Interactive webcast player

Strategic Sites Committee
Thursday, 24th September 2026 at 10:00am

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Mr Charles Power
  3. Faye Mesgian
  4. Tim Thurley
  5. Cllr Andy Huxley
  6. Cllr Gregory Smith
  7. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  8. Cllr Clive Harriss
  9. Cllr Jackson Ng
  10. Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
  11. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  12. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  13. Cllr Llew Monger
  14. Cllr Phil Gomm
  15. Cllr Mark Roberts
  16. Mr Harry Thomas
  17. Mr Stephen Chainani
  18. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Mr Harry Thomas
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Mr Harry Thomas
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Cllr Llew Monger
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Clive Harriss
  6. Cllr Phil Gomm
  7. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  8. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  9. Cllr Mark Roberts
  10. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  11. Cllr Phil Gomm
  12. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  13. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  14. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  15. Cllr Clive Harriss
  16. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  17. Mr Charles Power
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  19. Cllr Mark Roberts
  20. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Faye Mesgian
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Cllr Penny Drayton
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Gregory Smith
  6. Cllr Penny Drayton
  7. Cllr Gregory Smith
  8. Cllr Penny Drayton
  9. Cllr Jackson Ng
  10. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  11. Cllr Penny Drayton
  12. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  13. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  14. Cllr Penny Drayton
  15. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  16. Cllr Penny Drayton
  17. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  18. Mr Charles Power
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Faye Mesgian
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  22. Mr Charles Power
  23. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  24. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  25. Cllr Penny Drayton
  26. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  27. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  28. Cllr Clive Harriss
  29. Cllr Penny Drayton
  30. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  31. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  32. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  33. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  34. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  35. Cllr Jackson Ng
  36. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  37. Cllr Jackson Ng
  38. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  39. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  40. Mr Stephen Chainani
  41. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  42. Mr Stephen Chainani
  43. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  44. Cllr Gregory Smith
  45. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  46. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  47. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  48. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  49. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  50. Mr Stephen Chainani
  51. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  52. Public Speaker
  53. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  54. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  55. Public Speaker
  56. Cllr Gregory Smith
  57. Public Speaker
  58. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  59. Tim Thurley
  60. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  61. Tim Thurley
  62. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  63. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  64. Public Speaker
  65. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  66. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  67. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  68. Public Speaker
  69. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  70. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  71. Public Speaker
  72. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  73. Public Speaker
  74. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  75. Cllr Mark Roberts
  76. Cllr Llew Monger
  77. Public Speaker
  78. Cllr Llew Monger
  79. Public Speaker
  80. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  81. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  82. Public Speaker
  83. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  84. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  85. Public Speaker
  86. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  87. Public Speaker
  88. Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP
  89. Public Speaker
  90. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  91. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  92. Public Speaker
  93. Cllr Gregory Smith
  94. Public Speaker
  95. Cllr Gregory Smith
  96. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  97. Cllr Gregory Smith
  98. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  99. Cllr Jackson Ng
  100. Faye Mesgian
  101. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  102. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  103. Cllr Phil Gomm
  104. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  105. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  106. Public Speaker
  107. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  108. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  109. Faye Mesgian
  110. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  111. Faye Mesgian
  112. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  113. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  114. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  115. Mr Charles Power
  116. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  117. Mr Charles Power
  118. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  119. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  120. Mr Charles Power
  121. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  122. Cllr Mark Roberts
  123. Mr Stephen Chainani
  124. Cllr Mark Roberts
  125. Faye Mesgian
  126. Cllr Mark Roberts
  127. Mr Stephen Chainani
  128. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  129. Mr Charles Power
  130. Cllr Mark Roberts
  131. Mr Charles Power
  132. Mr Stephen Chainani
  133. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  134. Mr Stephen Chainani
  135. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  136. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  137. Mr Stephen Chainani
  138. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  139. Mr Stephen Chainani
  140. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  141. Mr Stephen Chainani
  142. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  143. Mr Stephen Chainani
  144. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  145. Mr Stephen Chainani
  146. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  147. Mr Stephen Chainani
  148. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  149. Mr Stephen Chainani
  150. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  151. Mr Stephen Chainani
  152. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  153. Mr Stephen Chainani
  154. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  155. Mr Stephen Chainani
  156. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  157. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  158. Mr Stephen Chainani
  159. Mr Charles Power
  160. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  161. Cllr Gregory Smith
  162. Tim Thurley
  163. Faye Mesgian
  164. Tim Thurley
  165. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  166. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  167. Faye Mesgian
  168. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  169. Faye Mesgian
  170. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  171. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  172. Faye Mesgian
  173. Cllr Jackson Ng
  174. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  175. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  176. Tim Thurley
  177. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  178. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  179. Tim Thurley
  180. Faye Mesgian
  181. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  182. Faye Mesgian
  183. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  184. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  185. Faye Mesgian
  186. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  187. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  188. Cllr Llew Monger
  189. Faye Mesgian
  190. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  191. Cllr Llew Monger
  192. Mr Charles Power
  193. Cllr Llew Monger
  194. Tim Thurley
  195. Cllr Llew Monger
  196. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  197. Cllr Mark Roberts
  198. Mr Charles Power
  199. Cllr Mark Roberts
  200. Mr Charles Power
  201. Cllr Mark Roberts
  202. Mr Charles Power
  203. Cllr Mark Roberts
  204. Tim Thurley
  205. Cllr Mark Roberts
  206. Faye Mesgian
  207. Cllr Mark Roberts
  208. Faye Mesgian
  209. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  210. Cllr Jackson Ng
  211. Tim Thurley
  212. Cllr Jackson Ng
  213. Faye Mesgian
  214. Tim Thurley
  215. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  216. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  217. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  218. Tim Thurley
  219. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  220. Cllr Jackson Ng
  221. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  222. Cllr Phil Gomm
  223. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  224. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  225. Tim Thurley
  226. Faye Mesgian
  227. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Andy Huxley
  3. Faye Mesgian
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Mark Roberts
  6. Faye Mesgian
  7. Cllr Llew Monger
  8. Mr Charles Power
  9. Cllr Llew Monger
  10. Mr Charles Power
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  15. Faye Mesgian
  16. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  17. Faye Mesgian
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  19. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  20. Faye Mesgian
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  22. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Faye Mesgian
  2. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  3. Cllr Penny Drayton
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  6. Cllr Penny Drayton
  7. Cllr Gregory Smith
  8. Cllr Penny Drayton
  9. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  10. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  11. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  12. Public Speaker
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Public Speaker
  15. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  16. Cllr Gregory Smith
  17. Public Speaker
  18. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  19. Public Speaker
  20. Public Speaker
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  22. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  23. Public Speaker
  24. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  25. Cllr Gregory Smith
  26. Public Speaker
  27. Public Speaker
  28. Cllr Jackson Ng
  29. Public Speaker
  30. Cllr Jackson Ng
  31. Faye Mesgian
  32. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  33. Cllr Jackson Ng
  34. Public Speaker
  35. Cllr Andy Huxley
  36. Public Speaker
  37. Faye Mesgian
  38. Cllr Andy Huxley
  39. Faye Mesgian
  40. Cllr Andy Huxley
  41. Faye Mesgian
  42. Mr Charles Power
  43. Cllr Phil Gomm
  44. Faye Mesgian
  45. Cllr Phil Gomm
  46. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  47. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  48. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  49. Cllr Gregory Smith
  50. Tim Thurley
  51. Cllr Gregory Smith
  52. Tim Thurley
  53. Cllr Gregory Smith
  54. Tim Thurley
  55. Cllr Llew Monger
  56. Cllr Mark Roberts
  57. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  58. Cllr Llew Monger
  59. Mr Charles Power
  60. Cllr Llew Monger
  61. Mr Charles Power
  62. Cllr Llew Monger
  63. Mr Charles Power
  64. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  65. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  66. Tim Thurley
  67. Mr Charles Power
  68. Tim Thurley
  69. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  70. Tim Thurley
  71. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  72. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  73. Mr Charles Power
  74. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  75. Mr Charles Power
  76. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  77. Mr Charles Power
  78. Cllr Phil Gomm
  79. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  80. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  81. Cllr Gregory Smith
  82. Cllr Clive Harriss
  83. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  84. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
  3. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  4. Cllr Penny Drayton
  5. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  6. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  7. Cllr Penny Drayton
  8. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  9. Cllr Stuart Wilson
  10. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  11. Public Speaker
  12. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  13. Public Speaker
  14. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  15. Public Speaker
  16. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  17. Cllr Mark Roberts
  18. Public Speaker
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  21. Tim Thurley
  22. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  23. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  24. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  25. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  26. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  27. Tim Thurley
  28. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  29. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  30. Tim Thurley
  31. Cllr Gregory Smith
  32. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  33. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  34. Faye Mesgian
  35. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  36. Faye Mesgian
  37. Mr Charles Power
  38. Faye Mesgian
  39. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  40. Mr Charles Power
  41. Cllr Andy Huxley
  42. Tim Thurley
  43. Faye Mesgian
  44. Cllr Andy Huxley
  45. Faye Mesgian
  46. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  47. Cllr Mark Roberts
  48. Mr Charles Power
  49. Cllr Mark Roberts
  50. Tim Thurley
  51. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  52. Cllr Mark Roberts
  53. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  54. Cllr Gregory Smith
  55. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  56. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Cllr Gregory Smith
  3. Cllr Mark Roberts
  4. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  5. Cllr Larisa Townsend
  6. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  7. Cllr Gregory Smith
  8. Mr Charles Power
  9. Cllr Gregory Smith
  10. Mr Charles Power
  11. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  12. Cllr Llew Monger
  13. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  14. Cllr Jackson Ng
  15. Cllr Mark Roberts
  16. Cllr Andy Huxley
  17. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  18. Mr Charles Power
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Mr Charles Power
  21. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  22. Mr Charles Power
  23. Cllr Jonathan Waters
  24. Mr Charles Power
  25. Cllr Mark Roberts
  26. Mr Charles Power
  27. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  28. Ms. Teresa Coppock
  29. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  30. Mr Charles Power
  31. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  32. Cllr Alex Collingwood
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  2. Webcast Finished

1 Apologies for Absence

Good morning, councillors, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the strategic
sites committee. Please note the meeting is being webcast and the public and press can
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:00:16
see and hear the meeting throughout the webcast. In the unlikely event of there being a technical
issue with the webcast, the meeting will be paused until that issue has been resolved.
There are a couple of housekeeping items to cover.
Members will note the use of mobile phones are not printed during the meeting, so they
should be returned to silent and or off.
iPads can be used to access the Modgov app.
Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hands at the appropriate time.
Please remember to turn on your microphone before speaking, but also again switching
taking it off when you have finished. In the event of a fire alarm, please use the nearest
exit. There's one left, right, middle there. So there's four exits for us. And assemble
the riverside area, which is between the River Y and the A40 as you exit the building. So
as you go out of the building, you turn left and you aim for the river on your left -hand
side.
OK. So before we move to the first agenda item, I'll ask each member of the members
Mr Charles Power - 0:01:24
and officers to introduce themselves starting with Charles. Good morning
Faye Mesgian - 0:01:34
Charles Power I'm the major development manager for Buckinghamshire Council. Good
morning Faye Meschian, Case Officer.
Tim Thurley - 0:01:40
Good morning I'm Tim Thirlley I'm a highways development management
consultant for Buckinghamshire Council.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:01:48
Person high in the corner.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:02:08
On to Councillor Huxley. Andy Huxley, Councillor for Aylesbury East. Greg Smith
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:02:12
I'm councillor for Haddonham and Stoneward. Hi, I'm councillor Jonathan Waters and I
cover Penn, Tyler's Green and Loudwater.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:02:19
Councillor Clive Harris, ward member for Longcrendon.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:02:23
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 0:02:28
Councillor Jackson and for Beckonsfield, covering for councillor David Moore.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:02:35
Councillor Marbu and Councillor for Abbey Ward, Highwicker. There is a
and ward member for Flacwell Heath in the Woburns and I am substituting for
councillor Mark Turner
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:42
Cathy Kippen councillor for Beaton Kingsbrook and Wing
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:49
Lou Monger Winslow Ward
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:55
Good morning councillor Phil Garmon for the Quainton Ward
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:02:57
Mr Harry Thomas - 0:03:01
Mark Roberts and councillor for Amersham and Cheshire and Boyce Ward
Harry Thomas, Democratic Services.
Mr Stephen Chainani - 0:03:05
Stephen Chinani, Education.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 0:03:08
Good morning, I'm Theresa Coppock, Planning Lawyer at the Council.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:15
I'm Councillor Alex Collingwood, I am Member for Marlowe, Marlowe Bottom and I'm Chairman
of the Committee.
Okay, so moving on to Gender Item 1, apologies for absence.
Mr Harry Thomas - 0:03:25
Just to confirm the apologies.
Yeah, as we've heard Chairman, we've got three apologies, Councillor Feeley, Councillor
Councillor Turner and Councillor Harris, Councillor Owen
and Councillor Townsend are substituting
for those Councillors respectively.

2 Minutes

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:03:38
So agenda item two minutes of the meeting.
Obviously they were published when the agenda
was circulated but I think there's a slight update is there?
Mr Harry Thomas - 0:03:56
Yes, so the minutes were published as part of your pack.
Following further discussion with the officers,
there's been a suggested amendment to them
to better reflect the committee's reason for,
the first reason for refusal given for application CM002222.
So in your minutes pack,
it reads the proposed traffic from the development
when considered cumulatively with traffic already
on the highway network would result
in severe highway safety issues
within the village of Longcrenden.
And then following further discussions,
it was suggested that an amendment could be changed
to read the proposed traffic from the development
when considered cumulatively with traffic already
on the highway network would result
in unacceptable highway safety impacts
within the village of Long Crandon,
particularly for pedestrians, including children,
and would have severe adverse impact
on the operation of the local highway network, therefore.
So with that amendment, I'm happy to pass back
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:05:04
you, Chen. So we've had also representations from the various
different people post the meeting and post us issuing the minutes. I think the
reason they were talking about it, because Longcrennan seemed to be one of the key
issues that was raised at that meeting, that they wanted to, we looked back at
the webcast, looked back at the minutes and we felt that that was probably a
closer reflection to the reasons we gave for in terms of the refusal than the
sort of what I would call a standard highways refusal we gave initially and
this was more reflecting of the actual detailed discussions we'd had and the
reasons why the the proposals were put forward. So Councillor Munger. Thank you
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:05:40
Chairman. Chairman I was on holiday so I had tended my apologies for this meeting.
I must say I find this intervention very strange and it seems to me to be
responding to pressure from a member of the public subsequent to the meeting, which I
find really unusual given that during meetings of this committee we're very strict with time
limits on addressing and indeed on being able to question members of the public.
We can only address issues that the members of the public raised during their presentation.
and here we have a situation where,
and I have had correspondence from a member of the public,
which I'm sure all committee members did,
that we are subsequent to the meeting
and not having discussed it as a committee,
changing the decision to suit that member of the public.
I find, I'd like to record in the minutes
that I find that disquieting.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:06:49
To give clarity to you, Councillor Muggles, Councillor Harris, because he was at the meeting,
there was a real big discussion and I had challenged the officers very specifically
during the meeting and again post the meeting. And there was an ongoing dialogue with myself
and the officers about the minutes themselves because I was, again, due to the time constraints,
they had to be issued at the same time as the agenda, but I was still having my own
ongoing discussions with the officers saying look I still think this needs to
have a fuller and clearer explanation of how the meeting took place and the
discussion we had at the meeting so this isn't this isn't about changing post
meeting this is about the detailed discussions if you saw how long this
went on for we literally were there from 10 a .m. till about 4 p .m. on this one
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:07:36
item. Councillor Harris over to you. Thank you very much thank you for your comments but you
And the thing is that the public speakers on this particular matter, in most cases,
were professionals in planning.
And therefore, as the minutes tried to reflect as best possible what's been discussed, it's
how those are interpreted.
And I have to say that having received the information from the resident, then it was
quite clear that it much better reflected what we had discussed and the actual conclusion
we come to than was currently in the documents. And I don't have a problem with that.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:08:20
Thank you very much, Chairman. As you know, at that meeting I was quite controversial
with them at some points, and that was one of those topics I was, and I did drill down
hard on that one. So I'm encouraged to see those minutes being tightened up, because
they were far, far too loose, in my opinion. So I do appreciate they've been tightened
up in that respect. Thank you Councillor, Councillor Waters. Just to make sure who should be voting
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:08:46
on something that has changed from the previous committee. If it was referred it
would only be those individuals who had been at that committee so I assume today
the only people who should vote on it should be those and if at the time yeah
So I think that's the key thing.
So otherwise I think that there could be a question.
It would just be the members
who were the committee at the time.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:09:11
So although Councillor Harris was physically at the meeting
because he was a member of the committee,
he can't vote on it.
It would just be the ones who were the members
of the committee at the time.
So again, Councillor Mungo can't vote.
Councillor Harris and Councillor Jackson
can't vote on the accuracy of the minutes.
Nobody was physically there.
Okay.
right okay right so can't go on those neither apparently apparently because
you had to meet because you had to go to HS to you're not allowed to vote either
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:09:48
so council Roberts yeah I'm just looking at the decision for this application and
you mentioned about it the change to the minutes more accurately aligning with
the decision but I don't see the decision notice on the planning portal
so I was just going to look that up to cheque for that alignment that you just
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:10:09
referred to until you've done the meeting here you can't do on decision
notice and or referral at this point because we're only there's only a
resolution at that point and therefore we're now reconfirming the minutes yeah
Subsequent to the committee meeting, the decision notice hasn't been published yet.
No decision has been, no no, so we made a resolution at the meeting but we didn't
make a decision at the meeting. Council Gaughan.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:10:32
Chairman, sorry I'd like to come back. Although I wasn't allowed to vote, so I had to leave the meeting for,
it was about half an hour due to attending another one, I was still there and I heard all
the conversation that went on.
So I was struggling to understand
why I wouldn't be allowed to vote to those minutes.
So I missed part of it, I do agree, but not all.
And that was part of a conversation that was minuted
that I was very strong on before even I left the room.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:11:07
The reason for holding that view is because
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 0:11:12
you didn't form part of the committee body
that made the original decision.
So it's the actual people who made that decision
that need to ratify that that was the decision they made.
So that's why.
Interesting. Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:11:27
So the spirit is willing, but due to those technical issues, we will have to accept the
minutes with the existing
.
.
Double checking about, because my preference is that everyone gets to vote on it, right?
So that's why I want to just make sure that we do it, do it, but do it correctly so we
don't get subject to later on being told we did it incorrectly.
Councillor Harris.
Thank you, Joan.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:13:38
To my mind, I don't see the difference between if this has been brought to my attention and
then I bring it to your attention.
So it's still coming effectively from me.
And if a member of public makes it present,
makes it available to everyone.
So I don't see the issue there.
I was having my direct conversations with the officers
about the minutes in the first place.
But due to the time constraints,
that's why they had to be issued.
But I was already saying, again,
I was having conversations with yourself
as a member who was actually physically there
in the meeting as well.
So it wasn't just that.
Can I make a suggestion?
Yes, go on.
Can I suggest we get on with the rest of the meeting?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:14:17
We park this bit, officers go away and find out what the actual constitutional position
Mr Charles Power - 0:14:23
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:14:28
is with regard to that and we can move everything else on because we've got people sitting here
who aren't really that interested in what we did at the last meeting, they're more interested
in what we're doing at this one.
Well, you never know.
Members of the public I was thinking of.
I think it's a sensible decision. We'll move on from that item and then move on to the other items going forward.
Councillor Alberts.
Yeah, I think it's sensible to defer this but the
Cllr Mark Roberts - 0:14:52
The area I'm slightly uncomfortable with is not having had forewarning of the changes of minutes. I've I've personally I've had
It's I haven't been able to cheque that against the webcast myself
to confirm that the proposed change does actually reflect the discussion.
I'm relying on my memory of it and I felt slightly uncomfortable about that
without having a warning about there being a proposal.
I understand that but I actually made the officers go back and cheque the webcast
which is why I've asked for the changes.
But I was physically aware and all there, right?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:15:29
While I was making those requests to have changes, right?

