am I read it wrong?

I mean it's very important because we're talking about social provision stroke

homelessness it looked like the 2026 policies which we're not in were better

policies for delivering affordable and social housing than the current one that

we're operating under to deliver our plan. Is that correct or am I read it wrong?

So the local plan is being prepared effectively under

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 3:08:01

the transitional arrangements under the requirements of the previous MPPF.

And so there are changes that are now in place nationally with the new MPPF

that the local plan is not required to adhere to.

However, both the previous MPPF and the new MPPF do not

specify the amount of affordable housing that should be provided in each

individual area.

So our requirements are dictated by our housing needs assessment to start with,

which is obviously based on the individual needs of an area.

And then there are further policy tests that are applied when we're devising

our local plan such as viability assessments, which again,

are unique to individual areas.

So there isn't a kind of a requirement that's set out in the MPPF,

either the old one or the new one, that says Buckinghamshire should provide

x amount of affordable homes, that's dictated more locally by our own

evidence base, so in the scenario that you paint where the local plant gets

pushed back or I don't think that has an impact on lots of things, but

I was just looking for sunny uplands for the people who haven't got houses, you know

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:09:27

Maybe if it did it would mean that we'd have more affordable housing per se which would make life easier for Margaret the team to

periods but

Thank you very much there no more questions

Well, thank you very much. Thank you officers. Thank you members. I think just a bit of a summary there

Cllr David Moore - 3:09:39

Obviously we'll receive that report

That you requested counts Stutchbury. It's good to see that's gonna go public chair

I think it was going to be published on the website.

So that's what was agreed, which is not, I've,

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:09:51

Cllr David Moore - 3:09:53

I've received it more times than I need to receive.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:09:56

I think it's other people haven't received it.

Hey, either they people who pay our bills. Thank you.

Great. Well, we'll get that, get that published. Fantastic.

Now we need to adopt the working group.

Cllr David Moore - 3:10:05

So I've got two volunteers already.

You can't just touch, that's calling with,

you can't escape that now,

but you will be great assets to the working group.

I need another four, three, four members, Councillor Nellie, yes?

Councillor Roberts and Councillor Field.

I'm happy to report this one.

Brilliant. I think that's a good number for the consultation.

So thank you very much.

That ends the business of the day today.

And that moves to our next item of the agenda, which is the Work Programme.

9 Work Programme

That is currently rolling and is very fast paced at the moment.

So, Councillor Rowls will update us with our officers of the work programme as that moves

fast, especially on the local plan.

And that leads to the final item, which is date of next meeting, which is Tuesday the

17th of November 2026 at 10am here in the Oculus.

Thank you very much.

10 Date of Next Meeting

Thank you.

Richard Ambrose

View profile

Cllr Michael Bracken

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Alex Collingwood

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Michael Collins

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Caroline Cornell

Conservative

View profile

Darran Eggleton

Head of Service - Planning Policy and Compliance

View profile

Cllr Dean Field

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Frances Kneller

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr David Moore

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Jackson Ng

Conservative

View profile

Cllr Mark Roberts

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Robin Stuchbury

Independent

View profile

Cllr Jonathan Waters

Liberal Democrats

View profile

Cllr Mark Winn

Conservative

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

Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select CommitteeWednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 10:00am

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:00

Cllr David Moore - 0:00:16

1 Apologies for Absence/Changes in Membership

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:01:11

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr David Moore - 0:01:36

3 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

4 Public Questions

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:03:21

Cllr David Moore - 0:04:02

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:04:31

Cllr David Moore - 0:04:38

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:05:18

Cllr David Moore - 0:06:35

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:06:53

Cllr David Moore - 0:07:31

Public Questions - 0:07:41

Cllr David Moore - 0:08:11

Liz Wheaton - Principal Scrutiny Officer - 0:08:18

Cllr David Moore - 0:08:58

Cllr David Moore - 0:10:03

Public Questions - 0:10:20

Cllr David Moore - 0:11:10

Cllr David Moore - 0:12:27

Cllr David Moore - 0:13:21

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:14:31

Cllr David Moore - 0:21:22

8 Proposed North & Central Area CIL Report

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:22:38

Cllr David Moore - 0:26:00

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:26:15

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:26:47

John Callaghan - 0:27:22

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:28:06

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:29:53

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:29:59

Cllr David Moore - 0:30:11

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:30:15

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:31:31

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:32:50

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:34:10

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:35:19

Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:35:47

Cllr David Moore - 0:36:19

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 0:37:09

Cllr David Moore - 0:37:47

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:38:01

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:40:32

Steve Bambrick - Corporate Director for Planning, Growth & Sustainability - 0:41:31

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:43:04

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:46:15

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:46:55

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:47:22

Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:47:31

Cllr David Moore - 0:47:32

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:47:37

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:51:28

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:53:13

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:56:16

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 0:57:27

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:58:01

Cllr David Moore - 0:58:15

Cllr Michael Collins - 0:58:47

Cllr Michael Bracken - 0:59:36

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:00:32

Cllr Michael Collins - 1:02:04

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:02:19

Hannah Joyce - Head of Spatial Planning & Climate Resilience - 1:03:15

Cllr David Moore - 1:03:35

Cllr Michael Collins - 1:03:43

Cllr David Moore - 1:03:54

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:04:02

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:04:11

Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:04:52

John Callaghan - Infrastructure Funding Manager - 1:05:07

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:17

Cllr David Moore - 1:05:41

Cllr Dean Field - 1:05:50

Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee
Wednesday, 23rd September 2026 at 10:00am