3 Declarations of Interest

Right, so moving on to the next item. Okay, so item three, this
declarations of interest. I've got Councillor Larissa Townsend. Thank you.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:15:45
Yeah, the three sites in question today are, well, they're in my ward but I can
confirm that I come to this committee with an open mind and not predetermined
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:15:59
in any way. Thank you Councillor Townsend. Any other declarations? No? Good.
Okay, we'll move on to the officers report. I'll clarify the order in which the application
will be considered. The planning officers will then introduce the application with any
relevant updates. Local members, parish and town council representatives, members of the

4 21/06215/OUTEA - Hollands Farm, Hedsor Road, Hedsor, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5EE

public will be invited to read out their statements in the following order. So it will be local
members, Parrish or town council representatives, objectors, supporters and then agent and applicant.
After each public speaking statement, members will be asked speakers for clarification on
matters raised in their statement and their statement only. And these must be addressed
through me as your chairman. I'll ask the members if they have any technical questions
following this for the ASI committee and then discuss the application. And again, we'll
do that on a thematic piece. So I've got education, I've got highways, I've got planning. So they're
different three themes, as it were. Members then may seek further clarification of the
officers on points regarding the application itself or points raised by the speakers in
the main debate. Officers will then respond to issues and questions raised by the members.
The committee will then make a decision by vote and members will then need to propose
and second the recommendations. We now move to item 4 which is application 21
forward slash 06215 forward slash OUTEA Hollands Farm
Hedsor Road, Hedsor, Buckinghamshire SL85EE on page 7 of your
agenda pack. Could I ask the public speakers to please respond when I call
your name to indicate you're in attendance. Please ensure your verbal
representations relate to the relevant planning considerations regarding the
specific planning application and then do not include any personal
statements. Partly speakers will be called to speak in turn and after members have
asked the points of clarification they'll be asked to return to their seats. But
obviously here it's slightly different because we have a different chamber than we normally
would do in the Oculus. So I've got Councillor Penny Drayton. Are you here?
I'm here. Good morning.
OK. Councillor Stuart Wilson.
I'm here, Chairman. Good morning.
I've got Councillor Tim Bingham for Woburn and Bournon Parish Council.
I'm here. Thank you, Chairman.
Okay and now I've got David Morris for the applicant agent. Morning and I understand that
Councillor Drayton will then also as part of the process speak on behalf of
the objectors as well but we'll explain that as the process goes through. Okay
Right, so now I call on Case Officer Faye Messian to introduce the report on the application.
Faye Mesgian - 0:19:13
Over to you Faye.
I'll just draw your attention to the update report that was put up on the website yesterday.
I don't intend to regurgitate my entire report, but I'll give you an overview of the application.
So the development description for the southern parcel, which is the first application we're
looking at, is outline planning application for up to 360 dwellings, including affordable
homes and one -form entry primary school, with points of access from Hedsall Road, Millboard
Road, point of connexion of Link Road to Jackson's Field,
and temporary emergency only vehicular access from Heaven's
Lee, open space, sustainable drainage systems,
and associated landscaping, infrastructure, and earthworks
with all matters reserved.
So this is, sorry about that.
So this is the application site.
You can hopefully make out the site.
Points of access from the north is Mill Ward Road,
and points of access to the south is Headsaw Road.
And there's an emergency point of access on the eastern side
at Heavensley.
Here's an aerial photo.
They're both the same, but the second one
is zoomed out slightly so that you
can see the application in the context of wider Bournend.
This highlights the conservation area to the south
and the listed buildings in the area.
The site is allocated in the local plan
under policy B .E .2 for residential -led mixed use
development.
As part of the local plan policy,
the development is required to have special regard to the heritage assets and their setting,
provide a link road through the site connecting Corzine Road roundabout with Ferry Lane, a
redirected bus service, enhancements to footpath and cycle links to the village, provide open
space, financial contributions towards the mitigation of the impact on Burnham
Beaches sack, maintain the connectivity of the public rights -of -way and avoid
areas of fluvial flood risk where possible, provide suds and provide a
one -form entry school, one -form entry primary school. Another layer of policy
is the Hollands Farm Development Brief and this plan highlights that the
application proposals are broadly in accordance with the development brief.
The application is outlined with all matters reserved so today before you
although there's a lot of detail they're just seeking approval for the principle
of the development which is 360 new homes including 48 affordable homes
wheelchair accessible homes and custom self -build homes.
A primary school, strategic open space in the form of two sports pitches,
a multi -use games area, children's play areas,
incidental open space and sustainable drainage systems
and improved links through the site.
And also points of access to the site.
So access is a reserve matter,
So the details of the access roads are reserved for a later date
but the points of access to the site are part of this application and
They are Mill board Road and head saw Road with a point of connexion to the northern parcel and an emergency access vehicle
An emergency vehicle or access to heavens Lee which is temporary
which would be closed up and
restored to its existing state once a link road to the northern parcel comes forward.
So as part of the application they're seeking approval of this parameter plan and this parameter
plan highlights the development parcels in yellow with green links around the development
parcels which reflect a sense of separation to the eastern part which is Heaven's Lee
which is the topographically higher ground,
and they reflect the existing hedgerows and trees
that are to be retained on site.
And the purple in the northern part of the site
is the site for the school,
and the blue arrows indicate the points of access.
So that's really what we're looking at today.
In addition, there's a building heights parameter plan,
which sets out the maximum building heights.
There's a buffer along the south
to protect the existing residents on Hedsall Road.
And also the grey areas are also buffers.
The mustard colour parcels would be up
to three -storey dwellings.
The pale pink on the eastern side would be up to two storeys
again, lower densities and lower properties
where the topographical levels go higher.
The dark pink on the southern part of the site
is up to two storeys, but with all the ridge line heights
to be lower than the adjacent properties to the south,
and the sort of medium pink is up to two storeys.
And those building heights are in line
with what was set out in the development brief.
In addition, there's an illustrative master plan
And that is illustrative, but it does highlight the two sports
pitches, the school area, which also has a sports pitch,
the starred areas.
There's one, two, three, four, five, six children's play areas
and a multi -use games area.
And the green parcel to the south
is the sustainable drainage system,
which is kind of the lower level land across the site.
The development, all of the development shown there
avoids any flood zones as set out in the MPPF.
And I do have additional slides which we can talk to
but only if the issues come up.
So that's relating to flood zones and extract.
If you want to look at more detail for the southern buffer
our school, requirement for the school.
It's out of the green belt.
I'm just highlighting that the green belt
surrounds Bournend, but the site falls out
of the green belt within the settlement.
That's the existing public rights way,
which the points of access will be maintained,
although they may deviate.
And then I've got some flood zone maps.
And just to highlight, this is the site
of the northern parcel, which we will get to
into your course.
Thank you Faye.
Okay we're now here from ward member Cassiopele Drayton.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:27:18
As explained you have three minutes in which to speak, so over to you.
Thank you Chairman, good morning members.
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:27:29
We acknowledge that this site was allocated for development in 2019 under policy BE2 of
the Wycombe Local Plan.
the Holland's farm development brief was then prepared with both applicants
involved and clearly expressed the preference for a joint master plan our
objection is not to the allocation itself it is whether this application
considered in isolation genuinely delivers the allocation that the council
adopted policy be to and the development brief are specific they require a link
road through the site connecting cause and road roundabout with Ferry Lane
However paragraph 8 .45 of the officers report confirms that without the
route through Jacksonsfield and Princess Road this application would instead
provide a linked Corzend Road via Millboard Road around 400 metres away
from the roundabout. The Highway Authority considers that alternative
acceptable in capacity and safety terms but it raises an important planning
question. If a connexion elsewhere on Corzend Road is considered equivalent
Why does policy be to specifically require a connexion to the roundabout?
That question matters because the transport strategy is changing another significant respect also
The report states that diverted bus route would now allow use of Millboard Road rather than Princess Road as was envisaged when it be
too was prepared
Members are therefore being asked to approve a scheme whose practical transport arrangements
differ materially from the contemplate those contemplated during plan making.
The key question is this does this standalone application truly deliver the
comprehensive development and transport strategy required by policy be to and
the development brief the answer is no. There is also the issue of community
traffic impacts the officers report acknowledges concerns raised by Cook and
Parish Council and notes that the Royal Borough of Windsor and Main Head
requested assessment on impacts of Cook and bridge and the surrounding highway
network yet members have not been presented with a comprehensive cross
boundary assessment of the cumulative traffic effects arising from hundreds of
homes proposed or approved on both sides of the River Thames. Can the committee
therefore be satisfied that community of impacts have been fully assessed and that
the wider transport consequences of this development are properly understood? We
believe not. This is fundamental as it is policy TR 6 and the MPPF adopted August
2026 that cumulative impact must be considered and proposals refused if there is a severe adverse effect
Also relevant is policy tr3 which talks about a vision led approach which is not evident here
I ask the committee to consider all these matters with each individually given policy based reasons for refusal and
Collectively proved a plan is not sound. Thank you
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:30:14
Thank you, Councillor Drayton. Are there any questions for Councillor Drayton?
Councillor Smith. Thank you, Councillor Drayton. I, through
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:30:26
the chair, I just wanted to get a clearer sense of what you were saying about the need
for the link road that presumably would run, was intended to run through the site and the
in front of us seems to suggest that's still possible and the consequences of
additional housing on the transport infrastructure and the the additional
cars and the surrounding area are just trying to trying to understand what your
point was about those issues
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:31:02
thank you chair can I answer them one at a time yeah thank you so the link road
on this application the link load in policy be to was from cause and
roundabout right through to heads the road now cause and roundabout is
accessible through a section of Hollins farm called Jackson's field Jackson's
field is not part of this application it was part of the original policy but as
this application has come through separately it is not part of this and
therefore the link road cannot be fulfilled by this application if
Jackson's field never gets approved a link road can never come to fruition
To make up for this the link road has been amended to go to Millboard Road so that it can be claimed that there's a link
Road through the site, but it is not the link road that was envisaged from the start as one one
Policy and one application now the three three applications here today referred to the two sites
If the two sites had come forward that link road could potentially be fulfilled in one
But they haven't they've come through separately and looking at this application alone
The original link road in the policy cannot be fulfilled
And the point was that the the technical data or all the
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:32:19
Information that you have that suggests that that would have an adverse effect on the surrounding area
What where does that come from? Is there any evidence to back that up?
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:32:29
So when the policy was put in place, the whole intention was to keep traffic off Corzend Road
Because of the it's it's a historical road narrowfoot pass and it was to keep traffic off there
that's in all the original works, but
That will not be fulfilled if it goes down to Millboard Road because the traffic would have to pass through Corzend Road in order to
Get to Millboard Road in order to reach the revised link Road
Okay
and in terms of the
what was it sorry remind me now the second question was sorry I thought that
was all taken in together it was really just about the impact and the traffic
impact of the area okay sorry yes more more specifically on the area my my
issues that I was referring to on the traffic impact is it hasn't been looked
further abroad of the actual site and the immediate junctions but we have
historical grade one
Can't be changed cook and bridge
within
Hundreds of metres of the site and the impact on that has not been proven and not being assessed despite the request from the neighbouring
Borough because it is on the border to the next County
Asking that this was assessed, but it hasn't been brought forward
Okay, so moving on to cancer Jackson Oh then cancer Lisa Townsend the cancer waters
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:33:54
Thank you, Chairman. Through the Chairman, thank you for coming today. I'm always a big fan of hearing from local councillors,
board members. Hypothetically speaking, you obviously know the area well. Which of the two options, or what options would you think would be better for residents
if this if the committee were minded to approve and secondly what extra
conditions would you seek for your residents to make a development more
technically not clarification council but we'll let it arrive for the moment
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:34:28
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:34:32
thank you I can't really answer that question to be honest because the the
Principle of this application going forward as one
doesn't work with policy be to so there isn't a
Preferential outcome from this and it's not for my position to answer that it's just to raise what the issues are
I am very familiar with the area obviously
But with the the problem with this is
This isn't the policy. This is a single application and it isn't fulfilling the policy in itself
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:35:12
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:35:16
over to you council Townsend thank you you specifically mentioned a lack of
data modelling around Cook and bridge why do you think that is so significant to
this application what would you foresee the impact of of the additional traffic
being upon that specific bridge injunction. Thank you and apologies
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:35:40
everyone for my cough, it's that time of year. Kirk and Bridge is restricted,
it's restricted by weight and by capacity, it's actually been proven to be
over capacity already. The pushback when we have argued this point has been...
You have to give us the evidence, Councillor, that's just a speculative statement. So
So you'd have to give us evidence that it's over capacity.
So you're making a statement as if it's a statement of fact,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:36:07
but unless you have the evidence to back it up,
you have to then say, well, it's of my own opinion,
not a statement of fact.
The way you're describing,
you're describing a statement of fact,
but actually you have to have the evidence
because as Councillor Smith rightly asked the question,
where is the evidence?
Okay, I'm happy to provide the evidence,
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:36:23
but I will have to go back for it.
It has been, this has been going on for 10 years
and in previous transport studies that evidence is there.
It is in the files. I'm sure the planning officer will confirm that.
But if you would like me to, I will need to go back and find that. Obviously I haven't got it
off the cuff. I'll go back to the transport officers because they're the paid professionals
who will then confirm whether that is accurate or not accurate. Okay. Okay. Should I continue on
the basis that whether it be my opinion or proven but the point is that we are
of the understanding it is over capacity there is developments on the other side
of the river of hundreds of homes as developments on this side of the river
of hundreds of homes obviously the community of impact of that is huge
there has been a traffic study done by RBWM that has proved that with the two
developments on either side
On their side of the bridge the impact could be seven times more than what it currently is
That is evidential fact, but I haven't got it to hand but I can find it during this meeting
The MPP F adopted in August
2026 says that there has to be a communicative
You have to prove that there isn't going to be significant
bad community
Sorry getting tongue -tied effect. Yes cumulative effects
In the tr6 to be precise
It says development in section for development proposal should be refused if they would have a severe adverse
impact on the traffic traffic transport network in terms of capacity congestion including
cumulative impacts
Or an unacceptable impact on highway safety taking into account any mitigation measures proposed as well in the wider network improvements
Meaning measures to support sustainable patterns of movement this applies both during construction phase and following completion
That is a policy that is in the MPPF and we have not I don't believe the committee members have not been shown
That there is not going to be a severe adverse impact
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:38:46
and
This stage I just want to
clarify with the transport
officers, I assume they have done an assessment and
They found that it is not the case of what the council is saying to us just to make sure
Because what I don't do is we end up down running down a rabbit hole when the office is actually telling say no actually
assessment has been done this is the
In relation to TR 3 and TR 6 because again that was what we were looking at on the previous
Application for the previous meeting again TR 3 and TR 6 came out really strongly again in terms of community effect
I want to cheque with the officers
Has that been done and is that a case of actually? Yes, it's the application is satisfied in terms of TR 3 and TR
6 on the new MPBF, please
And yes, there has been there has been a cumulative assessment done
Mr Charles Power - 0:39:39
taken into account everything that needs to be taken into account.
I mean, are you specifically talking now about Intercocum?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:39:48
Well, because of the change in MPPF in August 26,
and TR3 and TR6 is now in material consideration,
has that also been taken into account?
Because again, you then look at the wider network, if that makes sense.
So unless everyone's coming.
Faye Mesgian - 0:40:06
Well, they haven't it falls into Berkshire Windsor maidenhead they
haven't objected to the application we wouldn't be able to put forward any
mitigation without working with them but they haven't put forward any mitigation
either. No objection from Windsor maidenhead the other side of the river
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:40:23
anyway even though they know they've got the houses coming on their side and
therefore have you done the cumulative assessment as well though?
My question so if you don't keep this assessment anyway in terms of if you add the extra 360 homes on
Has it been a cumulative assessment being done in the highway network?
Mr Charles Power - 0:40:44
You know, I mean I have a note on the buckling for your highway network. Yes, there has been a cumulative assessment
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:40:47
So I've got councillor waters followed by councillor Harris and all and come back to cancer turns in
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:40:58
And Thank You chairman. I'm going to come back to the
the intention of the road that's going to connect all the way through the two sites
basically, though it's one, or should be one site.
Looking at this application, this applicant seems to have the intention in terms of what
they have put within the application, that they have every intention to continue on and
and have that through road, and that is what they would actually put in place.
And later on today, we've got another application of which this is part of it.
So in terms of the intention here, it is to have the road going all the way through.
We might have to see what happens with the two applications afterwards, but they're also
sitting here today.
So they're, in my belief as a committee, though there are two sites, I don't see any
that necessarily that would mean that we won't be able to get get the additional
connectivity through there's nothing at this point saying that that can't happen
but with all sites if you can't if one area isn't developed my assumption would
be you have to you know the housing is is important and so actually you don't
want to be able to lose that if there's an alternative so are you saying that
that there isn't an intention of this developer
to actually carry on with what actually is within
the local plan.
Because to me it looks like the intention of this developer
on this site is to actually carry out
what is actually in the plan.
Excuse me, sorry, thank you.
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:42:44
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is this application
cannot guarantee that can happen.
This application standalone, which is what we are considering right now
either
Cannot fulfil the link road or we are assuming
approval of another application in order to fulfil that which is obviously not something that committee should have the
ability to do
we have we've been through this process where be
Be too was put into place and then the development plan the development plan was worked on by both of the
promoters of the sites
but for our reasons
Which were chosen by them they've put in separate applications
But the development plan and be to cannot be fulfilled through separate applications
So in each of them, they are not fulfilling the policies
so it's not about intention because if there is a
fundamental if if this were to be approved and there was a fundamental issue with the application this afternoon and
Then that developer decided you know, well I had enough of this. Maybe I will just leave it for the days to run around
You then don't have a link road and there is no way that this can can fulfil that link road
Without the other one going through so you're over presumably assuming
approval or accepting that that policy is not fulfilled if you were to approve
this first thank you I'm going to ask some technical questions in terms of
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 0:44:19
particularly conditions that might be able to deal with that when we get to
the officers because technically Link Road could be delivered through Millboard
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:44:30
Road right so the cancer's point is a bit moot at this point going across to
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:44:39
Councillor Harris. Thank you very much. I totally sympathise you. I've only just got my voice back. It's a horrible bug.
The representations regarding traffic, reading the representation made by the Royal
Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, it seems fairly lame compared to what you're
suggesting. Would you not think that they would have put something much more
strong in their suggestions if traffic was as bad as you're suggesting and the
other question is as you know the the residents there what's their reaction to
the possibility of a single -form school
Cllr Penny Drayton - 0:45:17
and I'm not sure I can answer either of those I'm happy to talk about the
single -form school but it isn't something that I mentioned but if the
would like me to I can go into that I think we'll go on to that on technical
questions but the I can't answer on behalf of the Royal Bara Eva I do know
that we've got you know they they have written over the years and asked for
assessments they have questioned you know viability they have got their
reports on their side why they didn't outright object I can't give the answer
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:45:55
that I'm afraid but the fellas no objection that says to me they can't be
that as cancer Harris is rightly questioned because normally I have that
we were made in the past and if they've ejected they fully object right so the
fact no objections just me they're agnostic at best I'm sorry chair but
that's that's making an assumption as well I don't well but the physical
response from rings remain it specifically was no objection right
that's the statement of fact right there was no objection from the wind highways
team at Windsor made net okay so that's where we are in terms of where this
application sits today okay now it's cancer Townsend actually I think my
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 0:46:35
question was relating to the technical points from the offices so I'll save it
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:46:40
okay lovely okay so I think that's all the questions for cancer Drayton we're
now move on to hear from cancer Stewart Wilson the other ward member again you
have three minutes Councillor Wilson and then after that then there may be some
questions from the committee again over to you Councillor Wilson
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:46:55
Thank You chairman and members the real winner if you approve this application
is Buckinghamshire Council it will not only get housing towards its shortfall
it stands to receive millions of pounds that will challenge the economic
viability for developers and the provision of affordable housing in the
future the sang you approved in little Marlow is over four million pounds more
expensive than the sang proposed by the applicant on Ferry Lane a short 10
minute walk from Holland's farm rather than a 10 minute car ride and
Buckinghamshire Council proposes an access fee on top to recoup the 1
million pounds Wickham District Council spent buying the land it also avoids
several hundred thousand pounds in restoration costs it is also totally
reliant on you approving this application to fund the Country Park
designation agreed in January 2025 and approved at cabinet this month the ferry
Lane Sang has been agreed by Natural England. Why has it not been determined?
One wonders. We want the investment to stay close to Holland's farm for
existing and future residents in our community. Make the section 106
conditional upon Ferry Lane Sang, not Little Marlowe. Buckinghamshire Council
has also contrived to receive over two million pounds in education funding from
development in Bournend and Woburn, as well as land for a single form entry
primary school we do not need. All three of the local primary schools have plenty
of capacity to absorb the development. The outdated 2023 submission from the
education team includes three schools from much further afield to justify its
numbers. Clayton's the catchment school locally has recently reduced from 45 to
30 students and could comfortably add an additional single form. We do not wish to
put our existing primary schools in jeopardy as is happening in little Marlow
Marlowe in recent years. Nor do we wish affordable housing to be threatened due to economic viability
because of outdated inaccurate school capacity forecasts. Demand to see updated 2026 numbers
based on the three local primary schools only. On active travel this application completely ignores
policy TR9 in the new emerging Buckinghamshire local plan, the disused railway line linking
Bournen to Wubben. TR9 states that any development within 800 metres must make financial contributions.
this is well within 400 metres by foot. This is the most active travel initiative in our community.
It is referenced in the Wickham local plan. It's been much discussed in our community board for
years. It's in the LC WIP. It's in the new local plan. This is not new. If the transport strategy
can be changed, why is this not included here? There is 108 ,000 pound funding from Slate Meadow
in the pot. We want equivalent funding per dwelling from Holland's Farm. Please ask the
questions. If we must have the development we want the benefits staying
in the community. Bourn End is not here to subsidise Buckinghamshire Council.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:49:48
Bourn End is clearly in Buckinghamshire is it not?
Councillor Jackson and Councillor Smith to start with. Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:50:00
Councillor you talked about schools and you question whether it's needed. Now my
My understanding is the local plan requires it,
the previous one, the council infrastructure
identified the need and the educational authority
does not object.
So what figures are you relying on
and are you essentially asking us to set aside
what the local plan or what the authorities are saying?
I'd like to have more clarification on that.
You also talked about schools nearby having capacity.
What schools, how many places and how long more?
Thank you.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:50:33
Thank you, it's an excellent question, Councillor, thank you.
So the Wickham local plan obviously was put together in the late 2010s, it was adopted
in 2019.
And the evidence that submitted that is on the planning portal for this application is
dated 2023.
We met with the education team back then, we discussed how these numbers were compiled.
It not only takes the three local primary schools, which is Clayton's, St Paul's and
Woburn Green Primary School, but also includes other primary schools in Flacke or Heath and
Loudwater to make the numbers.
If you were to take the three local primary schools, which are the catchment for this
development, they would be way below capacity.
As I said in my speech, Clayton's has reduced from 45 to 30 in terms of its intake.
So that is the equivalent of a single form entry primary intake.
We've been green is operating at 67 % capacity
So those are the facts
Because we've been asked to present evidence of the three primary schools already in catchment what I don't want to see
Little Marlowe primary school is just closing down. St. Peter's in Marlowe is closing down
I don't want to put our local three local primary schools in jeopardy
because there is a historic planning requirement from a local plan that was adopted in 2019.
We've heard how we're about to hear how the transport strategy can be changed because there's
new evidence. The evidence you have in front of you, the evidence that's on the planning portal
from the education team is 2023. You have to make your decision on that. If they're producing new
evidence now, you don't have that. That's not on the planning portal. So you can
only make a decision on the evidence that's on the planning portal and that
was 2023. We haven't been presented with new evidence for 2026. What we have done
and what we regularly do is speak to all the head teachers in those primary
schools. So we have a very clear idea of what the current status is. The source
for that evidence by the way is infant registrations at the GP surgery and it
only looks at a five -year projection. What's wrong with using ONS? Oh by the
way yeah we've remembered how productivity data is going on ONS but
anyway it's you know there are better longer -term sources to make strategic
Cllr Jackson Ng - 0:53:12
decisions like a new primary school. Just a follow -up, do you think that when
High Wycombe or Wycombe District Council did the local plan it also took into
consideration potentially children coming from outside of the district for
example across from Cookham and is your assumption based on no students coming
across from the Adebara? I think has been pointed out there is clearly a wall
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:53:35
between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire at Cookham Bridge because that's their side
this is our side so no it does not anticipate children coming from
Berkshire, but it's a very good point that cumulative impact assessments are as important
in education as they are, but children don't come from Berkshire into Buckinghamshire.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:53:56
I think at this point I'm going to ask the Education Officer to give some clarity on
that because I know when we look at Borlae School in Marlowe they do clearly come from
Cookham and all around surrounding areas. So yeah, I'll let you just explain where we
are in terms of the actual facts.
Mr Stephen Chainani - 0:54:16
So a lot of questions. Do you want me to take you through the whole issues in terms of where
we are now in terms of places or just about the movement, cross -border movement, is that
what we're...
I think to me it was places initially and then cross -border movement is secondary, but
I think where we are now because the first thing that Councillor Wilson pointed out was
he said it's not physically needed full stop.
It's not what, sorry?
He said that the new primary school would not be required because there was not sufficient
pupils in the area even when you include the new pupils from this development and the potential
next one later on there would still not be enough pupils to fill the existing schools let alone
for the new one was his first point. Yes thank you. I mean if you look at the chart at the moment
based on the current projections it does show that there's about five percent surplus capacity
for September 25.
There are some years where the numbers do fluctuate,
as you can see from the chart for September 26
was a particularly low birth year.
But the numbers are within, in terms of the capacity,
I appreciate there are some schools
where you might have 5 % surplus capacity,
which is the target we require to allow for us
to manage the system.
However, sometimes those places can be concentrated
at maybe one or two schools such as possibly at Clayton's
and it then becomes a struggle.
So I think we've said that in terms of the school site
we want to reserve the school site
but our preference would be to expand a school
outside the area and therefore we want to include
some flexibility within the plan to allow us to do that,
subject to consultation.
So, and that's in line with DFE guidance,
where they say that you basically, you should plan for,
you know, plan for a situation where you might not be able
to expand the existing Clayton School,
because it's subject to consultation,
it's subject to planning, and therefore,
or you have to have a reserve site if there's an alternative.
In terms of movement, there is some movement,
and I accept that in Marlowe, recently,
two small schools closed.
There is some movement from Clayton's
or from that catching area to Marlowe,
which may now then be pushed back into Clayton's.
And I think that's it really. Thank you
Okay in terms of those numbers
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:57:01
These numbers projections ours is pre the planning application in front of us. I guess so you don't included these those numbers
So with that those numbers are without that's as as if today without any additional housing go forward
Any those numbers are without any additional housing
Mr Stephen Chainani - 0:57:18
Just saying just looking at total numbers of housing planned in the area is about 600 homes
which equates to about just under one form of entry terms of pupil demand
which will be difficult to do without providing some additional
capacity and the one form entry school as a reserve school site it would enable
us to provide us the confidence to be able to make sure that there's
sufficient capacity in the area to meet demand. And that's where I was coming
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:57:54
from was the chart you show now is where we are today without the 600 homes because just
to remind members there is an additional site called Slate Meadow that's already been approved
for I think 150 houses or thereabouts and then if you add these in together there's
about 600 houses additional to where we are today. So this is where we are today, this
chart, not when you've, this is pre the houses being approved and or built. So therefore
you then would then breach the capacity levels which is why that's why it's been, the education
team specifically have asked for it to be clean included within the reserve piece of
the application. Okay so that was Councillor Jackson I think you've done your point yeah
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:58:34
and over to Councillor Smith. Thank you chair and thank you Councillor Wilson I was really
very interested in what you had to say about the sang and the contribution that the site
will make and having walked the site and seen the I suppose the concern really about the
lack of a wildlife corridor between the green spaces to the north and then the areas to
the south of Ferry Lane. I wonder if you could explain a little bit more about what you meant
by the lack or the inability of this site to be able to contribute to sang money to
something that is a bit more local and a bit more connected to this proposed development.
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 0:59:16
Thank you, Councillor Smith. I wasn't talking about the site being able to not being able
to contribute. It doesn't need to. It's part of the policy. There are two alternative sangs
available. There is the sang at Spade Oak, little Marlowe, which came before this committee
not so long ago and has been approved. That has a that's a Buckinghamshire Council site
and that has a total cost of over six million pounds to deliver it plus
potentially an access fee there is an alternative sang site proposed by the
applicant at Ferry Lane so just before you get to Cook and bridge that is
within the applicants control it cost the appropriate assessment for that sang
which obviously remains within our ward is less than two million pounds it's
within our ward, it's within walkable distance of Hollands Farm, it's far more
likely to be used by future residents of Hollands Farm, given that remember this
is to offset impact on Burnham Beach, a special area of conservation. And my
concern having sat where you're sitting is if there are excessive amounts of
money put against this for the future developers, because obviously the
as a promoter, we start to see challenges of economic viability and deliver of affordable
housing, which is what we really need on the development.
So when you've got potentially a cost of say 4 million or 5 million pounds premium to access
the sang at Spade Oak versus an alternative sang that is available within the applicant's
gift at Ferry Lane, doesn't that start to raise some questions in terms of future -proofing
the economic viability of this site and keeping SANG investment within walking distance of
the development for which it's intended to offset?
Whereas the SANG at Spad Oak, you have to get in a car and drive 10 minutes, doesn't
seem to make any sense for what we're trying to achieve here?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:01:31
So I'm going to go a bit technical on you, Councillor Wilson.
Technically, the only sang that's been approved
is the one at Spadoke as of today.
So one of the key points was we have
to have a sang of some shape or form within the vicinity.
And that happens to be Spadoke as it is today.
There may well be a proposal coming forward.
Hasn't gone through the planning process yet,
so it may or may not be approved or whatever.
The key bit for our committee was is there a sang available that could then support this application?
because that's part of the overall planning process so I
Hear what cancer Wilson says but as of today the only
Opportunity option available to us the committee is the existing one at Spade Oak
But it is physically available has been approved and is is a suitable saying if that makes sense
Whereas the proposal my developer?
Hasn't come through hasn't been processed hasn't been determined
So it may be in future times that may be an opportunity, but we don't have that opportunity as of today
But the key bit was that there is a saying available
So hopefully gives that bit of clarification because like
Council Wilson, I've actually lived this application for the last 10 to 15 years plus
Okay, right. So that was cancer Smith cancer Townsend
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:02:55
Thank you. You mentioned that you have regular communications with the head teachers in your
ward. What is their view on the need of an additional single form entry primary school?
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 1:03:08
Thank you. Obviously the catchment school Clayton's has reduced its number of children from 45 to 30
last year due to annual falling numbers it does have the ability to move that
number back up it also has the ability to expand on site so in contact with the
headteacher of Clayton's they said the last thing they need is a new single
form entry primary school appearing in the area because they already have the
capacity to expand back upwards. I am quite disturbed when I hear the Education
Officer saying that they see this as being an opportunity for development
outside of the area and potentially jeopardising our area. So that does that
does concern me based on what's happening in the not too far away
villages and towns in terms of pressure.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:04:08
I can't say I want to clarify with that. I don't think that's actually what the
Mr Stephen Chainani - 1:04:16
question officer actually said but I'll let him speak for himself. Yes, thank you.
We have had a discussion with Clayton school and they are open to
expansion but it comes back to the point is that expansion is never guaranteed in
terms of going back up and they want to expand to a two -form entry school
because they don't know school likes a new school on their doorstep effectively.
In terms of the catchment area for the development, I mean it lies right on the boundary of this
development of this catchment area and effectively is within close walking distance so it's not from
outside the area. As I said having a single form entry school relatively close to St Paul's
I acknowledge it's not an ideal situation.
I think we've always said that,
and our preference would be to expand Clayton School
if we could do, and we want to support all the schools,
and we want to make sure all the schools in the areas
remain viable, but we have to respond to this development.
I mean, we're looking at a significant number of homes
in this area, and we have to make sure
that we can meet our statutory duty
in terms of providing places for those children
in that area.
So it's not we're not saying you know this is a certain things but in terms of
DFE guidance it says that you need to give yourself confidence in terms of
making sure you can meet your duty and ask for what the maximum requirement is
that you need but then provide some flexibility if there is a change in the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:05:54
circumstances. So is what I thought you said was it relates to supporting the
this application the next applications later on and the previous one from
better. It's not about outside the area. It's about the 600 homes that we've potentially
going to be approving in effect.
OK. Fantastic. Thank you for that clarification.
OK. So I think that's all the questions for Councillor Wilson. We'll now move on to Councillor
— hear from Councillor Tim Bingham, who represents Woburn and Bourn in Parrish. And
again, you'll have three minutes in which to speak. And obviously, the way the traffic
system works it goes green amber is 30 seconds to go and ready is then when the
Public Speaker - 1:06:37
three minutes is up to you thank you mr. chairman good morning members parish
council before I started I did want to just mention that in regard to this
development when it was first proposed the we work with both the developers and
and Buckinghamshire Council in the development brief.
And we understand that during that process,
there was a statement of common ground
established between the two developers
that they would bring forward
a single planning application to deliver the policy.
Now, one of our concerns is that the policy
will not be delivered in respect of the link road.
KSP have, the developer for this application,
have fulfilled their part of it, but it does depend on the Jackson Field development completing
the link road, and you'll get to that, those applications in this session. However, we
have concerns looking at those applications that the intent is not to meet the policy.
The main concerns we have over this particular application is to do with the site access.
So you have two key points, Hedsel Road leading into Ferry Lane and Millboard Road leading
into Corzend Road.
Corzend Road, as Councillor Drayton mentioned, is a very narrow road.
So if you remove the Link Road from joining at Corse End Road,
then you do put additional pressure on traffic down
Corse End Road and pedestrians who actually do put their lives
at risk walking along the pavements,
because they are literally shoulders width on either side.
The key point about access on Mill Ward Road into Corse End
Road is actually the right turn from Corse End Road
into Mill Ward Road and the highways letter of the 4th of September which sets out a sort
of analysis of the transport assessment that accompanies these applications indicated essentially
that Atkins had validated the data but they hadn't actually talked about things that they
felt were missing from the analysis and one of the things that is missing is data about
the right turn. That is quite a narrow road leading into a slightly wider area where the
right turn is. But if you look at the traffic data for peak times actually coming out of
Millboard Road, they talk about queues of up to 10 cars. Ten cars peak times turning
right are going to take traffic into right the way up to Furlong Road and will create,
I think safety issues and none of that is actually been reviewed or analysed as far
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:09:43
as we can. That's time. That's time I'm afraid. That was it. That was your three
minutes. I know it goes very quickly. I know it goes very quickly but that was
that was your three minutes. Okay were there any questions from the committee for
Councillor Binnum? Okay, got with Councillor Townsend first followed by Councillor Smith.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:10:01
He mentioned concerns with the two site access points, Millboard Road and Hedsor Road. What
were the concerns in relation to Hedsor?
Public Speaker - 1:10:13
It's again the right turn of Ferry Lane into Hedsor Road. That's a very difficult junction.
It has a sort of a curve on it in which there are frequent accidents. So we probably have
accident a month there. Now, the data isn't there for the police because these haven't
resulted in things like fatalities. But the, that, it is a dangerous junction and there
doesn't appear to be any proper mitigations associated with this. And that's what I think
we'd like to see if the committee is minded to approve this application, that rather than
leave these things for matters reserved, that there are explicit mitigations that are conditional
on the application.
Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:11:02
Thank You chair
and I was interested in in your comments about Millbarge Road and the
difficulty of access. When we were there the other day
I did notice there was quite a lot of HGV traffic going to the industrial units there. So presumably is quite
accessible for larger vehicles.
What I was wondering is I also noticed that it looks like it's a private road.
Do you have any issues or concerns about whether this in fact could be opened up as a public
throughway from your parish council perspective?
So yes, there are quite a lot of concerns about that.
Public Speaker - 1:11:41
First of all, Millboard Road was originally built to serve the industrial unit, so yes,
there are always a lot of HGV movements on there.
So, if it becomes an access road for residential use, then you also have the concern about
children that may be attending the school if it is actually built, because they won't
come just from Holland's Farm.
So you have, I think, a lot of issues in regard to the potential for traffic movements.
And those sort of safety safety issues don't appear to be properly reviewed in the transport assessment that accompanied
this application
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:12:38
And I'll say just come back on that
Thank you.
Tim Thurley - 1:12:47
Yeah, I mean, the junctions that you're referring to, the Ferry Lane Junction with
Hedsor Road and the Millbore Road Junction with Corzend Road, it's all been subject
to quite extensive traffic modelling.
You know, the applicant carried out some modelling initially.
We weren't, or the council wasn't satisfied with that, so they developed their own micro -simulation
modelling which has been audited by Atkins on behalf of the council you know
it's all and to support that modelling there's been detailed junction models of
the specific junctions as well and as a result of that you know we've had we've
determined that there's there's no there's no severe impact any of those
junctions any queuing for right -turn traffic is all been deemed to be you
acceptable limits in terms of the ferry lane junction and heads of our junction
the formula junction is is proposed to change so that moment it's got the
bifurcated layout which you know we appreciate isn't isn't the best layout
for that sort of junction so we have developed along the applicant has
developed along with us a change in the formula junction so it will be a simple
priority junction with a right turn facility to accommodate the right turn
in traffic from Ferry Lane into head to Road and there's also going to be an
increase in the flare of the heads of Road approach to that junction so this
is all to accommodate the additional traffic that's going to use it and it's
all been shown to work satisfactory I'm afraid you've had your three minutes I'm
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:14:29
Tim Thurley - 1:14:35
Fray Council being okay so yes yeah so gang you know Millboard Road is adequate
in terms of its its width and its ability to accommodate the traffic
associated with the site and that has a gang being subject to to assessment
through through the micro simulation modelling so we are we are satisfied
everything has all has been been assessed to to the required standards
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:15:00
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:15:02
cast out and cancer Bingham have you have you seen the drawings referred to
Public Speaker - 1:15:08
with the mitigation measures and did you have any thoughts on them yes they're
part of the assessment but I think the issue here is that this application is
to be determined with all matters reserved.
And these are actually critical points.
And there are safety issues related to them
if they're not handled correctly.
So I think they should be an explicit part of the application
consent.
Thank you.
and the
right
and that'd be why I want to see
what sections again sections 88 and I want to see. Okay. So to
give clarity to both the members the
residents listening and watching those sorts of improvements that
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:05
we've just articulated will be part of the section 1 0 6
agreement. So it's a legally binding agreement that would
basically say unless you produce these
improvements and mitigations in advance of the actual application coming forward, you
know, basically would permission with them if you don't complete your 106 agreement and
do your obligations, then you end up with a refusal, if that makes sense. So without
those, the 106 is a stronger mechanism for us to use to make sure the developers do what
we've asked them to do rather than just be in terms of a condition and are informative.
because what we've learned very rapidly with this committee is that the 106 actually is
a legally binding piece that the developers have to deliver and if they don't deliver
they then get things refused.
Okay, so moving on to kind of straighten, I'm going to ask a bit of a question, could
you just move across to the bit because obviously you're going away, you're now moving from
being the ward member to being an objector, speaking on behalf of Keep Bournen Green,
So therefore, and again, what I talked about with you previously and maybe Theresa explained a bit more,
is this must be your personal view, not your ward member view, does that make sense?
Theresa.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 1:17:22
So in your previous three minutes you were speaking in your capacity as the ward member,
and so the points therein were points that have been raised by your constituents,
whereas this next slot that you're going to be speaking in you're speaking in
your capacity as a private resident and so the points that will be raised in the
three minutes coming up are to be your own personal points that you raised
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:17:52
hopefully that gives clarity to the members of the committee because
normally you wouldn't normally have a wall member speaking and then speaking
always there's an objective, even if we have just one member and or objector, it wouldn't be both.
Public Speaker - 1:18:08
So if you're ready Councillor Drayton, if you would like to speak on behalf of Keep Born
End Green. Do you have three minutes? When you're okay. Thank you, good morning again everyone.
I'm speaking on behalf of and as founder of Keep Born End Green, a community group established
more than 10 years ago when development of Hollands Farm first proposed.
Keep Bill 9 Green actually has a mandate of over 3 ,000 residents to speak on their
behalf. At that time the site was entirely within Greenbelt before being
downgraded from it by the council in order to allocate it for housing.
Whilst that battle has long since been lost the concerns we raised
about traffic, infrastructure and community impact have not gone away.
If anything they've become even more relevant as development pressure across
the area continues to grow. Committee has already heard about traffic concerns. I'd
just like to question the evidence of a community of effects transport report, which has apparently
been done and wonder if the committee have seen this as we haven't. It is Bucks responsibility
to do it regardless of an official RBWM objection or not. Does it prove, can it be proved to
comply with the MPPF policies otherwise? There's an absence of any true requirement for a primary
school the fact that Clayton's primary school shrunk in size and can expand
overnight with existing classrooms by another 15 places and has scope to
expand by another 15 if required creates the equivalent of a single form entry
before other schools who also have capacity locally are even looked at. This
application is severely flawed whilst the school is included. Keep Borneen
Green has always been about people and community not just today's residents but
future residents too. If this site is to be delivered it must be the very best
outcome it can be for everyone. It needs to be acceptable not only in planning
terms but in practical terms for the villages that will live with its
consequences for generations. The impact of development of this scale should be
minimised wherever possible. Infrastructure needed to support it
should be secured up from the outset. Being an allocated site does not remove
the committee's responsibility to scrutinise whether this application
genuinely delivers infrastructure safeguards and community benefits that
residents need. Approval of this application would have a profound and
lasting impact on Bournend, Woburn, Head, Sir Cookham and all neighbouring
communities. We do not believe the proposal that's before you today
provides sufficient certainty that those impacts have been adequately addressed.
We ask members to seek stronger guarantees before granting permission.
Too often insufficient detail outline stages lead to disappointing outcomes
when reserve matters come forward. Once permission is granted much of the
you to proceed with caution, defer this decision until a proposal comes forward
that is truly best outcome for both existing and future residents and not
simply the quickest route to delivery. Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:21:00
Okay any questions for Miss Drayton? Sorry because you're in your
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:21:09
perfect capacity at this point. Sorry. Okay Councillor Townsend. Thank you.
You mentioned wanting to see stronger guarantees surrounding this development.
What are the stronger guarantees that you as a resident would like to see?
Public Speaker - 1:21:25
Well, I guess it partly comes to the points which have been raised earlier with the fact that this application
does not guarantee many of the things in policy like a link road and what we need is for the policy to be adhered to
Where it is important where it does bring the benefits to the community if there is leniency with the policy
Then why is it being chosen which things can be worked around what like over the years?
Obviously this has been going on for years and things have been mitigated things being pushed back things have been turned around to make
It suit for the planning application
The residents are going to suffer immeasurably by this application and therefore we just want to get the best outcome we can for them
But that is for the committee to sort of secure where we can go with that
Okay
Don't see any more questions for miss Drayton
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:22:22
so therefore we would then move to
David Morris of
Caspi estates who is the applicant stroke agent?
and again, you'll have three minutes in which to
Speak and again
there may be questions or clarification. So once the time starts you will have three minutes.
Public Speaker - 1:22:47
Thank you. Thank you chair and members of the committee for this opportunity to address you.
My name is David Morris, Planning and Operations Director for Catesby Estates, the joint applicant.
The proposals before you are the culmination of a long and thorough planning process.
The site was removed from the green belt in 2019 following examination of the local plan,
a decision subsequently endorsed by the High Court.
A development brief followed in 2021,
which was informed by significant engagement
with the parish council, local groups,
and other stakeholders,
alongside a comprehensive public consultation
before the application was submitted.
That process has helped shape and refine the scheme now
before the committee.
Since its submission more than five years ago,
the application has been subject
to extensive technical assessment and scrutiny.
The resulting scheme will deliver substantial benefits including the provision of 173 affordable homes,
which is much needed in an area where local average house prices are over £600 ,000,
and over 3 ,500 people are on the housing waiting list.
Around 41 % of the site is given over to green infrastructure,
within which a range of new public open spaces can be provided.
This amounts to 20 acres, which is significantly in excess of the 9 .8 acres required by policy DM16.
The high quality open spaces, footpath routes, play areas will be accessible to both new and existing local residents.
Two new sports pitches will be provided for use by the community, with the possibility of a third being provided should the new school be constructed.
Financial contributions will also be paid towards enhancement of bus services serving Bournend and the site, which again is a benefit to both new and existing residents.
Improved pedestrian connexions will be provided to include widening of existing footpaths that will benefit both new and existing residents.
The application has been subject to detailed and extensive highways modelling, which has been thoroughly tested and reviewed by both officers of the Council and the Council's consultants.
This was done over a long period of time, involving numerous meetings, scenario testing
and the production of an environmental impact assessment to ensure that this data was properly
assessed.
This response from your officers as a result of that is thorough and offers a compelling
case as to why the site is acceptable in Highways Impact Terms.
In summary, what we have before you today is a development on an allocated site that
has been extensively tested over a number of years.
it will create a high quality and sustainable residential development set within 20 acres of green infrastructure and
New public open spaces all within easy walking distance of the centre of born end
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:25:25
I would respectfully ask you to follow your officers recommendation and grant planning permission. Thank you for your time
Thank you, mr. Ross are there any questions Oh flurry of hands now, okay
So we start from left to right. So we've got
So we're going to write this down.
So we've got Councillor Roberts, Councillor Gibbon,
Councillor Townsend, Councillor Hussain.
And then we go around the other side.
I've then got Councillor Waters and Councillor Smith.
OK, so we've.
Councillor Munger.
Oh, sorry, Councillor Munger.
Sorry, Councillor Munger.
Munger there.
OK, yeah, Munger there.
OK, right.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:26:08
so council what's your first so probably quite a quick question on the school
provision so if I've read it correctly you're providing land for a school in
your application and a financial contribution towards a school you're not
building the school that's correct yes okay
Thank you.
Councillor Munger.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:26:35
Thank you, Chair.
There's been a number of references you'll have heard this morning, Mr. Morris, to the
deliverability or not of the link road and its dependence on a subsequent application
from a different developer.
Can you tell me what levels of agreement your company has with the development agreements
that Catesby have with the applicant in respect of the other site that we have yet to discuss?
Yes, of course.
Public Speaker - 1:27:22
We don't have a formal contractual arrangement with the adjacent landowner.
What we have done is worked with them as a result of the statement of common ground
that was signed back in the day with the development brief that stated we agreed to work together.
We've obviously got the separate applications.
What we've done, we've used joint consultants and instructed the Environmental Impact Assessment
as a joint piece of work together and work together throughout the whole process. We've
also got the same solicitor acting on section 106s to make sure that they tie together and
knit together and of course what we've all been doing is working together with your officers
to ensure that the two schemes and particularly the requirements in the 106 to connect the
link row to the boundary marry up with each other both in terms of urban design principles,
in terms of where it will physically go but also legally that it's tied to occupations
within the schemes to ensure that when the schemes come forward that the link rows can
be built to the boundary as per the obligation set out in the report.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:28:31
So just to clarify then, do those agreements include a legal agreement between each company
to permit access through their site to complete that role?
Public Speaker - 1:28:45
No they are standalone Section 106 agreements for each application and what there will be
in there will be an obligation for each party to build the road to the link to the boundary
of their site tied to occupations within the scheme to ensure that the road can then be
knitted together effectively.
Okay, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a through road though.
Well, I mean obviously...
Two separate roads, that's how you've just described it, it's two separate roads.
It's two separate loads that obviously have to link together because that's the section
where six of obligations will be required to do. So if one party comes before the other
and the road is construction to the boundary,
the other party through control of the council
through reserve matters and the 106 will be obligated
to build the road to the boundary that's already there
to ensure that that connexion is made.
Okay.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:29:33
Okay, so then got Councillor Gibbon.
Thank you, Chairman.
I've got a question about Princes Road,
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:29:42
which apparently is going to be,
I think that's the wrong application, isn't it?
I do have a question for you, though.
Sorry about that.
That's all right.
No problem.
So you've got 48 % affordable housing.
Is that a fixed value or could that alter due to viability?
Public Speaker - 1:30:07
48 % is obviously the policy requirement.
That's what we're delivering.
that's what will be secured in the sexual one of six agreement.
We haven't raised any viability arguments.
In terms of interest in the site,
we've got quite strong developer interest in the site
and we don't have any reason to believe that that would be changed
post purchase of the site and post development of the site, no.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:30:33
OK, we now to Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:30:36
Thank you. We know from the conversations this morning
there's a question mark over the school and whether it's needed and you know
your words were if the school is built. My question is what if the school
isn't built? What happens to that parcel of land then? To my mind this the school
is integral to this planning application. Presumably the transport modelling is
based on there being a school there. All the other data takes into account the
the presence of a school.
How, what happens if the school isn't built?
Would you have to then resubmit this application?
How does it hang together without the school?
Thank you, yeah, thank you for that question.
Public Speaker - 1:31:18
I mean, officers can obviously elaborate,
but in effect, the land will be transferred
to the Education Authority, being yourselves,
as a service site.
And then the contributions are obviously paid in due course
in conjunction with occupations of the development.
and then should the Education Authority not wish to proceed with a school, the
land will be given back to the owners of the development and within that as
outlined in the committee report part of that site would then be marketed for
potential doctor surgery throughout the Medical Centre should that be required
but in any event that would revert back to the ownership of the owner at that
point and then that owner if they wanted to do something else with it such as
apply for additional housing, they would need to submit a separate planning application
at that point for a change of use effectively for residential or whatever use would come
forward. That obviously then would be a separate application that would be determined by yourselves.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:32:14
Is there any legal agreement in place as to what currently what that land would be used
for? I mean, reverting back that's in the section 106 is it?
Public Speaker - 1:32:25
Yeah, so that would be in the section 106, yes. So that would be transferred to the council
for them to use for education purposes only and in the event that they chose
not to do that it would revert back then to the ownership of the of the owner at
that time. And then what impact does that have on the rest of the development? In
terms of what? In terms of the scheme coming forward? Well I suppose all your
assumptions are based upon there being a school there. Yeah I mean the scheme has
been designed obviously in terms of where the school location is that the
scheme can come forward around the school land. It was never really anticipated that
the school and the land would come forward very quickly because schools never do. It
takes time obviously to get reserve matters applications for a school etc and things like
that which is factored in. But ultimately in terms of that, that's quite a standard
position to be in in many ways because at the point in time that the Education Authority
decides to call on the school that's obviously when the Education Authority decides that
the land is needed and a school is required up until then we've got to work
on the basis that it may or may not be.
Thank you. Over to Councillor Hussain. Thank you Mr Chairman. I think my question is answered but I just want to say
Cllr Mahboob Hussain JP - 1:33:39
another point I think we had a lot of discussion and a lot of concern we raised by the
councillors here. I just wonder if there's anything you think you can do or
improve more to convince the councillors and the community around the area?
Public Speaker - 1:33:54
Well I am a town planner not a salesman so apologies if my sales skills are not
up to to scratch. I think the one thing I would say is this scheme has gone
through a lot of examination and detailed testing over a long period of
time. We obviously have a lot of sites around the country and this has gone
through a local plan examination, it's gone through a high court process, it's gone through
an application that's been tested for five years, it's gone through separate highways
modelling which wasn't needed to start with, and obviously it's got an additional access
point now via Millbod Road that wasn't envisaged at the start. So in that sense the only thing
I can do obviously as the applicant is say genuinely that this site has probably been
tested more than most if not all of them in our portfolio that we've got at the
moment to come from to bring this scheme to committee today. I think the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:34:52
applicants being generous with us I think this has been tested and tested
and tested and we have an application in front of us which does actually for
once provide for education does provide for doctor surgery does provide yeah so
well in terms of what else cancer this is what we have in front of us today
that's what we have to decide is it does it does it does it meet with the
relevant policies and does do we want to take it forward okay so now I've got
Councillor Waters and Councillor Smith I don't think that's where the mouse on the
other side next to Councillor Jackson or anything but go to Councillor Waters next
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 1:35:32
Thank You chairman I'm gonna ask a quick question about the sign and it was
raised earlier that though Spadoke will fulfil the needs in terms of local plan
that your preference would have been Ferry Lane but obviously that's not
available now is that a correct statement that would have been your
Public Speaker - 1:35:56
preference to views Ferry Lane? I'm assuming I can answer that's not in my
speech but if the chair is I think I'm happy to answer that on that basis
Obviously, yes, we have the Little Marlour Country Lake Sang, that is the policy, that
site is allocated as the sang for this scheme. That is the one we're progressing with both
officers of the council from various departments and that is the one that is before you today.
I think it's safe to say we obviously have been frustrated at the slow progress of that
site in getting a planning consent because obviously that took a while because originally
it didn't need a planning consent, then it did.
And then it was obviously taking a while to get resolved.
And we are where we are here today.
And in the interim, we did submit an application
on obviously land over the road at Ferry Lane
because at that point, to be honest,
we didn't know whether or not
the little Marlowe country like Sang
would get a planning consent or not.
We couldn't rely on that.
So therefore we needed to submit that
to have that as a fallback position, I suppose.
In terms of what's before you today,
the officers of the council and the legal team were pretty clear that it could only be one sang that would be before you today
And that's the same that has planning permission
Ferry Lane application we know natural England haven't objected that
Application has probably taken as fair as the case officer that as well
That's probably taken a little bit of a backseat in terms of workload over the last two or three weeks because of the effort to
Get these to committee
But obviously that's a live application, but it's not as the chair alluded to it's not before you today
At the moment our preferences for little Marlowe Country Lake sang that's the one before you that's the one we want to take forward
Obviously we do need to get a formal agreement and an access agreement and licence agreements with the council
So I'm saying that subject to obviously getting those agreements in place
Thank you for your clarification
So I've got the cancer Smith followed by cancer Jackson
Thank you, thank you chair and some I
I wonder if you could help me.
We had a site visit and I noticed the site is absolutely dry as a bone.
It's like concrete, the ground, isn't it?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:38:08
But it's clearly in a flood zone and a lot of the conditions will be around managing
flood water.
Given that there is playing fields, what consideration have you given as a developer to collecting
flood water so that some of the maintenance and the management of this site, and particularly
the very thirsty football fields or playing fields can be can be used with captured rainwater
rather than drawing even more water from an area that already suffers with low water pressure?
Public Speaker - 1:38:48
I'm probably not the right person to answer that question to be honest because I'm not a technical
expert nor am I obviously a flooding consultant. The areas of flood are actually off the site as
shown on the plan. To help both you and the applicant we put them on the screen
as you can clearly see the actual site is not in the flood zone either two or
three so I know it looks like dry as a bone but to help the applicant and
yourself to give clarity the application site is not in the flood zone. There's
nobody some additional surface water bits so it's the next one we just to
show you but there's little tiny pockets that can I think the officers have dealt
with through the suds programme if that makes sense so I think it is for a lot
of the applications you've seen recently it's one of the least flooded zones that
we've ever seen you look at all the ones you looked at in Ayresbury in Buckingham
and rarefware far more flood zones and far more surface water issues than this
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:39:47
one is this one before us today thank you for the clarification chair but a
but my point maybe was not terribly well made but it was about collecting the
water from the increasingly wet winters that we're having to be able to use in
the increasingly dry summers particularly when we have a very thirsty
kind of playing fields that we tend to use just treated water for.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:40:10
I'm just terrified with the officers. Rainwater harvesting would be one of those reserve matters
rather than an outline matter.
So that's why it's not talked about
on this application particularly,
but obviously the applicant's with us
and will have heard that the expectation from the council,
if it does get approved,
that they would be looking to do the rainwater harvesting
in a much more proactive way
than currently happens in most places.
Okay.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:40:39
So to confirm then,
that this stage is not possible
to have a condition on rainwater harvesting,
even with sports fields provision outlined.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:40:50
Because that's in effect the operational piece of it. We're talking
about the principles today on an outline application not the details of how they
would actually work in operation. Okay so I've then got Councillor Jackson -Lung.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 1:41:06
Over to you. Thank you Chairman. I'm not sure whether this is a question for the
the applicant or the technical question,
but maybe the applicant can shed some light on it as well,
is that my understanding is Spadoke is council land
in Little Marloy, about two miles, a mile and a half west,
closer than Burnham Beaches.
Now the appropriate assessment depends on it
being actually open, being in use,
not merely permitted.
Now if these works slip at Spadoke,
I mean, question to applicant is,
will they accept a ban on the occupation on this site?
Or are they asking that the section 106 deed
allows them to occupy some other sang
or proceed on payment only?
I think that's a technical question, Councillor.
I think I know the answer,
but I'll let the officers obviously give the answers.
I'll let Faye, the officer,
explain what happens in reality.
So that we have assurances that the sang
Faye Mesgian - 1:42:07
will be up and running before the development comes forward the section
106 requires payment prior to commencement and then completion prior
to occupation of the same that's right so we won't be looking for substitute
saying thank you okay so I've got so that's Townsend you would have a
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:42:33
I'm going to ask a question.
I'll go to Councillor Gaughan
first.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:42:36
I'll be generous and let you
have a second question.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:42:38
That's very kind.
I've been extremely quiet today.
I'd like to ask a question.
It might be technical actually,
Chairman.
The gentleman is saying about
could be technical because we're not discussing nursery school or Shore Start
where it's like a old Shore Start Centre which is education so doesn't that come
under that same remit of what that plot of land could be used for because you're
being specific of school well an education well that is part of the
education system so it doesn't have to be a primary school or second school it
could be a short start some of you know short start centres or or nursing and
that is being promoted within council at this present time. So land uses education in its
broadest terms which could be a working education team to then they would
dictate exactly what's their requirement. Oh right, so it could be used not just as a
school school but it could be used as an educational family like hub that's the same difference well
sorry i'm yeah just testing so yeah i test it's his way i described what aplent told us he said
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:44:09
basically he's allocated the land to the education department and then given a payment towards
whatever education okay primary education etc but obviously ultimately it's steamer and his team as
the education team to decide exactly how that then comes forward because obviously at this stage we
I thought I'd throw that one in the mix, sorry.
Okay, right.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:44:31
Okay, so Council Townsend, I've been very generous today.
I'll let you have a second go.
Thank you, I just wanted to get your thoughts
on the point Councillor Wilson raised
about policy TR9 in the draught.
And the thought has to be based on what the applicant
has told us, not what has been talked about in the round,
if that makes sense.
So you're gonna have to rephrase that.
Okay.
For what the applicant said, not what others have said.
Okay in relation to your points on local improvements for the area so in relation
to things like walking and cycling I wondered if there was any scope within
your application to make a proportionate contribution to the disused railway line
mentioned in in the in the draught local plan TR 9. Obviously it's still in draught
but does carry limited weight and I know that the proposal before us talks about
recommending local improvements to walking and cycling routes connecting
the site with Bournend but I wonder can that be brought into that
recommendation?
Public Speaker - 1:45:34
Apologies I don't have policy TR9 in front of me so but in terms of the sort of general principle obviously we are as I said of
improving public connexions into Bournend itself because that's effectively
the walking and cycling assessment that was done with a scheme and that's the
one that we're obviously delivering or paying contribution to the county to,
sorry, to the council to deliver. In terms of the principle of the route, I don't
know off the top of my head where that route is and where it starts and whether, I
suppose, the question for yourselves as a decision -maker is one, what is a
proportion of contribution, is there a scheme of works and what actually would
that entail in terms of whether or not it would be still compliant in terms of
contribution so yeah I mean it'd be misleading for me to potentially say yes
or no because I don't have that information to hand and that would be
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:46:29
better directed officers apologies about that
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:46:31
having read the report I got the
impression there's a lot of off -site improvements being offered
with the officers and highways officers as well to clarify compared to what we
normally have where the answer is not very much the impression I get for this
one is actually we have got quite a bit of off -site improvements for the wider
Faye Mesgian - 1:46:53
village so they are there is a plan on my screen now which sets out the
off -site improvements which includes widening of the pavement in some areas
bus stops and zebra crossings I believe that TR 9 talks about financial
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:47:13
contributions to this specific project from sites within an 800 metre radius of
the disused railway line. I don't think there are any other sites other than
this one so I'm not sure how that policy will then be enacted unless this site
Faye Mesgian - 1:47:33
makes a contribution. So the Highway Authority didn't ask for any
contributions towards the disused railway. I know that we've had objections
from the landowners of that disused railway saying that we're not allowed to
use the railway they're not allowed to use the railway but it's part of the
draught local plan doesn't it but the yeah so the highway authority haven't sought
those in for improvements they've it saw improvements to the village centre the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:48:08
bus stops and the station but I guess the issue about TL 9 is whatever we
conditions we put have to be an implementable and a name so for the
officers telling us is that the owners of that disused railway line are very
clear that we can't use it then we would be struggling to produce a condition
that says we have to have it even if the policy might say it because it has to be
implementable whatever we put forth on it right my thought process yeah so yes
So not sure we might like it.
I mean, we may put it as an informative.
But whether that means we can actually physically make
it implementable, don't know.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:48:50
Well, it begs the question, why is it in the draught local plan
then?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:48:53
So we can put that as an informative, I think.
But I don't want to give false hope
that if we as a committee put that forward,
it will definitely come forward.
Because I think basically what the officers have told us,
there's no guarantee of that physically happening.
So I think the measures that happen to us so far,
by the standards of it, are physically implementable.
And therefore we could be with some certainty
that saying that the crossings and widening of the pavements
would come forward, whereas the other bits wouldn't.
Mr Charles Power - 1:49:27
Draught local plan has limited weight at the moment.
And the draught local plan is at a stage
where the owner of that piece of land
is perfectly within their rights to object to the draught local plan policy
about what we want to do with their piece of land so it can be in the draught
local plan because it might be an aspiration of the council to have a
cycle route along the old railway line to connect places so we as a council are
aspirational about what we do for cycling as you well know but if the
owner doesn't want to play ball then it's back to us as to whether or not he
wants to sell to us or whatever but the local plan puts out the aspirations of
the council and then the local people have the opportunity to comment on that
so that's the process that that is going through that isn't the process that we
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:50:24
are looking at here at this particular time therefore TR 9 is for information
as we are today but it's not material to this application because it's not it's
It's only in draught form at this stage, isn't it?
All the local plan policies are material,
Mr Charles Power - 1:50:36
but they carry limited weight.
And when you think of the significant weight
of other items like affordable housing
and housing in general,
the fact that you may not manage to tick every single box
in an emerging local plan gets limited weight,
as opposed to the great weight
that we have to give to the matter that we don't have a five -year housing land supply.
So when you're looking to balance these things, yes, you can say, well, it's not meeting that
and it's not meeting that and these are aspirational things that it's not meeting.
But what it is meeting is what we know damn well we need to be doing, which is providing
more houses on our allocated sites.
So we have to weigh and balance in that.
So it's back to the...
What's the word I'm thinking of?
If I could think of it, I'd say it would.
Yeah, we have to weigh and balance it
when looking at this application.
Because in essence, we're looking at the tilted balance bit
with MPPF now telling us very clearly,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:51:39
housing and affordable housing is substantial weight,
this has limited weight.
So therefore there's a difference of,
based on the national policy framework
we have to work with now as of August,
therefore they have different relative weights of
When you make a decision process
I understand the point about limited weight
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:52:04
But essentially as this is the only site that could financially contribute to the enactment of that policy that policy is therefore not
It's no longer aspirational. It's pretty much defunct, isn't it without this?
Not really a matter for this
Mr Charles Power - 1:52:16
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:52:20
This committee, but it's a wider point to note isn't it a wider point tonight?
yeah which is why I said we might want to put it as an informative so that
everyone then the broader public knows that that's what we like to do
aspirationally and that their prints aware of that as well and you know and
future applications again will be aware that that's an aspiration for the
council so I think an informative is probably the best way forwards rather
than trying to put it as a condition because if we then put it as a condition
we can't then implement you know it then begs the question about the application
Okay, so I think I had Jackson as the last speaker for the... yeah you're done.
Jackson's now complete for the applicant. I don't think I had any more.
Okay, so that then brings us to the end of the public speaking. I'd like to thank both
the board members and Councillor Tim Bingham from the Parish Council and the
go on to the technical questions and I know we've done quite a bit of that
already but thematically I was going to take it in terms of education then
highways and then general planning matters so I need additional questions
in terms of education to start with and then we'll then move on to highways and
then we'll do this general plan so over to council Roberts's first technical
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:53:45
question. Yeah I touched on this in my question that I asked the applicant about. The
policy BE2 talks about provision of a school whereas this application talks
about provision of the land for a school not the school itself. So there's a gap
there so I just wanted to understand that and and then the question is then
well what guarantees are there over the school actually getting built if the applicant isn't
building it and it's not linked to things like occupancy of the site, what's actually
going to trigger it and guarantee that the school is going to get built if the need arises.
Makes perfect sense. Over to you Stephen.
Mr Stephen Chainani - 1:54:35
Yeah, thank you. So in just terms of the land for the school and the contributions, we acknowledge
that it's not just this one development that's going to provide the demand, it's a number
of developments, so the only way to deal with that effectively is to pull the contributions
together and therefore we've got the contributions to build a school and it wouldn't be probably
right for the developer to build the school themselves and then give them the money from
all the other developments so it make it much more complicated in terms of
building a school at the right time we will make sure that we have the transfer
of the school about hundred homes or something like that and therefore that
will give us sufficient time to build the school as and when we need it but
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:55:19
how does that gonna guarantee what guarantees do we have though in if we
approve this application and the housing that will create a demand for the
school places we're not having built into this application a guarantee that
the school places will get built for those residents they can come back on
Faye Mesgian - 1:55:41
that that's tied into the section 106 so that as Stephen has said on the
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:55:48
occupation of 100 dwelling yeah that's so that's the finance for it it's not
the actual school with the places for the residents who would be occupying the
properties that are built.
Mr Stephen Chainani - 1:55:59
I mean, so just to clarify, in terms of, you know,
pupil yield, it does take some time before you start
to see the material, the children.
In terms of our experience and what we've seen
in other developments, it can take four or five years
before you start to see the demand generated.
Now we've got to try and plan for that,
but also try and protect the viability of existing schools,
so we can't provide the places too early.
So it's a difficult one to manage.
It's not always black and white and we have to kind of monitor the demand to see what's going on and look at the existing
population and in order to make our decisions
to be clear from what I understood the
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:56:37
Because the land is then transferred to the Education Department in effect
They control the land so they will then dictate when it brilliant comes forward
So in effect the council is in control of the process not just when the developer thinks you might like it to be
because we control the lands where that would go therefore if you want to bring
it through on year one we could bring it on year one say the massive spike in
Mr Charles Power - 1:57:04
children or could bring you in five or ten yes that's basically how it would
Cllr Mark Roberts - 1:57:06
work yes I mean the reason for the question is that residents concerned
with developments that the of the provision of infrastructure lagging
behind the demand for the infrastructure. I mean a person who grew up in a new housing area where
school places were short and came and lagged behind the demand for school places. The people
who lived in those locations found increased pressure on places, their children having to go
to school places much further away.
And that's the reason for my question.
So this doesn't seem to be building in
any sort of provision of the infrastructure
in line with the demand.
There will be a lag is what I'm hearing.
Mr Charles Power - 1:57:54
I mean, I hear what you're saying.
I mean, trying to get a perfect match
Mr Stephen Chainani - 1:57:58
between pupils and places is very challenging
and difficult process and...
I've always said there is a bit of flex though,
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:58:06
Isn't there Steven because we've already heard from council Wilson
We said that they've gone down from 45 to 30 at Clayton's alone. Therefore. I think
Unusually in this scenario. We've actually got some flex because the school next door
We're in effect has already come reduced its numbers to give us that flex to them bring it through
You're on you say where's where one two or five or so it gives actually Steven more
Flexibility to bring in exactly the right time whereas before there could be a lag whereas because there's that flex in the current
situation I think it actually pretty works. Yeah, we can I mean exactly we can provide both classes at
Mr Stephen Chainani - 1:58:41
Clayton's if we need to in terms of how it works, but we do need to monitor it
It is a difficult one because you just want to make sure that all the provision in the area is
sustainable when you're having to deal with new developments
It's always a big challenge when you put in new provision and having to do it as
Sensitively as possible to protect the existing schools that are in the area
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:59:05
So I've got I think cancer town's end next.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 1:59:13
Before I ask my question can I just ask you to clarify on just on that point so
what you're saying is what because what I understand is we are one of the issues
in this outline application is to decide on a school but you're saying that
school could be based on need built anytime in the next ten years if we
Mr Stephen Chainani - 1:59:35
happen is in terms of the school site we have put in within the section 106
agreement we have to make a call on the site at about usually about 100
occupations and we have to make a decision at that point based on the
latest projections that we have in terms of whether we think we need to school
that particular site or whether we think it's better that we look to Clayton's
for example to try and expand that provision as an alternative okay so on
On the basis that the school is one of the issues that is before us today, I feel like
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:00:06
we've had very little actual data on pupil numbers.
So on the planning portal, the last comment from the local education authorities 2003,
you've just flashed up some numbers on the screen today.
Could you walk us through those?
Because what I'd like to understand is you've shown us the gap between capacity for reception
years but how many reception children are we anticipating this application
would generate perhaps I feel that if we're being asked to make a decision on
this school we need to understand these new figures because they've just been
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:00:46
shown to us today okay okay so generally in terms of the way we look at a school
provision if we take 2025 and you can see that the demand is 227 and the
capacity line is 240 in terms of admission places in the total planning
area does that make sense in terms of admissions so effectively there are
eight classes available within the born -end planning area and in terms of
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:01:17
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:01:20
13 spaces available across all the schools in effect yes effectively which
which equates to approximately about 5%, basically.
And that's the margin of capacity or operating margin.
Local authorities generally have a target
in terms of maintaining within an area
to allow for fluctuations in terms of parental choice,
in terms of the population migration.
So that's within the limits at the moment.
You can see if you look at future years,
they do dip some years and they do increase in other years,
but generally we look at the last year,
and that again shows that the margin is about 5%.
So we're looking at that and thinking actually
without any housing growth, if we add the housing growth,
then potentially looking at that,
we'd need an additional form of entry,
which could either come at Clayton's school
in terms of expanding that school
to beyond its current capacity,
or we look at providing a new school and the Clayton's one is obviously would be
subject to planning would be subject to consultation which is never guaranteed
it's quite a tight site if you've ever been to Clayton school but the
classrooms exist already sorry the classrooms at Clayton's already exist to
expand they're just yes but not the full expansion required so in terms of going
up to a pan of 45 yes but going up to a pan of 60 the classrooms do not exist
and the school would require additional building work.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:02:47
I think they were at 60 just a couple of years ago.
They've gone down from two form to one form.
No, they've gone down from 45 down to 30.
They never had classrooms for 60.
I've been told otherwise by the head teacher.
But that's not true.
No? Nope.
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:03:02
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:03:05
But how many additions, so say this was...
I'd say just to clarify, I mean,
we have done a feasibility at the school
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:03:11
to make it to allow it to expand to two forms of entry and it shows there's
additional building work required so it doesn't have the physical capacity to
accommodate based on the discussions we've had with the school to
accommodate two form effectively become a two -form entry school at the moment.
So how many additional because we're looking at reception here how many
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:03:33
additional reception children do you anticipate this development would
generate and how have you calculated those figures?
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:03:43
based on the so based on DFE pupil yield rates and also around our own generated
pupil yield rates we expect the development to generate about a form of
entry additional 30 children every year in each year group effectively so 210
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:04:03
primary school places or 30 in each year group and that's just for this
application and you've already got a slight matter that's already been
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:04:10
approved as well no no sorry places for all the cumulative impact of all the
developments slate meadow this one and also for printers Road yeah and would
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:04:24
all of those being catchment for this development I'm sorry would would all of
those developments being catchment for the school in this development
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:04:31
St Paul's is that it would be the catchment school for,
I'm just trying to wrap my brain now.
I can't remember, but basically St Paul's and Clayton's
almost share a catchment area if that makes sense
because I mean, catchment areas aren't,
you don't provide a guarantee for catchment areas,
they're effectively there to prioritise admissions,
but just looking at where the development is
in terms of what's accessible in terms of schools
and Clayton's would be an accessible option.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
So in essence what we're saying is
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:05:12
because you've got this Jackson Field and Sleck Meadow,
there's at least another 30 children on top of that,
which then means you breached the line effect.
Therefore you have to have some sort of provision.
So either you build additional physical classes
at Clayton's or you have this.
And what this does, I understand the application,
gives you the flexibility of what's the best option going forward because again
if there are additional applications and or additional spikes in growth you might
even be higher than the 30 so based on the DFE data you talked about Stephen
that gets you to 30 children based on where we are now but if you have a
growth spurt it could be 40 50 whatever but based on the data we've been given
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:05:56
from DFE that's what you're saying. DFE do say that you know it's a it's a
difficult one because you do get peaks in the population within new developments
and they last about eight years usually looking at their data so it goes beyond
the form of entry probably that would be required so you might actually need a
new school plus additional capacity or whatever is available at Clayton's
anyway so I think that's why we just need to monitor it because it's not
always clear -cut sometimes and I would love it to be black and white but it
unfortunately. Just to clarify at the point at which you have a hundred house
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:06:29
occupancy on this site you need to make a decision on whether it's viable or not.
Yeah I mean we yes when we that's generally our position we just I think
in terms of because we've got more flexibility at Clayton's there may be
some scope to move it around there but generally what's what we require in
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:06:48
terms of transfer the school site to give us the time allows to let to allow
to put in planning and do the commissioning process in terms of
providing those new schools. And so how much time do you think that reasonably?
How far away is that if we're talking about 100 ,000? Sometimes you can run planning application sites alongside the consultation process so the terms of once you get the site usually it's
about two years or something can take three years. Okay in terms of the timing
though I think it does pretty much align from what you describe because you've
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:07:22
then got the hundred houses to be dwelt and that's going to take time to get
things sorted and the rest of it. Council Waters over to you. It's just a quick thing
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:07:30
came to my mind as we're talking about this. If this site doesn't provide the
school and GP surgery doesn't come and whatever and it becomes housing you've
You then got more numbers to take into account.
Have you even thought about that in terms of what that might be with projections with
potential on the current school that you might want to expand?
Because you could finish up with a whole additional section in this estate of housing come the
end of it, but you have then lost your ability to have that land for a school once you've
made that decision.
Mr Stephen Chainani - 2:08:12
I guess a quick thought. I mean it's tricky one is it's there's always I mean
I can give you probably other examples are there is there's always a bit of a
risk and I think that's why we want to make sure we safeguard our position as
much as possible but you can only really go on what the information that you have
available at the time and I can give you examples in Slough where they've closed
the school and then they wanted to open it up back up again because the
population started to go back up again and so it isn't an easy one. You're right
once you if you give up a site then effectively it's difficult to get, well
you can't get it back. So yeah you're right it's a it's a decision we have to
consider carefully.
Charles coming.
Mr Charles Power - 2:08:50
But the fact is that that would be something down the
line. What we're doing here is making sure that we have the options available
to us in this application.
So yes, there's a possibility that somebody
might make a planning application in five years time.
We don't know what the situation will be
in five years time, but you are correct.
If we'd, as a councillor, decided not to take on
that site for a school, then we'd have to be thinking
jolly hard at that time as to, well, the implication is
that this might give us more housing
and have we factored that in.
But at the moment, what we're thinking about is,
have we got ourselves into a position
where we've got the flexibility that we need in the future?
And that's what 106 is giving us at the moment.
It's in effect protecting our position.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:09:47
Okay, so I think that's all the questions on education.
So then go to technical questions on highways issues.
do I have any hands for that?
Okay, we've got Councillor,
I'll stop this where I am, so I'll go,
Councillor Smith, Councillor Waters,
Townsend, Munger,
and then Councillor Roberts.
I am conscious of the time, I have to say, so, yes.
Oh, sorry, and Councillor Jackson, I'm sorry.
Jackson, no.
Jackson, no.
Okay, all right.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:10:27
Okay so with Councillor Smith. Thank you chair and just a couple of very easy I
think quick questions. The first one was that there was one of the early speakers
mentioned that the Royal Borough Windsor Maidenhead had conducted an impact
traffic assessment based around Cookham Bridge. I don't see any reference to that
in the document. In fact, 7 .34 says that it is the responsibility of RBWM, but there isn't
any link. I just wondered if you can confirm that that's actually the case. Has there been
an impact assessment? Are you aware of it? And has that been taken into account? And
the second question, which is also quite simple, is really going back again, once again, to
board road and on the map it's a private road it's heavily used by HGVs has there
been a an adequate assessment of that as a school entrance and given that we're
continually told that we're only making judgments on the plans in front of us
Mill board road is the link between the north and the south that is the only way
in to go through. Have you assessed the adequacy of that heavy HGV road, quite narrow, no pavements
on one bit, linking to a school and then on as traffic linking from the north to the south
of the site?
I'll let the officers respond.
Tim Thurley - 2:12:01
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, the assessment of Crookham Bridge. So obviously that's outside of our
administrative area. So we haven't assessed anything on Windsor Main Head Network. There
is, you know, the original transport assessment submitted did give numbers of vehicle movements
associated with the full development of the BE2 site
going into and out of the Cookham area by the bridge.
Those numbers have been available to
to the Windsor Main Head's highways team since 2021.
Obviously they've been consulted a number of times
and we haven't received any comments or objection from them
in regard to the impact on their network.
not our responsibility as such to determine what is and what isn't a material impact on their network.
There is a memorandum of understanding between authorities that there should be a collaborative approach to dealing with cross boundary impacts.
And in order for us to assist them in dealing with any impacts on their network, they need to be telling us what their issues are.
because without them telling us what the issues are,
there's nothing for us to work together to resolve.
So as it stands, there's been no objection, no comments
from them on the impacts on the bridge or within Cookham.
So as it stands, we have no further comment
to make on that.
And yeah, Millboard Roads, that's been assessed.
as I say that's been thoroughly assessed in terms of the vehicle movements and in
terms of the access arrangements for the site and for the school that's all you
know and we're satisfied that that's that's all adequate there's going to be
footway links leading down to the school to accommodate the pedestrian traffic
associated with it and there's there's a number of footway cycle way
improvements leading from which will lead from the school and the site all
the way into to Bournen, the village centre, the station to improve
accessibility and things so it's all been taken into account and and we're
Faye Mesgian - 2:14:35
satisfied that everything's acceptable. Just a point of clarification on the site plan you can see that the
Millboard Road up until the junction with Bridgestone Drive is in the
applicants ownership so although it says private road it's in the ownership of
the applicant and beyond that point it's a public highway and it does have
footpaths on both sides at the point of the public highway and there's
pedestrian improvements proposed in the form of a zebra crossing on Norboard
Road. Additional footway so there's crossing points so we've taken
Tim Thurley - 2:15:06
everything into account in terms of pedestrian accessibility. Thank you.
Okay, on to Councillor Walters.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:15:14
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:15:16
Thank you. I'm going to come back to the Link Road, which I've got the policy document, transport, point A, front and centre, is that this Link Road is core to this whole development on this designated site.
At what point, though we're saying it would be totally acceptable in highway terms, if
the link wasn't actually provided, that the road which is Millbore Road basically is an
acceptable access, but the actual policy isn't about what
highways considers as acceptable, it is actually stating
core item number A, point two is transport A,
is it that link road has to be going through.
And at what point, so how do we balance that out
as a committee when we're making a decision?
At what point does this suddenly become guidance
rather than policy, that that can change?
And is there an ability to put some kind of conditions in
to make sure we have more comfort
as we go from one application to another,
that this link road must be built
if the second application comes through,
so they can't get out of that?
Because I think that's the question here.
Well, that's what's came up from the local councillors.
and I know when we've looked at these before other sites, the hierarchy of even
where it comes in the list actually gives something more important to have
it front and centre on transport as the first thing. Should that be
giving us major issues as it obviously is with the local ward councillors on the
decisions we are able to make here today because it isn't purely in terms of
acceptability by highways is actually what the
Plan is saying and the policy is saying I'm not really sure how that sorts itself out
And that's why I think I mean you really clear guidance to come to a decision
Faye Mesgian - 2:17:42
So in terms of the policy that's part of the development plan
So that's your first starting point and then you look at material considerations
So the material considerations here are the highways data that we have which says that
this is an acceptable access along with the other material considerations provision of housing and the like
so I
I'm not of the opinion to have to implement that policy to the word
When there is an alternative which is a North South link Road the principle of the policy is a North South link Road and
This scheme would provide that connecting cause in Road with head saw Road
albeit not cause then roundabout having said that it doesn't compromise the link road to cause then roundabout at all as
Long as the subsequent applications are recommended for approval and brought forward
At the time of the policy which I didn't write it was my understanding that
The policy team thought that the link roads connecting cause then roundabout with head saw road would alleviate some traffic
elsewhere in the village but the highways data now we have it doesn't
indicate that at all.
Okay that's helpful yeah quite sure how that's how things have been spun in the
past by when we've been looking at other applications that you can flip to one
thing quite so easily is that but I take the point you've made in terms of what
policy says when it's such a clear point obviously there's further information
maybe that we should have a little bit more information coming from the
highway's officer in terms of what now states that actually that wouldn't be
the best route to take. Well that's certainly the case in terms of the bus
but there's nothing in this application that would mean that you couldn't
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:19:43
provide the link protocols and roundabout. Okay doesn't doesn't
frustrate that happening it does it still allows it to happen just might
Faye Mesgian - 2:19:52
happen in a phased approach in effect well it still allows it to happen but if
any reason it didn't happen it still has a North -South link connexion via
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:19:59
Mill Ward Road so in the agreements that were talked about earlier on this one
106 will there be something in there to state that this applicant if the other
application comes through must or will create that that link as stated in the
policy so that's where as long as that comes through that that's it's that yeah
that would be the priority that's correct and also access is a reserve
matter so that will be in our power when they come in with the reserve matters
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:20:33
Faye Mesgian - 2:20:39
also help by the 106 as well yeah and conditions one of these conditions and
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:20:42
reserve matters okay. Councillor Jackson. Actually Chairman my
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:20:49
answer's been my question has been answered thank you. Okay moving on to
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:20:50
Councillor Townsend. Thank you there's been a lot made of the Royal Borough of
Windsor and Maidenhead not making any objections but I just want to point out in their
email that's on the portal 2003 they do say however the local planning authority
would like to note the technical assessment of the proposals carried out
by the neighbouring local planning authority
should consider any highway status submitted
regarding the roundabout junction A308 Marlow Road
and Cook and Bridge Ferry Lane
to ensure the development would not impact
these RBWM junctions and the surrounding highways network.
So it's not as clear cut as just a no objection.
However, I understand that that's their,
you know, they're concerned with their side,
we're concerned with our side.
Now, as someone that drives along that road regularly,
For example, I drive along that road and cross the Cookham Bridge at five
o 'clock every Monday and there are at least 10 or 12 cars in a queue waiting
for the traffic lights because it's a single way so you can only go over the
bridge one way at a time. So you could be waiting at least twice for the lights to
change depending on how you get to it and sometimes if there's a problem that
tails back all the way to practically where we're talking about and the
junction with heads erode. There's reference in the technical notes to a
full assessment of the impact of this development upon the ferry lane side of
the the Cookham Bridge but that refers to a March 2018 traffic count and a queue
video. I would like to know has there been done anything it has anything been
and more recently, that's eight years ago,
has there been a more recent assessment?
What did it show?
What did you look at?
How did you conclude that the additional 900 residents
isn't going to have a significant impact
on what residents can plainly see with their own eyes
is a severely congested junction?
Tim Thurley - 2:22:58
Thank you, there has been a number of further studies
further studies on the network since that 2018 data was provided.
Where are they?
It's all included in the transport work that's been submitted, the latest submissions on
the application.
Can you show us? Because I couldn't find it.
the applicant and the response
from the authorities. It is all
on the planning portal.
Specifically which bit deals
with the impact on Cookham
Bridge. I couldn't find that.
We haven't assessed. The
Buckinghamshire council has not
assessed Cookham Bridge.
Let's stop cooking.
Cookham Bridge then the Ferry Lane entrance to Cookham Bridge which is our
side of the river which bit of the evidence what sorry which bit of your
technical notes shows the assessment of the impact upon that junction we haven't
assessed we haven't as part of our assessment we haven't considered the
impact on Cookham Bridge but that's that's what the council is asking for is
about Ferry Lane because you talked about earlier on about a lozenge and
additional mitigations to Ferry Lane
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:24:15
Yeah, so I think what the what counts is asking is what?
Where the technical notes about that as to how come you've been arrived at the requirement for the additional mitigations
Well, no, I'm actually asking where are the technical notes that show there's no impact on the on
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:24:31
The on the ferry lane queue to cook and bridge that's that is the wider transport
transport network that we are required to look at under the MPPF that if it
isn't considered it does give us a reason to reject this planning
application so as our council expert where is the evidence to show us that
this planning application doesn't have a significant effect on the wider
transport and we're not even saying the wider transport network this is 400
metres up the road on a main artery road to that development yes so that
Tim Thurley - 2:25:05
that bridge has not been assessed.
So we haven't picked up on any queuing
towards that bridge, you know, towards the bridge.
So how can we say with confidence
that this application will not have a significant impact
on the transport network?
I think Ferry Lane has been modelled.
Faye Mesgian - 2:25:24
So Ferry Lane has been modelled, yes.
There's quite an extensive amount of transport data.
We might need some time
if you're looking for something specific.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:25:32
I would I would like to know how we get to the point where we're saying that the impact on that ferry lane Road is
Not significant from this well development
Faye Mesgian - 2:25:45
They've we got to the point where we said that mitigation would be required but that's on the junction. That's on the
That's not on the rest of the road
I'm talking about the queue to go over the preceding traffic trying to get on to cook and bridge
Yeah, because inevitably 900 additional residents or you know, but are you looking for Q data?
That's an impact, whatever it is, it's an impact on the network, that is the network.
So Council I get the point and from what the office is telling us, they've modelled the data
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:26:17
for Ferry Lane itself, they've put in mitigations, they're specifying what the mitigations are going
B and to be clear the application has four access points not just Ferry Lane.
So we went to the site visit, we parked at Flowerland, we walked across through to
Ferry Lane, we then went to Millboard Road, we then went to Princes Road, we then
went to Corzine Roundabout. So it's not 900 cars using Ferry Lane, right? In
reality if it was me I'd be going the other way via Corzine Roundabout.
So well not you take me well
depends
Because you might choose to go down the other way around the other way. So it down the bypass. So it's not
all -niner houses
Residents going for that via that physical injunction. No, that's and then the officers told us they have done the technical assessment
All right, so you're being a bit disingenuous at this point
So they have done text is on the freight line junction, which would be one of the main access
As I said for access points to the site, so it's not the only access point
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:27:21
Faye Mesgian - 2:27:27
But I just want to be able to interrogate that information. It's a when was it it's all on the website. We might need to
Well, it depends which bit you want really but everything all the technical notes are on the website
We've gone. I mean we spoke about highways for at least two years between us
We've gone backwards and forwards
But the point is we don't have control of the traffic lights in Cookham for Cookham bridge
which may or may not
control the length of the cues
in our
County. Yeah, so we weren't there was there won't be any mitigation for that
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:27:59
But what I'm not I'm not looking for what the mitigation is
I'm looking at what's the impact because that's what the MPPF wants us to consider in relation to development
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:28:10
We want to know is how I get that but as I've said to you before
The officers have clearly told us they have physically modelled for a lane, right? So it's not they've not done this technical assessment
They had done the technical assessment. So therefore I think you've laid with the point enough
I've still got other speakers who want to speak I'm constantly that it's almost two hours already. I
Want us to now move on so I've got
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:28:34
Councillor Munger and then council Roberts and then cancer Jackson on so council Munger
I thought I spoke loud enough anyway.
However, just to forewarn you, I do intend to speak about Coocham Bridge, but that's
my second question.
My first question relates to the Link Road, and it's very clear at 8 .45 in the report,
Part 2A of Policy BE2 says, quote, provide a link road through the site linking to the
Cor's End Road roundabout and Ferry Lane.
Specifically, and this may seem like dancing on the head of a pin, but it's a very sharp
pin as it happens.
This specifically includes the words roundabout at Ferry Lane.
It is both disingenuous and contrary to the planning policy to say that a link road going to cause End Road is sufficient.
It's clearly not. It's not in line with the policy.
The policy BE2 makes it very clear that we're talking about the roundabout at Cozend Lane and Ferry Lane.
So I think I'd like to hear that talk back through by the officer before I move on to Coocham Lane.
Faye Mesgian - 2:30:15
So this application does propose a link to the northern boundary,
which will link into the northern parcel which we have two applications for.
So item two looks at an application with an emergency access only to cause then roundabout.
And application three looks at all vehicular access to cause then roundabout.
So in my mind those are the two applications where you may or may not apply the policy strictly.
but this application does have a link road to its northern boundary. This
application couldn't do anything more because the land required is in the
neighbouring ownership. But it does allow for that linkage through to cause
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:31:04
end, yes. Yes. So when the line is protected to allow the vehicles to go
through to cause end roundabout without fear or favour they can physically get
there. So in order to fulfil the policy, both the sites would need
permission and need to be implemented. That would need to happen. If one of them
isn't, then maybe it wouldn't meet the policy. Can I just say that this is
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:31:34
technical questions and I would prefer that the officers answered rather than
the chairman, if you excuse me saying that. It's not the role of the
I will, I'll stay on the point and the point is, BE2 says cause end road roundabout, not
cause end road, not the northern edge of the site. It questions why the application is
coming through as two separate applications and that officers haven't worked more diligently
in ensuring that they came together as a single application thereby delivering the requirement
of Policy BE2. That's what is in my mind. So I'll leave that at that point.
Mr Charles Power - 2:32:23
I'll give you an answer as to the diligence of the officers if you like, Councillor.
Very happy to receive that, Mr. Powers.
The officers, as you may be aware, have to deal with what comes before them. And they
diligently deal with what comes before them.
But if two separate applications come before us,
we have to deal with them individually.
The policy requires this site to come forward,
or seeks for this site to come forward.
But all we can do as an authority
is to deal with what is in front of us.
What is in front of us on this application
complies with the policy because it allows for that link road to happen. So I
would say that we have diligently dealt with this part of that policy. Thank you.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:33:20
Councillor Mully, you had a question about the Cook and Bridge again.
No, I want to go back on what Charles Powers just said. Forgive me, with all your years
years of experience to contradict you but it does not deliver to cause road
roundabout. It doesn't say in the policy should facilitate a link potentially
through another site to cause road roundabout. It says provide a link, not
facilitate a link delivered by others. It says provide a link through the site
linking to Corzine Road roundabout.
I'll leave members to weigh on that themselves.
Move on back onto the Cook and Bridge issue
and address the highways officer who was very specific
in his response earlier, much earlier in the day
to this issue and that was that traffic management surveys
surveys have been conducted on the Bucks network.
There wasn't any specific reference at that point
to Ferry Lane or Cukin Bridge.
I don't know this area particularly well.
I made an assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong,
that the extent of our highway network
goes halfway across the bridge.
If all of the bridge is in the Royal Borough of Maidenhead
then that actually changes my position.
But clearly, the bridge is a significant element,
at least to the halfway point.
And therefore, it does seem from what we've been told,
and I'd like this to be clarified,
that the impact on the bridge, and for that matter,
as I think it was Councillor Townsend -Redge,
the approach to the bridge,
let alone to the halfway point of the bridge,
which we're assuming is Book's Highway,
that that has not actually been assessed?
Or that there is no evidence of that assessment?
Am I right there?
Yes, I mean, to clarify, the bridge is under the control
of Windsor and Maidenhead.
They control the lights over the bridge.
Tim Thurley - 2:35:48
We have no control over that.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:35:53
So the highway to the,
Book's Highway does not extend onto the bridge?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:36:00
So to give you a bit of context Councillor, as a member for Marlowe, Marlowe Bridge is under
Buckinghamshire Highway control, both sides, and then Cookham Bridge is under Windsor and
Mainer control and that's how it's always been. So it's not a half half, it's one has one and
one has the other. So Marlowe Bridge is solely our responsibility as Buckinghamshire Council.
I'd be interested in what the planning lawyer has to say about that.
That's exactly how it works.
We'll bring that up later.
the police is correct we have no control over cooking bridge in any way shape or
form
to you can't sir Roberts he's been very patient yeah the picking up a couple of
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:36:44
points that have been raised there are the site be a to presumably when it was
allocated the landowners signed up at that stage to the allocation and so
presumably they are like though they signed up to it being allocated as a
single site with the policy land owners aren't tied into policies when the
Mr Charles Power - 2:37:15
planning applicant when the when the local plan comes forward they get a
chance to comment on it and they can decide whether or not they wish to comment favourably
on the local plan or otherwise, but we can't force landowners to work together in one application.
All we can do is put the policy out there and try and make sure that the development
comes forward, which is what we've been doing.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:37:48
So I mean this comes to the question of it being two applications rather than
one. Yeah. But when it presumably this was known when the site was allocated that
that was you know they couldn't be guaranteed to be dealt with as one
Mr Charles Power - 2:38:04
development. We can't you can never guarantee anything in planning can you
you can't you can't guarantee that anything is going to come forward at all
and if it does come forward you certainly can't guarantee that it's
going to come forward under one developer.
I mean, not the whole of the site.
The best we can do is we've got a memorandum of understanding
between the two owners and the two sites
who've put in their environmental impact assessment
together.
They've considered the whole site as one together for that.
But they each own a piece of land,
and they want to develop that piece of land.
They've used technical experts, they've used the same experts so that as a site,
they're not, one isn't impinging on what the other's doing, they're trying to do it holistically,
but they've put in two separate applications, which they're fully entitled to do.
We as an authority have bought the two applications to one committee so that you can consider
them at the same time, in inverted commas. But obviously, you know, if we were considering
the northern parcel first, we could be having the same discussion. Well, they can't provide
the southern access. Well, yeah, we know that. But all they can do is, in their application,
provide the link up to the boundary, and we can control that they provide a link up to
the boundary so the northern parcel provide a link up to their southern end and the southern
pass or provide a link up to their northern end, which
we can then control through the access part of the reserve
matters applications so that they're actually
in the same place.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:39:48
OK, so I was just trying to explore
how we came to have one site allocation and two
applications.
Mr Charles Power - 2:39:55
Yes, I mean, if you think about the new local plan,
moving a bit off what we're talking about today.
but yes there are land ownership you don't actually have to own the land to
put it forward in the local planner that a number of elected members putting
forward sites that they have got no idea and officers for that matter we try and
find out who the sites own owners are and etc etc and you try and work with
them but you can't guarantee that it's going to come forward as one individual
side. But you have to have, I mean maybe if we went back to 2000 and whatever when the
policy was being written, it could have been written more flexibly. But we as DM officers
interpreting the policy have to look at well what's the harm from what's happening in the
proposal in front of us? Are they providing us with the opportunity to do what the policy
was asking which was basically get a north -south link through this site and
link in to the Corzine Road without having to go past the roundabout on the
edge of town which causes a lot of problems and what they all do is do that
but not they don't necessarily go up to the Corzine roundabout but we're not on
that peak yet we're still dealing with the southern part of the site.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:41:24
Thank you for that answer. The second thing I wanted to ask about is just to clarify
I'm going to have another go at this Ferry Lane question.
If I understand it, the modelling that has been done
is about the amount of traffic going on to,
or coming off from Ferry Lane near the site.
But if we talk about the traffic going on to Ferry Lane,
there isn't the modelling of what happens to it
when it gets to the bridge.
How much queuing?
That's not included in the analysis.
Is that correct?
The data doesn't show what happens to it when it gets onto the bridge.
Tim Thurley - 2:41:59
There's micro simulation modelling which basically shows the movement of cars around the network,
but it doesn't extend to the bridge.
So the modelling is about the junctions further up and how much traffic is going on.
It looks at the Ferry Lane Junction, heads of road, and it looks at the...
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:42:19
The last thing I was going to ask about, this is about the two applications and how they
link up. The applicant referred earlier to having informal discussions with the other
developer. Now, presumably that's going to end up being in some formal agreement between
them have we got anything where we would be party or privy to that agreement to
ensure that it satisfies what we would need for the entire Lingam Road? Yes so
there'll be two individual three individual section 106 agreements
Faye Mesgian - 2:42:58
between the council and the applicant so if that's for all three applications and
what is in those agreements will be agreed between the parties so the heads
of terms are in the report and the fine detail is ongoing.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 2:43:17
So we will be on top of whatever agreement ends up being made between the two developers
Faye Mesgian - 2:43:19
for the interconnect?
Yes, essentially the agreement will be made with us.
Right, OK. So we have had this with other, there have been other cases with interconnect
issues. I mean I'm thinking about the Minerva Way in Beckonsfield where there was the part
the land was owned I think by Minerva, I can't remember, and also at Trillie Farm there was
the interconnect between two sites there.
Yeah, but these...
So as I understood it, in those cases there were agreements again to join in on.
Yeah, but these are different in that points of access are part of their, what they're
seeking to approve and they both proposed points of access to the other site.
OK.
That's part of it.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:44:08
Right, I think that's the end of the highways piece. I think we, oh sorry,
Councillor Jackson.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:44:19
Thank you, Chairman. I want to go back to sadly Cookham Bridge and Ferry Lane.
I've just been spending some time building up on the Maidenhead -Windsor
local plan and I've been on Cookham Parish Council's website. So the first
point I want to make is that I raised earlier about students coming across
from the other local authority coming across to
Buckinghamshire to study. Maidenhead's local plan acknowledges that so I think
they accept that their students coming over to our part of the county to
study. But what's really interesting is that Cook and Parish Council raises
issues and concerns about Ferry Lane and Cookham Bridge but they've also
criticised it appears their own local authority for not for not would appear
taking too much attention paying too much attention to it I also noticed that
the debt our own cabinet member in dealing with the draught local plan has
been approached for comment in public press
about whether this will be a pinch point in traffic,
and he has assured the press and the public
that this wasn't the case.
I seem to find there's quite a lot of conflicting accounts
of this traffic on Cook and Bridge and Ferry Lane.
Personally, I go to the garden centre
and am born in quite a lot,
and I can see why residents are very concerned.
So I'm getting mixed messages.
So what I'm really interested in hearing from
Tim is really is when we have developments that borderline in this instance or for example in Marlowe
other local authorities or in other parts of the county do we expect to hear back from the local
authorities planning the local planning authority do we engage with the parish councils in this case
Cookham parish council and how much weight does that come in to fact so for example in this case
they've made no comments so we accept that there is no opposition that's the position we've taken
but is this a one -off piece or have they just not over the last few years not
not engaged at all I'm trying to get a bigger picture of what the engagement
piece is from the parish council opposite the river and and and the local
property as well thank you
Tim Thurley - 2:46:46
I mean from from our from a highways development management point of view you
you know we've dealt with numerous sites that are close to boundaries and go into
other authority areas if there are you know they are consulted and you know
they will generally come back with any issues that they have any concerns that
they have and then we do work collaboratively with them to just
resolve any issues that they highlight you know we've got examples between
Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire I can think of, you know, that's not
necessarily different to this situation where we've got you know a potential
impact going into Winsor and Maidenhead. The trouble is we don't have that
contact from Winsor and Maidenhead despite having consulted them numerous times
over the periods, we don't have that contact, you know, that information from
them to work with them to deal with any issues that they may have.
Yeah they haven't objected to the application so we've got nothing more to
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:47:53
go on the part from apart from that. Follow up if I could chairman let's
reverse this if there was a development of similar size happening in Cookham
would we as a local authority we were concerned engage or do we just simply
keep quiet because we had nothing to say we had no objections what would our
position be? I'm just trying to understand what the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,
what their thinking is.
Faye Mesgian - 2:48:20
I think maybe it's to do with the potential mitigation. They control the bridge. It's
a listed bridge. There's not much you can do with the bridge except put traffic lights
on the bridge and they control the traffic lights. So in terms of mitigation, they can
change the traffic lights to slow or speed up the traffic but there's no
other mitigation there for anyone travelling south of from the site along
Ferry Lane I can't think of any and that's probably a problem for them which
is why they haven't objected but I think I mean if there was I don't know why
have an objective, but if there was a solution, achievable.
So what you're trying to elucidate is that because there is no, even though there might
be a problem, because there's no solution to it, they would just not object.
I mean, you just asked me why I thought they might not have objected. That was an idea.
Tim Thurley - 2:49:25
I don't know. I don't know.
that we don't have a no objection we don't have any comments from them
whatsoever which is surprising yes yes because I was thinking if it's the other
way around we would normally come I know in Milton Keynes we've commented on
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:49:37
coffee where we bought among games where we've your team has gone back and gone
you know and given full you know dissertations as to why things don't
work etc so that's unless we have no concerns then we wouldn't raise the
resources on it yes the logic I'm trying to get to okay thank you on the basic
They gave us no comment at all, just like zero.
It's like very surprising, but hey.
I don't really want to open it back up again,
Councillor Chanz, because I'm conscious of the time,
but go on.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 2:50:08
I just wanted to clarify, they did say something.
I read it out in my previous comment.
They wanted us to note the impact
upon Cook and Bridge Ferry Lane.
They didn't raise an objection, but they wanted to say,
it's not fair to say they didn't say anything.
And I think also Councillor Ng's question was,
did Cookham parish council raise any objection and yes they did it's in the report they object
to the application on the basis of increased traffic particularly at Cookham bridge various
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:50:35
other things but that was back in 2023 i was just asked him our hires officer just clarify
he's gone back subsequent to that and it's the more recent stuff so just Tim explain if you could
Tim Thurley - 2:50:50
well no they i mean when was the last time they were consulted it was it was quite you know it
was certainly more recent wasn't it
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:51:07
offices to come back to show actually we did reconcile and had no objection in
fact no comment so that's why I'm just going to cheque that for worse but
certainly because I challenged her that's why I've asked you having high
I was officer here and education here
because I knew they'd be the two key issues.
Because I asked that direct question
you've just asked Councillor Townsend,
did we consult with them?
How often did we consult?
And did we get a response?
And the answer was no.
Councillor Jackson.
Chairman, just to be specific,
I know that Cook and Parish Council
did put an objection in and I've read it,
Cllr Jackson Ng - 2:51:40
but it's quite vague in the pack.
Now what I was really keen on understanding
was following your objection,
did our officers go back in any time
and say, cooking parish council,
there's nothing from your superior authority,
but what are your major concerns
and how does that fit into the modelling
that our professionals have done for us?
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:52:30
Because of the time, that pretty much would be the end
of the technical bits.
The question is whether we go to general,
any general questions on technical.
Do we go for a comfort break now or else just confirm
that last piece of information or do people want to continue going because
of course it's only one o 'clock already now we have got some sandwiches for
later but I'm just conscious that you might want to come for a break
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:53:01
cancer gone I'd like to remind the chairman that I will be leaving at three
o 'clock we were aiming for one o 'clock I'm glad we never did I get that can I
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 2:53:17
I'll just ask one quick question about the neighbouring parish, because they were an
objector. I know with Milton Keynes and a number of other areas we have had neighbouring
parishes from outside of Buckinghamshire who have come and spoken, or town councils or
whatever. Were they asked whether they wanted to come and speak, to where they could have
clarified the points they had? If they were and they didn't take that up, that's important,
because obviously they've said all they wanted to say.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:54:12
Tim Thurley - 2:54:16
and it yeah just just a point out section 6 .9 of the original transport
assessment that the applicants provided did look at the traffic going towards
Cookham bridge and did assess the impacts on existing conditions out of
bridge in terms of the queuing and it concluded that the development would
result in an additional two to three vehicles in the queue on any cycle so
the the determination of that would be that it would not be a severe impact.
What was the date of that study? I mean that that was based on so that was from
the 2021 transport assessment originally submitted with the application.
So five years ago.
They have been updated.
So you're saying they have been updated subsequently?
Yeah, they have been updated but I don't think there's been any further updates in terms of the impact on the Cookham but when this assessment was carried out,
you know, they looked at the queue in they looked at development traffic movements towards cooking and
they looked at the existing queues on the traffic lights and
You know, they determined that the extra extra vehicles within
The queues on every cycle would only be two to three vehicles. We can't cross that as a severe impact
Do you consider the data that's five years old to be reliable data?
for this application in 2026
you know we made the decision that the decision on that impact was made back
when we considered that so it would have been you know 21 22 we didn't you know I
don't think there's been any reason to go back and look at that specific data
since then and I think the fact that that data is obviously that transport
assessment has been available to Windsor and Main Head's highways team. They've seen
that and you know the fact that we still haven't received any objection from them
based on that data there was no reason for us to look any further into that.
Can I ask what the exact date of the data at the whole of the report is?
Faye Mesgian - 2:56:40
There's an update December 24 and there's I think it's about six technical notes
that have gone backwards and forwards over time.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:56:51
So December 24 was the latest data, still no objection.
OK, so it's not.
It's OK.
Right.
OK, so I think that's given us the clarification
we wanted on that.
OK, I'm conscious that we're now nearly 1 o 'clock.
Do people want a five -minute comfort break?
Because I'm conscious I want to get this application completed,
and then we will then break for lunch at that point.
So is everyone happy to have a five -minute comfort break?
Is that OK?
I'm just thinking that you know been a long time already okay so we'll get me
back well whatever the time is so I'm actually sorry that's slightly wrong so
actually is one minute to 12 we'll meet one minute to one of the moments you go
back at 5 past 1 by the correct time not that call there sorry

4 21/06215/OUTEA - Hollands Farm, Hedsor Road, Hedsor, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5EE

Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:57:38
Okay, so the people watching on webcast, we've had a quick comfort break, we're now going
to continue and we now got to go to the debate, but I think we have had a thorough, thorough
debate already.
So I've got Councillor Huxley, who hasn't actually spoken at all yet.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:58:16
A quick question regarding the consultees, a clarification on a little odd wording, if
you like, to do with the Wildlife Trust, which the statement says, bebouts originally obeyed
and I use the term originally objected to the application for the following reasons.
Impact on Burnham Beach's sack and biodiversity net gain.
It's the term originally objected I was trying to clarify
as to whether that means that they have not submitted anything this time
or is it that they've retracted their objection?
Faye Mesgian - 2:59:16
They originally objected because there was no SANG to rely on.
The SANG's now got permission and the appropriate assessments have been written accordingly.
So that technically falls away, that objection.
Yeah. But what's the change on the biodiversity?
Oh, originally they didn't submit a BNG assessment, but throughout the life of the application
that's been submitted and the council's ecology officer who actually originally worked at
B -BAL and was the original officer has raised no objection.
So they are happy now?
They are happy with that, yes.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:00:04
And on this side, no?
OK, OK, we'll start with those ones then.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:00:33
So Cas, what was the start?
Yeah, probably quite quick one.
The selection of sang, in this case,
there is only one available.
But I'm just wondering, even if there were more than one,
would that be a matter for planning to decide anyway?
Or is that within then the scope of the applicant
to decide which one they want to go with?
Faye Mesgian - 3:01:04
Well, at the moment there is only one and they do need one.
So we're not in the position where there is more than one.
I understand that.
I don't know what would happen if we were.
Would it actually be within the scope of the committee decision anyway,
even if there were more than one?
Do you mean in the future?
Yeah.
If there had been on this one.
Because we have the strategic saying at Kingsborough as well.
Yeah, that's too far away.
It needs to be within a certain amount of, it needs to be within a certain distance from
Burnham beaches and from the site, which it is.
But in this case there is only one and this application relies on one and that's the one
that I've written an appropriate assessment on.
That's the one that Natural Incolent have been consulted on.
That's the one that they've raised no objection to.
I think that's fine.
Thanks.
Anyone else?
Councillor Boon.
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:01:58
Thank you, Chair.
A question on housing, specifically the 48 % affordable housing requirement.
And it can obviously give me an indication of how in the event of a viability issue arising
prior to the conclusion of a reserve matters application, we can bring this back to committee
for decision because my concern here, and I think it's been, if not asked directly,
certainly alluded to earlier is that we,
there is a danger it seems to me
at this level of affordable housing
that a viability issue could arise
particularly if the through road,
the cost of the through road became an issue.
So how do we stand and although,
what are the means of us ensuring
that the 48 % affordable delivery is not impacted by a viability issue.
The simple answer is you can't.
Mr Charles Power - 3:03:18
If somebody in the future, for example, if you took Slate Meadow as an example,
Nobody knew that Slate Meadow was sitting on what it was sitting on and how much money
it was going to cost them to do what they've had to do from an archeological perspective.
So you don't – you do everything you can to make sure that you've covered all your
bases, but if something unexpected happened and it cost the developer an awful lot of
money, then they'd be fully within their rights to come back and say we can't afford
to do all that. So here's what we can afford to do and we'd have to look at that. Now,
if they came back to do that, can they do it under the current application? If it was
under a 106 agreement under the current application, then that would be a delegated matter as things
currently stand because it will be under the current application. If they needed
to come in with a brand new application then that would be up to coming back to
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:04:41
committee. So we could in theory condition that in the event of
viability issue arising in relation to the section 106 agreement that any
change would have to come back to committee? No you can't condition that
because that's not a planning requirement.
The constitution decides what comes back to committee.
If you want something to come to committee,
you've got to sort your constitution out
to allow it to do that.
106, is 106 failed to come back?
Mr Charles Power - 3:05:11
106s aren't in the constitution
as something that comes to committee at the moment.
They're dealt with by officers.
But the reserve matters have come back, won't it?
reserve matters will come would would be up to come back to committee so the
reserve matters applications or application depend upon what happens
today would be still triggering the opportunity to call it into committee
thank you I think yes just trying to remember what the national scheme of
delegations as on reserve matters.
Well, I think it's the size and scale of it.
As things currently stand, there we go, I can say this, as things currently stand, because
we haven't got to the end of October yet, a reserve matters application would definitely
be able to be called back to committee.
But on the top of my head, I can't remember whether government has taken reserve matters
out or not.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:06:06
Turning to the chairman of the committee, I would expect reserve matters to come back
to this committee as a matter of course.
Absolutely.
and that's been noted and minuted by the Democratic Services the expectation is
this reserve has it will come back here okay so councillor Gibbon over to you
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:06:23
next thank you I just like to ask about water treatment because council in 2024
said that the little Marlowe sewage treatment works is beyond capacity so if
this application is approved could there be a conditional some guarantee that the
Upgrade that Thames water are going to have planned to do has actually been done before any houses are built
Just look at that relevant part
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:06:59
But my understanding where I read the report there was no objection
It's not that there's an objection it's just that the the sewage treatment works is
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:07:13
themselves, but as I said it's beyond capacity already, Thames Water apparently are going
to upgrade it, but it just will need to be upgraded before there's any more demand on
it because it causes pollution. It's quite dangerous. So I just wondered if there could
be some conditional guarantee that this would be upgraded, Thames Water said they'll do
is completed in time. There's a condition added from as suggested by Thames Water
Faye Mesgian - 3:07:53
that requires further consultation with them in terms of foul water.
So could we strengthen that theoretically or not?
To ask for what?
And on what basis?
Well, because Council Givens pointed out
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:08:11
that it says it's over capacity already,
and therefore before the development takes place,
the plan of works must take place first
at the relevant service works.
Just cheque the condition.
We're just going to cheque the condition.
Condition 46.
It's condition 46, apparently, in our pack.
We've got two conditions for 46.
Well, I've got two, sorry, I've got two.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
It is the Bookingshire Council 2024 Baseline Infrastructure Study
recorded it as being beyond capacity.
We're going back to proper paper.
Faye Mesgian - 3:08:45
So the condition requires that no developments occupied
prior to network upgrades and additional flows to serve the development
and a phasing plan and an infrastructure phasing plan in conjunction
with Thames Water and then there's informatives from them as well. So that
does that does go to your point then Councillor Gibbon that they did upgrades
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:09:13
are required first before the development takes place yeah because
that's what that condition just says. And that covers serious treatment does it?
found water is seriously yeah it's just a posh word
right so now to cancer towns ends I'll try and keep it short there's an
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:09:36
objection that we haven't discussed yet and that's the ICB objection unless a
developer contributes 339 ,000 to the creation of an additional clinical
capacity at born end and we bring green medical centre or an identified primary
care estates project in the local area to serve the development. So I know that
as part of the section 106 you'll be having those discussions and part of the
recommendation that you've said is financial contributions to health care
provision. My question is how close are those negotiations going to be to what
the ICB is requesting? Are you confident you can get that because otherwise we
have an objection? No, the applicants agree to pay exactly what
Faye Mesgian - 3:10:21
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:10:22
they've asked for. Okay thank you. And to be honest most of our 106s are very specific. They set
formulas all the way through with education, ICP and the derivatives are very
clear that that's a 106 and that's numbers and that's the
requirement. You have to get on with it. That's the and if it doesn't because I
think we talk about that if the 106 doesn't come forward then this fails.
right okay so I don't think of any further hands
so we can either go to a general debate or a vote or what I'm in the hands of
the committee what they want to do next but we've been at it almost three hours
so I think we have interrogated the application very very in great detail
Does any of the site visit members want to talk about the site and what their thoughts are about what they've seen?
Up to you, I'll just go to a vote. I mean, it's all up to you for what you wish to do
Can I propose we go to a vote okay, right, okay
So, okay. So the former proposal for the vote is councillor Smith and it's councillor
Recommendation is in just to be clear. This is what's in the report and what else is recommendation is that is for
approval based with all the additional
Pieces that come with including the 106 and the rest of it
And all the conditions as well and any formatives as well
I think we did add a couple of additional forties in there along the way that the officers will have written down as well
Okay, so I propose in a seconder to
we accept the application based on the officer's recommendation and the
relevant supporting documentation so therefore as we got a seconder then
I'll have a show of hands who's in favour of the officer's recommendation
Okay, those against. Okay. And I don't think, well, I mean I think I could abstain but yeah,
I would, well, I can abstain but in reality I would say I would support the applications
but I would abstain in this one.
Right, so that deals with application number one.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:12:58
I would probably suggest we do have a quick break for a quick sandwich and then if we
can probably be back in 10, 15 minutes.
Well, it's up to you.
There are professionals available in committee room three.
So depends how long people want, but I'm just conscious that we, yeah, we finished almost
at five o 'clock last week and you've got to leave by three.
Sorry, Chair, I'm just glad that we don't have a union look after us.
We'll be away for a few hours, but whatever pleases your...
Oh, we just crack on with the second and third applications?
No, no, no.
OK, right, OK.
So I'm not conscious that you got an appointment at 3 and I'm conscious that Councillor Barbeau
has got an appointment as well.
So that's why I'm just conscious that...
Yes, we'll say 20 minutes for the lunch and we'll be back here at 22.
How's that?

5 23/07579/OUTEA - Land Off Princes Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire

Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. So as I said, welcome back everyone on the webcast. We obviously dealt with item
4. We'll now move on to agenda item 5, which is application 23 forward slash 07579 forward
slash OTAEA, Land of Princess Road, Bournend, which is at page 109 of your agenda pack.
The public speakers are largely the same as before, however, we do have a new speaker,
Mr Matthew Small.
I just want to confirm, are you here, Mr Small?
OK, great.
Thank you.
I'll now call on the case officer, Faye Messigan.
Mess -ge -en.
Mess -ge -en.
Faye Mesgian - 3:15:04
There we go, Mess -ge -en, to introduce the report application.
Well, I get everything on my set up, so.
OK, over to you, Faye.
OK.
So this is the first of two applications on the northern parcel
This one's for outline application for residential development of up to 72 dwellings
with associated vehicular pedestrian cycle access points from Bridgestone Drive and Holloms Farm to the south an
emergency vehicular only pedestrian cycle access from Prince's Road to the north
Open space play areas drainage and road infrastructure with all matters reserved
So that's access, appearance, landscaping and scale.
Reserve matters.
This is an aerial photo again.
So the northern parcel to the right, which is currently
a field, is the site.
So this is the application site.
It includes Princess Road up to the boundary with,
is that Millside Road?
Sorry.
Which is currently a private road,
but in ownership of the applicant.
So points of access to this site would be
from the southern portion, Holland's Farm,
we've just looked at, Bridgestone Drive and Princess Road,
which is an emergency access for this application.
So it's an outline application with all matters reserved.
So we're just looking at the principle of development
and points of access to the site.
So that's 72 new homes,
48 % of which will be affordable homes and wheelchair accessible homes and
custom self -built homes, public open space, sustainable drainage systems,
improved links through the sites for vehicles, cycle and pedestrian and
financial contributions towards infrastructure. So again the points of
access are from Bridgestone Drive and Hollands Farm and there's an emergency
access onto Princess Road. As we've set out before it falls within the same BE2
policy and the main parameter plan which will be approved today sets out the
development parcels and maximum building heights. So from this plan you can see a
21 metre wide buffer on the eastern side. There's a green
infrastructure buffer on the western side, a link into Bridgestone Drive, the
large red arrow on the southern boundary indicates the link road
through to Hollands Farm which we've talked about and the hatched area is the
movement corridor. So in the northern part of that plan there's a red star and
that's annotated as access for emergency vehicle, pedestrian cycle only from
Princess Road other than access to the existing properties served off Princess
Road which remain unchanged. And then in addition there's illustrative plans so
this illustrative plan shows a layout with buffers on the east and southern
and western side but that's indicative because layout will be a reserve matter.
That's the end of the presentation.
We now go back on to public speaking again.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:18:28
So as before, so Councillor Penitrate will talk initially as a ward member along with
Councillor Stu Wilson and then later on she'll then talk on behalf of the objectors.
OK, so Councillor Penitrate, you have three minutes.
Cllr Penny Drayton - 3:18:47
Thank you Chairman. As with the previous application, this application epitomises all that is wrong
with the approach taken to present and determine planning for the Holland Farm allocation site
allocation. The order effect of the free application you see today is important. This application
is presented as and must be considered as a standalone application. As such it
fails to deliver the transport strategy clearly stated in policy B2 of the
Wickham local plan and Holland's farm development brief. These clearly and
unambiguously state a link road to be delivered from Cause End roundabout to
Headsa Road. The order effect reinforces how this transport strategy is
sidestepped. There is no full link road, there is no public transport route, there
is no joined up thinking. This application process to access Jackson's Field site via
Bridgestone Drive and the quiet cul -de -sac bordering the site, the Bridgestone Drive
helioway development is the highest density housing area in Bournend. Since development,
car ownership and vehicle size has grown significantly and too many properties do not have their
own parking. Vehicles are always parked inside of Bridgestone Drive. Regular delivery vans
struggle to get through at times, never mind waste collections and emergency vehicles.
The Transport Assessment fails to acknowledge this reality.
We have raised this issue to highways but advise it is not a matter for modelling.
It is proposed that any problems can be addressed with parking restrictions.
So where does the existing resident parking go?
Bridgestone Drive was not considered to be suitable as an access in plan making and it
should not be considered to be suitable as an access in decision making.
The quiet cul -de -sac at the end of Bridgestone Drive provides access to a small number of
houses designed to take advantage of the space and outlook in the field the end
of the original development. As with the main parts Bridgestone Drive resident
visitors waste collection delivery vehicles can use the full extent of the
cul -de -sac where will that be displaced to in the future?
The proposed access via Bridgestone Drive is wholly incompatible with the
current residential development. Please also remember that Millboard Road
junction with Corzine Road is in a high -risk flood zone. Primary access
proposed by this application requires an emergency access along Princes Road, the
very road that Transport Assessment seeks to avoid. How can a road be deemed
unsuitable for primary access but suitable for emergency access? Surely
emergencies require greatest certainty in the event of need.
This particular application has seemed to always have been about the cost
avoidance of extensive works required for the forearm cause and roundabout and additional works on Princess Road envisaged in policy be
and in the development brief
The applicants for Holland's farm signed a statement of common ground to deliver the site as proposed in policy be to and were party to
The development brief this has not been fulfilled. The application should be refused. Thank you
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:21:43
Thank you, how straighten any questions
Council given
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 3:21:50
Yes, I was going to ask you about Princess Road and about the fact that they're going
to, the plans are to make it more narrow.
And so this would mean that there really couldn't be any cars there.
Just wondering whether you could elaborate on what effect that's going to have and is
there any solution to making Princess Road more narrow to make the paving wider?
Just how much disruption would that court cause and where could the park cars go?
And quite honestly, I don't see
Cllr Penny Drayton - 3:22:27
How the solutions can be met on any of these applications due to parking always displacing
Princess Road is
It's currently in effect cul -de -sac in its own, right?
So in order to use it, yes, the park cars would need to be moved and there is no solution that I'm aware of for that
But it was proposed in the plan that that was the link Road
And so the solution is to be found by the council and I don't believe I've seen any solution for that
Okay, moving on
Okay, so Councillor Smith
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:23:12
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that presentation. I was caught by what you said about the emergency
access point, and I missed quite where it was, but that would be, in your view, subject
to flooding, so maybe a difficult access point. I wonder if you can just elaborate what you
meant by that. I think it might have been, I can't remember the name of the road, yeah.
Cllr Penny Drayton - 3:23:39
Thank you. It's actually Millboard Road, which is the primary access point that has extensive
flooding at times of heavy rains. There is a very high water table around there, which
affects the problem as well, and that road is often blocked or flooded. Neighbouring
properties have to have sandbags. So if you're in a position where it is flooded, that's
the primary access gone? Princess wrote then that has only been set up as an
emergency access in this application would have to be opened up and used so
then why isn't it being designed to be the primary access?
Okay, don't think of any other questions at this stage. Therefore we move on to
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:24:28
Councillor Stuart Wilson, you're the ward member. Again you have three minutes in
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 3:24:35
to speak. Over to you council Wilson. Thank you again chairman. A transport
assessment reason for proposing access via Millboard Road and Bridgestone Drive
rather than Princess Road as envisaged in policy B2 and the Hollands Farm
Development Brief is the potential noise impact for the small number of dwellings
along Princess Road. We do not diminish the impact of access via Princess Road
on those residents at all that has always been the case for this site
allocation. However, we and you have to consider the impact of this application
on the community of Bournend as a whole. Firstly, as a standalone application for
72 dwellings on Jackson's Field, the incremental impact for residents of
Princess Road of 72 dwellings and associated traffic is materially less
than the whole Hollands Farm site of 470 dwellings. You must only consider this
application in isolation because that's how it's been presented to you. Secondly,
the incremental impact of access via Bridgestone Drive has a material effect on residents of
Bridgestone Drive who may lose on street parking through additional restrictions as well as
amenity in the quiet cul -de -sac. Where is the impact assessment on those residents?
It is conveniently missing from the evidence base.
Thirdly, the Transport Assessment fails to consider noise reduction mitigation for residents
of Princess Road as an alternative to this application.
Members you have considerable experience on planning committees. Have you ever seen a
transport assessment covering three different planning applications for two land owners
with four, stop me when you see something you like, scenarios. I'll bring you back
to Policy B2 of the adopted Wickham Local Plan and the Hollands Farm Development Brief.
The applicants bringing these applications and the local authorities recommending approval,
signed and published a statement of common ground just before the examination in public
by a planning inspector. Why? Because of this very issue that delivery of the policy as
stated with access either end in two land holdings was problematic. The applicants and
the local authorities worked together on the adopted development brief, a supplementary
planning document you must consider. So how on earth, with all of the plan making in place,
can you be asked to deviate so markedly from the transport strategy approved in
those policies? The answer is simple money. A remodelled forearm Cores M
roundabout will cost over two million pounds. Who will now pay the price for
this cost avoiding planning application? The residents of Bridgestone Drive.
Please stick to the adopted planning policies and refuse this application.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:27:19
Any questions? Moving on to Councillor Tim Bingham. Over to you.
Public Speaker - 3:27:24
Thank you Mr Chairman. I think my comments are additive and in support of Councillor
Wilson who has very eloquently put what the issue is with this application. It is one
of two covering Jackson field and on its own merits it does not meet policy be to
in that it doesn't provide for the link road and as Councillor Wilson said it
appears to be two applications in order to get one approved to get them both
approved so they can avoid the cost of putting making the changes to cause end
roundabout that are required.
Additionally, as Councillor Wilson has mentioned,
access via Bridgestone Drive is totally unsuitable.
There are currently, Bridgestone Drive serves
about 75 residents currently.
Adding in Jackson Field 72 residents effectively doubles
the traffic on it, but the residents of Bridgestone Drive
currently have insufficient in curtledge parking
and therefore parking occurs on the street
and the mitigations under the transport assessment
talk about giving way.
So it is acknowledged that it will affect,
the parking will be affected
and there is no mitigation proposed.
Therefore we would request the committee
or ask committee to reject or refuse the application. Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:29:05
Any questions? Okay so we'll go back over to Councillor Drayton who will now become
Miss Drayton. She now moves across to become one of the objectors. So she takes
her place in the middle again that'd be fantastic and then again she has three
minutes to talk in her own personal capacity not as the ward member.
Public Speaker - 3:29:35
Okay over to you Miss Drayton when you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon again I am
speaking on behalf of Keep Morning Green. This application may only be for 72
homes but it concerns a fundamental issue whether the proposed access
arrangements provide a genuinely safe and suitable means for access for the
residents and the wider community. The National Planning Policy Framework
requires developments to provide safe access for all users and to avoid
unacceptable impacts on highway safety. The fact that this application is
allocating local plan does not remove that responsibility. This proposal relies
on Bridgestone Drive and Hollands Farm for normal vehicular access while
Princess Road is reserved only for emergency access. It raises an obvious
concern. If Princess Road is capable of accommodating emergency vehicles,
pedestrians and cyclists, why is it not considered suitable for
normal traffic and if it is not suitable for everyday traffic, why should
residents be confident that it provides a robust emergency solution?
KBEG and residents consistently raise concerns regarding Bridgestone Drive,
Millboard Road and wider access strategy. Parish Council specifically
questioned whether the proposal demonstrates safe and suitable access
for all road users and whether the access arrangements comply with policy
be to the officer report also acknowledges that this scheme does not
provide the direct or vehicle connexion through Princess Road which many
residents understood were form part of the BT Link Road concept instead traffic
is routed through Bridgestone Drive and onward through the wider Road Network
for local people this is not a theoretical issue
Bridgestone Drive is currently a quiet residential road ending with a cul -de -sac
Residents are being asked to accept a permanent change in its function without
certainty about the detailed design or the eventual road layout which remains
reserved for future approval. The officer report repeatedly relies on modelling and
concludes the impacts are acceptable yet the MPPF does not simply require
modelling it requires confidence access arrangements are safe and suitable in
practise. Keepborn and Green remains unconvinced that routing all -day traffic
through Bridgestone Drive provides the safest or most community focused
solution. I ask members to conclude that significant uncertainty remains as to
whether the impacts the highway safety have been mitigated to an acceptable
degree as required by TR31 section C in the MPPF and whether the
proposal avoids the unacceptable impact on highway safety as required by TR6
section 4 of the MPPF. For that reason we respectfully ask that the planning
permission is refused thank you thank you any questions
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:32:16
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:32:17
Councillor Smith Thank You chair and it was really from from the site visit
noticing on Bridgestone roads cars parked on the pavement in order to make
it accessible for vehicles to get through I wonder from your local
experience if you can tell us how how difficult it would be for both
pedestrian cyclists and car users if that was a primary access into into the
Public Speaker - 3:32:48
site thank you local knowledge but also as a
previous local resident of Bridgestone Drive at one point I was renting down
there it I think as a primary access point it's ludicrous to be honest from
personal point of view access is minimal at the best of times there are always
cars there and there are delivery trucks can't get through it's often problems
with refuse not being collected due to the fact that trucks can't get through
it is not a suitable access road and this was always acknowledged in the
application which is why the link road seemed more suitable when BE2 came
into place but for convenience it seems to have changed
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:33:38
We now move on to Matthew Small, Director of Quode Limited, who is the applicant -stroke
agent.
Public Speaker - 3:33:42
Public Speaker - 3:33:44
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matthew Small,
representing the applicant and speaking in support of the proposals. This speech is actually
aimed at both of this proposal and the next one because clearly they are linked. I would
I would like to thank the officers for the two comprehensive committee reports which
reflects the significant work that has been undertaken by all parties since the applications
were submitted several years ago.
As members of the committee will be aware, the site already benefits from an allocation
in the adopted local plan, with the principle for development having been established through
the comprehensive plan -making process.
Following extensive consultation, examination and adoption, the Council identified this
land as a suitable and sustainable location to help meet the area's housing needs through
policy be to there are two applications before you for consideration which
together with a Hollins farm to the south which you heard about earlier will
deliver that allocation and which your offices conclude comply with both a
development plan and the national planning policy framework the proposals
in both of our applications will provide up to 72 new homes with a policy
compliance 48 % affordable housing provision at a time when housing
affordability remains one of the biggest challenges facing local families, which
is a significant public benefit. The development will also provide accessible
homes, open space, biodiversity enhancement, sustainable drainage measures
and investment in local infrastructure. Regarding the proposed access, members
will note that both applications were the same site proposing identical
development of the same number of homes, the same affordable housing, the same open
space, drainage, biodiversity and infrastructure benefits. The only
substantive difference is the access arrangement. One application provides
vehicular access from Princess Road as well as Bridgestone Drive and Hollands
Farm. The other provides vehicular access via Bridgestone Drive and Hollands Farm
alone with Princess Road retained for emergency access only. Submitting both
applications has allowed the council to consider two acceptable proposed access
solutions. Officers have concluded that both options are acceptable in planning
terms and both are recommended for approval. In terms of other issues, Natural England
raises no objection, the Council's ecologist raises no objection, the lead local flood
authority raises no objection, the Council's agricultural, urban design, landscape and
archeological specialists all raise no objection. The applicant has also worked closely with
the owner of the site to the south to ensure that the two sites can come forward in a coordinated
and complementary way. This collaboration supports a coherent approach to access infrastructure
and the delivery of the wider allocation, all to be controlled through Section 106 agreements.
Officers have carefully considered additional matters such as heritage and environmental
effects but their conclusion is clear that identified harms are limited, can be appropriately
mitigated and are outweighed by the benefits of delivering much needed homes on an allocated
site.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:36:41
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and I hope you can support the proposals.
Thank you Mr Small.
Any questions?
Councillor Townsend.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 3:36:48
and you mentioned mitigations can you just explain what the mitigations are
for the residents of Bridgestone Drive
Public Speaker - 3:37:03
I can't really to be honest I don't have the level of detail I'm quite new to
this process this application but it it's all in there so I respectfully it's
in the material.
We've heard what the issues are
from the local ward councillors.
Yeah.
Parking, the narrow road, the quiet nature of it.
But what are we doing to combat those issues for residents?
So just to clarify though, Councillor, that's your opinion.
The officers report is very clear on it.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:37:36
That's not required.
Just clarify with the officers,
it does meet the highways requirements.
So that's been rather unfair on the applicants asking how there's issue that the officers was told us in the report
Does not exist. So I
Think we'll move on from that
Okay, so we'll then move on to
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:37:58
gone Casa Smith
Thank You chair and I am genuinely really quite confused about the process today and about having two
to identical applications in front of us, with the exception of one access point,
that anyone with any ounce of common sense would say,
why on earth aren't you using Princess Road as the main access to this development?
Can you answer why you would put in a separate application
that doesn't have Princess Road as the main access?
What's the reason, what's the rationale?
Really struggling to understand it.
Public Speaker - 3:38:35
Public Speaker - 3:38:37
Yeah, thank you. It's the obvious question and the history is very relevant and it's,
you know, we're dealing with the secondary, well, the second submitted application first
on the agenda rather than the other way around. But sort of looking back, the first application
we submitted was for the policy compliant B2 which takes the link road up Corzine Roundabout.
That was fully worked on once submitted as supported by the TA and EIA and through discussions
with officers.
It was kind of, it was obvious that there was some additional noise and air quality
impacts which could potentially be avoided if a different route was taken in discussions
with officers.
We then worked up this secondary application which is the one on the agenda now.
Sorry I really need to ask you to clarify what you mean by the additional
noise aspects of Princess Road compared to the much more densely populated
Bridgestone Road. What did you mean and where is the evidence for that in the
report? It was the sorry is the first application submitted which has the
which has the kind of all traffic going up Princess Road in this submitted
material showed kind of higher levels or not perfect levels of noise and air quality affecting
those properties approaching the roundabout. So through discussions with officers we kind
of worked up further material and to kind of keep momentum going we submitted a second
application six months later which showed a different route. So talking quite candidly
my client, the applicant,
has kind of no preference over one over the other.
It was purely a timing issue
and kind of wanting to keep momentum a couple years ago.
So we've had for the last couple of years
both applications running,
which we've been working with the offices.
They both have support,
but there is no kind of preference
in terms of the deliverability.
It was, it was.
Councillor Jackson.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Jackson Ng - 3:40:59
Just following on Councillor Smith's point of view,
I'm intrigued as well because you have a development
under, in front of this committee,
with presumably whichever application you go for,
whichever route you go for,
you have the same number of predicted number of cars.
So how does using one create more sound than the other?
I from it, you know from your perspective
Public Speaker - 3:41:24
In layman terms, which I very much I am in terms of sort of traffic and noise
it was the use of
Sort of Princess Road access point for as a main use would take more cars going
going up north to the roundabout
so
Cllr Jackson Ng - 3:41:41
Essentially you're saying that if Princess Road was the main access point more people will use that road
yeah whereas if Bridgestone Drive was used as the road the main road less
people would drive through it yes and that's based on what logic or scientific
finding it's it's the submitted evidence and I'm sorry I can't I can't answer
that thank you direct question
Yeah.
Or Councillor Huxley, but do we wanna bring Tim
or Faye just to give a bit more clarity
to make sure we don't go down rebel?
Faye Mesgian - 3:42:24
Yeah, I'll just try and clarify.
So I'll just talk about both applications for a minute
because it might just help.
This application obviously doesn't have all vehicular access
to fire Princess Road and cause then roundabout the application that we will
item the third application does so the third application would fulfil be the
what the specific wording of policy be to because it's a all vehicular
connexion to cause then roundabout but it's not without its problems because it
would the alterations required to the roundabout would require the loss of
some trees on that roundabout.
They're not covered by TPO, but they are a loss of trees.
It will increase the traffic along Princess Road,
which requires a TR road to look at the on -street parking.
But all options do include pedestrian enhancements.
So that's a widening of the existing pavement,
a narrowing of the road,
and pedestrian improvements on that junction.
So in highways terms and in terms of the planning officers recommendation
Both of those scenarios are acceptable
but there are there is a balancing exercise with regard to impact on the residents of
Prince's Road or Bridgestone Drive or both is a question around whether the link road would generate more northward traffic
whereas Bridgestone Drive may not because
It's a less direct route, for example, to Beckonsfield.
But both applications are before you.
But in terms of highways and planning, both are acceptable.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:44:16
I'm back again, Councillor Jackson.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm gonna be very direct.
Is there a cost element to this, to the applicant?
Which one?
Cllr Jackson Ng - 3:44:24
Because on one hand, we're thinking about impact
residents and you know traffic flows I'm debating whether there is a cost
element as to why one is preferred over the other or not potentially there's not
a cost element for the council I'll direct that question to the applicant is
there a cost element of a proposal a versus proposal B essentially I'm
turning around says are you choosing it Bridgestone Lane is that a preferred
option because it costs the applicant less money but might impact the
Public Speaker - 3:45:00
residents more I think there is a cost saving the costings on the 106 items in
relation to the cause and roundabout and the extension of the fourth arm Christian
the fourth arm is a more more expensive kind of overall overall package yes that
that is true but kind of looking back that any of that wasn't the driving
force, as I said, the driving force was to work up a separate scenario to work with officers
to see which one collectively they preferred and we had open dialogue with officers when
both were in saying which one do you prefer and it was agreed that we would take, or if
officers were happy to recommend both for approval at committee and almost allow members
the committee to debate and and to choose
thank you for being honest thank you
Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:46:00
Councillor Huxley thank you chairman
looking at the Princess Road and Bridgestone Drive if you were to take
both of them out of the scenario would it be an option if you were using
Princess Drive as emergency access and Bridgestone Drive we as a committee
didn't think it was suitable would it be possible to go back into the main site
Public Speaker - 3:46:42
and use the access onto Millboard Road that way that's not what's before you
Faye Mesgian - 3:46:45
Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:46:50
today but there is a link to the southern parcel. But if we rejected this
application and that was the only way round how would you treat that? If you
Faye Mesgian - 3:47:02
refuse the application then they won't be going anywhere. I was going to say
Cllr Andy Huxley - 3:47:06
just I'm nearly putting a condition on the access bit but rather than I'm not
talking about the planning application itself.
I'm looking at the access.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, yes, Bridgestone Drive, yes, I
think there is a problem there.
We already know there's a problem, say, on Princess Road.
But whether there was a way of getting around it
by diverting, if you like, the traffic the other way,
rather than through Bridgestone or Princess.
Faye Mesgian - 3:47:47
This application is seeking points of access.
So that's what you'd be giving permission for or not.
OK.
Yeah.
I suppose there is one other point of clarification.
Mr Charles Power - 3:47:59
If you only allowed access into the other site,
then the other site has control over this site,
which you're then pitting the two developers that would be trying to work
together against each other which may not be what you want to do.
I'm conscious.
Just, as I say, constant going, you haven't said anything, so.
Sorry?
Go for it, if you put your hand up, go.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:48:33
Yeah, so just picking up from Councillor Chesling.
Hello, okay, sorry.
So we got the two applications here.
You drew one up first, and then the second one
was an improvement, from what I'm understanding.
But you left the two in place for us to make a decision?
The officer coming at this point.
I'm asking.
Faye Mesgian - 3:49:03
Yeah, so the history is, originally the applicant put in a single application with two different
access strategies.
And as a planning authority, we said we can't determine that.
You have to pick a access strategy.
The only way you can do it is to submit two duplicate applications with two different
access strategies and they'll be determined separately.
So that's how it's come about.
So the second one is better than the first one?
We just couldn't determine one that didn't have...
We will do.
You can.
And then, so when it comes down to a question, because you weren't at the site meeting, the
Cllr Phil Gomm - 3:49:38
question was asked about the second one, about the additional cost, because of this, you
discuss the trees with the would need to be cut back and the adjustment of the
realignment of that junction so there would be additional cost so I'm just
trying to be a bit open and transparent to what I heard to let you know that you
weren't being told directly okay so just to have am I right yes thank you okay so
I think that ends the piece with the public speakers I'm conscious that I
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:50:14
we're now 20 past two. OK, so my feeling is I wasn't necessarily going to bother technical
questions per se because we did an awful lot of technical questions earlier on. I was going
to general questions to – I know it's about a different site, but I was going to
go into it in the round, if that makes sense. So wrapping up in terms of questions, it will
be rather than specifically education versus – so, yeah. So ask the questions, but don't
just think it's gonna be one or other it's just bring all the questions out
one guy so council waters first cancer Smith was second council Roberts then
councillor Gorma Munger okay right so waters Smith among more Roberts among
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 3:50:59
yeah I think now actually I can't understand at all actually how the
officers have come to look at two applications at the same time one which
actually delivers against the local plan requirement of Link Road and one that
doesn't so that you actually finish up putting more traffic through a built -up
area, how you could actually say it's all fine to use both of them when
actually there is a decision to be made actually in terms of fulfilling where
possible what the local plan had in it if it was achievable and
It is achievable
And I can't understand why
You should have left a decision for us to make where you should have been making decision on what it said in the local plan
I know you're gonna come and say highways. It's feasible or whatever, but actually looking at it. I can't understand highways either
so another question on this is how
Millboard Road is now going to take most of the traffic
from both parts of this site,
because that's what you do if you take away
the Princess Road access,
that makes that junction a nightmare.
Obviously it's remodelled and we're gonna be told
the model is absolutely perfect and that's fine.
But it wouldn't be a choice that you would make
if you're looking at a local plan and saying,
no, actually a local plan has a good reason
why it has something in it.
And I really don't understand how, as officers,
you have weighed this up in this way.
Particularly if the applicant is totally clear
in saying actually we'd really like you
to make a decision on this,
of what's the best route that the council would like to see.
So it'd be good to hear a little bit more on that
and why we're now sitting on the fence on something
which goes so far against what is written
in the local plan, black and white,
front and centre, the point I made at the last application,
number one point on transport,
this should be delivered if it can we now know it can because we've already
had the other application through so now we need to follow through on this one so
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:53:16
that was cancer waters counsellor Smith and cancer Roberts and castle manga thank
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:53:23
you chair and following on the same line really 72 houses we are asked to judge
the application based on what's in front of us and what's in front of us has only
one access in and out.
There is just a field to the south,
there's nothing there as we see it.
So what we're talking about is the only access
is along a road that is clearly, we've walked it,
is clearly congested with parked cars at the moment.
So my question really for officers is,
firstly to clarify your transport assessment of access
as Bridgestone Road is the only access,
And secondly if we as a committee consider that that is just not appropriate
That's not adequate access for a new build of 72 houses
Should we then be minded to refuse this application on the basis that there is?
Inadequate access as we would for any other application that didn't provide proper access onto the site
Okay, that's very clear
Do the officers want to come back or?
Yep.
Tim can come back and just give us that clarity.
That'd be great.
Thank you.
So, Bridgestone Drive.
Tim Thurley - 3:54:41
It's a residential road.
It's got a five and a half metre carriageway.
It's got footways both sides of it.
Yes, there is on street parking that occurs there.
Like is the case on many residential roads and vehicles have to navigate themselves around
on street parking.
The additional movements through this development, we're probably looking at around 30 two way
movements per peak hour.
So, you know, it's for these 72 dwellings,
it's not a massive impact on Bridgestone Drive.
The fact that vehicles may have to stop
and give way to other vehicles to get around parked cars
isn't necessarily a highway safety issue.
You know, vehicles will be doing this slowly.
In terms of that and in terms of the impact
that the additional traffic will have on Bridgestone Drive,
you know slow residential road there wasn't a highway safety issue on which
to sustain an objection on sorry but on that point can you confirm or clarify
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:55:56
how many houses on Bridgestone Road and I'm guessing there's about 30 odd don't
have off -street parking so can only have on street parking I don't know how many
dwellings don't have off -street their own off -street parking an estimate of
Tim Thurley - 3:56:12
Okay okay I mean yes they park on they park on on streets you know they can't
they shouldn't park on streets causing obstruction there would be room for
vehicles to get round them you know they may have to give way to other vehicles
they may have to work it out between themselves that's not an uncommon
situation on the highway in any part of the county. So that includes delivery
vehicles and emergency service vehicles and every other type of removal vans
large vehicles we're talking.
Yeah I mean the carriageway is five and a half metres wide so you know there is room for a HGV to get past a
parked car on the highway you know on the carriageway so you know I mean there
is the ability you know if members are minded to go with it to monitor the
situation along the road with the ability to maybe bring in
parking restrictions along certain lengths of Bridgestone
Drive to secure areas.
Sorry, I really need to come back on that as well.
What you're saying is that you'll prevent people from
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:57:20
parking their vehicles to enable 72 new homes to get to
and from their houses easily.
Is that the highway solution?
We don't believe that's necessary, but if members were
Tim Thurley - 3:57:36
to put that forward as a solution to overcome their concerns you know it's a
possibility but from our point of view now that road is yes it's a it's a
residential road of on street parking that doesn't necessarily necessary
necessary that's not necessarily a planning reason for refusal you know we
couldn't necessarily sustain a highway safety reason on the basis of there are
parked cars and highway I think that's been explored in depth so over to
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:58:12
councillor Roberts and then council bunder yeah under the new MPPF
Cllr Mark Roberts - 3:58:13
development management is plan -led and in this we've got a proposal that
delivers on the BE2 policy and another development which doesn't. So how is it
that we're assessing being presented with one that doesn't deliver the plan
when there is when there is a proposal that does?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:58:46
It's a fair comment yeah. I don't disagree with Councillor Roberts.
Councillor Munger, over to you.
Thank you, Chair.
When we did site visit earlier in the week,
Cllr Llew Monger - 3:58:59
the situation at the roundabout was discussed and viewed
and my recollection is that in actual fact,
the summary of the changes required
was the removal of three trees
and the relocation of the actual roundabout
by a matter of a couple of metres.
It was not hugely significant.
What we also noticed was the on -street parking
both in Princes Road and along Bridgestone Drive.
And we've actually heard from one of the local members
that even our own waste collection service
at times can't access all properties on Bridgestone Drive.
So, and I'm sure I remember seeing some reference to the potential for a TRO to address car parking,
but the fact of the matter is it's not there now, so we have to judge on the basis of what we see now.
A TRO may or may not come and in my own current very significant experience of the situation in Winslow
since a vast amount of area was covered
with double yellow lines,
the displacement parking issues are far, far greater
than the potential impact of the development
because there isn't anywhere else
for the people to go and park.
That is the issue.
If we agree and access down Bridgestone Drive,
where are people going to park?
And Princes Drive seemed to me to be wider
than Bridgestone Road,
I'm sure you've got the measurements somewhere.
As an access point it seemed to make so much more sense,
it delivers on or gives the opportunity to deliver on B2
by taking the access road direct to the roundabout
which was the requirement in B2.
for the sake of simply relocating the physical roundabout
and the sad loss of three trees.
It's a no brainer unless you can tell me otherwise
and what I'm hearing is you can't tell me otherwise.
I'll let Fay come back.
I just wanted to clarify it was 10 trees.
Okay, that's not.
Well we've just worked out everything
It's ten, right? Okay double cheque with a piece of paper. It's ten. Sorry. This would remove the ten trees and retaining three trees
so it's the other way so we were trying three of three or so and
Removal of ten but that's that's the dis benefit of the realignment piece. Okay, fine
okay, that's the
So
Mr Charles Power - 4:02:02
You need to be aware that both of them give access through Bridgestone Drive
It's not Bridgestone Drive or Princes.
It's either Bridgestone Drive with Princes
as a emergency access or both Princes and Bridgestone Drive.
Don't lose sight of that fact.
Thank you for the interruption.
Cllr Llew Monger - 4:02:21
I have experience again in my own ward
of an emergency access.
To the best of my knowledge, in 10 years,
it has never ever been used
because the site access is, it's not good,
but they use the main roads anyway.
Nobody ever uses that.
I can't say that would be the case here, obviously,
but experience tells me that if something is blocked off
with bollards as emergency access only,
it'll rarely be used.
That wasn't the point I was making, Councillor.
Mr Charles Power - 4:02:54
The point I was making was that, yes,
I totally get what you're saying about
If it's an emergency access is only there for emergency and that's only when it floods and therefore
That's when that's the only time you use the emergency access
What I'm saying is both this application that you're considering at the moment and the one that includes
The roundabout both have access through Bridgestone Drive
So both of them
Will be considering Bridgestone Drive, but the Prince's Road one
would have more than one access.
That's the difference.
So you need to be careful.
All I'm saying is you need to be careful.
You're going to say that it causes harm here,
but then if we open up that access, it doesn't cause harm.
You've got to be careful as to how you're judging
the level of harm that you're talking about.
Because officers think the level of harm
is below severe in both cases.
and you're saying, from what I understand at the moment,
that you think that there would be severe harm potentially
if there was just the Bridgestone Drive one,
but it wouldn't be severe if it was both Princes
and Bridgestone Drive, but you haven't got any evidence
one way or the other on that.
And I haven't seen any evidence that access
through Bridgestone Drive would not present any problems. In fact we've heard
Cllr Llew Monger - 4:04:29
from local information to the contrary. The whole of the evidence in the
planning applications before you suggests that both are acceptable so you
do have evidence before you from a number of transport assessments which
says that both of these proposals are acceptable so when you say you don't
Mr Charles Power - 4:04:50
have evidence I'm afraid you do have evidence the evidence is the evidence of
the transport assessments that have been done by your council and the applicants.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:05:05
Okay so moving on to Councillor Townsend, because I'm conscious of the time, I'd like to at least move on to the debate and or whatever we're going to do with it.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:05:13
Councillor Townsend over to you. Thanks I think it's clear that we probably would benefit just from Mr. Ferley perhaps just talking us through the traffic
assessment for both scenarios so that we can make that comparable judgement
apologies if I'm being slow on this but being not being a transport expert I
would find it beneficial but also now that we have planning permission for the
other site the Hollands farm site how that factors in as well in terms of
traffic movements for scenario A and scenario B and how you reached that
conclusion
Tim Thurley - 4:05:57
Okay, so for both applications we looked at, well the traffic modelling that was carried
out for these applications was done jointly between the applicants.
It took into consideration a number of different scenarios.
So basically we could cover every scenario that could occur, whether that's Jackson's
Field on its own, whether that's Hollands Farm on its own, whether that's both applications
coming together using the Prince's Road access as part of the Link Road or using the Millboard
Road access as part of the Link Road. So we've covered all eventualities and it's been modelled
in great detail, we've used micro simulation modelling which shows how junctions interact
with each other and we've used detailed modelling to just look at specific operations in detail
of specific junctions within that model. And there is nothing that has come out of the
results that would suggest to us that there's going to be a severe impact on any of the
junctions modelled.
What's the difference though between Scenario A and Scenario B in terms of vehicle movements?
So the scenarios that were modelled in terms of...
Sorry, taking into account that we have now,
as of an hour or so ago,
got planning permission for the lower portion.
So are you looking at it in terms of the difference
in traffic movements compared to the access strategies?
Because obviously we've got...
Yeah, I think we want to know, in scenario A,
how many cars, but I think you said 30 vehicle movements,
did you say in the morning or per hour? Per peak hour for this development on its own.
If it's scenario A? Oh no but then because it's not this development on its
own now is it it's also as of an hour ago we've got another 300. Can I come in there you have to
Mr Charles Power - 4:07:52
think of it on its own because we can't guarantee just because we've gone to
the pandemic we mean to say that it's gonna be there when this one turns up so
this one might be there on its own for a bit the other one might be there on its
So you have to start at the,
where are we with this on its own?
You can certainly move on to,
and if the link road, when the link road gets put in,
what's the scenario then?
But I'd start with this on its own.
Could we have those scenarios then?
I'm trying to help there.
Now I get it's all, I get it's in the operation, yeah.
Okay.
How many are going down Prince's Road?
How many are going down Prince's Road?
You're asking us almost you want us to pick the best option right for and
presumably for our residents we want to pick the best option so to do that I
feel like we we need this information. The the you know the the highway
Tim Thurley - 4:08:51
authorities advice to to councillors as shown in our in our consultation
responses for both applications is that the impact of both applications on the
highway network is acceptable, subject to appropriate mitigation.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:09:03
But we'd like to know which is most acceptable. Because you're asking us, you've given us
this decision, you've given it to us to choose.
Tim Thurley - 4:09:10
From a highway impact point of view, they are both acceptable.
It's not have one is one's better or another. If it's acceptable, it's acceptable. And that's
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:09:21
the problem you have with highways piece. It's either acceptable or not acceptable.
And they've said to us in both cases is acceptable.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:09:29
But so look it's our job I see as members to interrogate the evidence that
is before us that's why we're here so that's just why I'm asking for those
numbers because you're asking us to make a choice between two access roads or you
know we could approve both who knows but you're asking us to make a choice and we
need to understand the data before us to enable us to make that choice you can
just say oh yeah they're both fine but ultimately I think we need to unpick
that a bit more because that's why we're here and that's why you're here.
Sorry, you're deciding you want to make a choice that's not what we're asking you
Mr Charles Power - 4:10:05
to do. We're asking you to determine one planning application on the merits of
that planning application and then we're asking you to determine another planning
application on the merits of that. So we're not saying make a choice between
this and this. You may want to do that but that's not your role here. Your role
here is to determine the planning application that we are discussing at the moment, not
the one that's coming forward next, but the one that is before you at the moment.
And you may think, well, surely we want to make a choice, but actually the planning process
is that you have a planning application before you and you have evidence on that planning
application and you have to determine that planning application based on the evidence
or any other evidence that you have which you can bring into the equation.
You have to make a decision on that application based on that evidence.
You can't judge one against the other.
That's not the way, that's not what you're here to do.
You're here to judge.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:11:01
I was actually just using the applicant's words because that was what the applicant
said.
You had told him.
But anyway.
The applicant have put forward two applications and the first thing we're doing is dealing
with this application and then we'll move on to deal with the other one.
But you're not here to judge one against the other.
I'm with you on it.
The human mind don't work that way.
Well, that's why you're not a planner.
Mr Charles Power - 4:11:23
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:11:25
So essentially what you're saying is...
I'll take that.
So you can't give us the equivalent numbers for 30 vehicle movements in a peak hour for Scenario B until we get onto it, is essentially what you're saying?
Yeah.
But do we have that information?
Mr Charles Power - 4:11:47
I mean you know if this application proposes its access via Bridgestone
Drive so this is going to have a greater impact on Bridgestone Drive the other
application proposes access via Princes Road and Bridgestone Drive so the impact
will be split between those two roads rather than them all being on Bridgestone
Drive that's probably as far as we can you know I can take that in terms of
this application. I've got to come in for the little
because what we've done, we are dealing with one application, appreciate that,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:12:18
but also the second application has bled into this one.
So we're talking about two in a one.
So, you know, and I know you're a planner and an intelligent gentleman,
but so am I, and we're talking about the two applications have bled into each other.
So I get exactly where you're coming from, and in my opinion,
we're talking about this one first.
They're almost predetermined as us before we go into the second.
That's just...
We can't predetermine.
Well, I'm just saying it feels that way.
I get that.
So, Councillor Roberts, I'm conscious I really do want to get to conclusion on this one.
Yes, I do.
So, here's a procedural question around options that might be available to us in this committee.
Can we defer this and deal with the other application first?
I think, sorry Mr Chairman, can I just...
I'm not saying whether we want to do that.
I think why it's relevant is because we actually have been given them in a weird order because
is the order we should have had is the one that complies
with the local plan.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:13:37
And in terms of policy, national government policy,
which is plan -led is the most important.
Then, in terms of, yes, can they both deliver,
is secondary, well, that's fine.
But one of them keeps with the plan,
and one of them breaches the plan.
And if we actually, on the first one,
said yes, we would go ahead with that,
then we would already be able to say on the second one,
We can already deliver what is in the plan on that one, so there is a higher rating in my mind to that.
This one we're not doing in the right order and I think we should have been giving them differently.
So I think we should, as a committee, say we will defer our decision on this until we have dealt with the first application,
put that as a motion to the chairman.
Hence why I just wanted procedurally to understand whether that's a motion that we can make.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:14:43
So you can't defer but you could seriously adjourn this item for later in the meeting
to come back to this one later in the meeting, determine item three and then come back to
item as in the third application.
Can I propose we do that?
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:15:00
Can I put that as a formal proposal for this meeting?
I was asking.
So, Councillor Harris as well, he's not said anything, so just cheque if he's happy or not.
Sorry, I'm afraid the heat's getting to me.
The similarity between the two applications is, means if you, whichever one we agree to,
if you appeal the other one, you'll probably get it anyway, depending on which the developer
Cllr Clive Harriss - 4:15:26
wants to go for, in my opinion.
I would say we would do better to,
if we're minded to approve them, approve them.
But whilst we've got an agreement for the
recommendation, delegated approval,
we look at the,
what do you call it, the full planning application.
Once it comes in, once the detailed application comes in,
we take a second look.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:15:57
I think we've got a proposal we should go with a proposal and because I think
that is what the members are actually saying at this point right but I want to
be super efficient and what we're gonna do so there's a proposal and I think
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:16:11
there's from Council waters and cancer Smith's were seconding the German of
this item to then bring come back to this item later and then move to the
next planning application. OK. Right. The prosa, seconder, agreed. OK. A German. OK.
All those in favour. Sorry. OK. Right. And those against that. Staining. OK. Right. Fine.

6 23/06479/OUTEA - Land Off Princes Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire

Okay, so we're doing this bit we now move on to the public speaking again. I
do sort of query that do we really need to have public speaking on the fact it's
an identical application we've already had but I'm gonna go through the process
anyway but we're going to keep it short, sweet, succinct and tell us exactly why
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:17:02
it's different and why you're still objecting to the third item if that
makes sense because you've already given us your articulation about why don't
like the previous application. Sorry, sorry chair but procedurally we are
allowed three minutes. Absolutely yes exactly but but I've just do you three minutes and
Cllr Phil Gomm - 4:17:21
let's go with it right. Go on and cheque Mr. Gormley. Chair just before you start like you said you
want to keep it short and sweet so it's time for me to leave. Yeah. So I've got another meeting.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:17:33
indeed right thank you right so going back to the third application
Cllr Penny Drayton - 4:17:40
councillor penny Drake and you have three minutes to speak speak now thank
you good afternoon unlike the previous applications this proposal seeks full
vehicular access free princess road alongside access free bridge so in
driving Holland's farm so do I support it no and here's why the central
question to members is whether this access strategy genuinely provides safe
and suitable access for all users as required by the National Planning
Policy Framework. The officer report itself confirms that significant
intervention would be required before Princess Road could operate this way. The
application relies on alterations to cause end roundabout widening footways,
changes to road layouts and measures to address existing on -street parking
through future traffic regulation orders. That is important. The acceptability of
proposal depends not on the road as it exists today but on a series of future
changes which have not yet been implemented. I remain concerned that
Princess Road as it is now was never designed to operate as part of
principal access route to a development on this scale. The report acknowledges
that existing on -street parking presents an obstacle and parking restrictions may
be required. It also acknowledges that the need for alterations to
carriageways, whips and footways. Those measures highlight the very problem
being raised by residents. If extensive changes are required to make the road
function acceptable that should give members pause for concluding that safe
and suitable access has already been demonstrated. The MPPF requires
developments to provide for pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorists. I'm
seriously concerned that introducing additional vehicle movements through
Princess Road will inevitably increase conflict between vehicles pedestrians
and cyclists in an area that's already heavily used by local people travelling
to school, the station and village facilities. The proposed access also
requires alteration to cause end roundabouts and results in loss of
existing trees. Even the officer report accepts there is heritage harm arising
from these works albeit classed as less than substantial to them. Perhaps more
importantly this application cannot be viewed in isolation. Members are
considering this access strategy in the context of the wider BE2 allocation of
up to 432 homes.
The real question is therefore not whether Princess Road
can accommodate traffic from 72 homes,
it's whether Princess Road should become part
of the primary access network serving one of the largest
developments Born End has seen in decades.
I do not believe the applicant has demonstrated
this proposal would satisfy MPPF requirements
for safe and suitable access for all users,
nor that the community impacts have been adequately resolved
and therefore respectfully ask committee
to refuse the application.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:20:20
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:20:23
Any questions for clarification? Council Waters? Just one, I know we went on the
site visit. As you go down towards the roundabout end, most of that is
drop curb, so though there were cars parked there, they actually have no right to
park there currently, even without any other restrictions, because there's
whole swathes of it already dropped curb, so that wouldn't change is my
Understanding and so which particular section are you talking about where you think there are lots of parked cars?
The same Stony section is used
Cllr Penny Drayton - 4:20:53
You also have the side section which has to be used for parking but will get displacement onto there
Plus the issues that come in from that side section reversing out onto it anyway
and also the church often uses
the sides of the road and
you've got garages there which don't cover the whole pavement and cars just
out from there. Thank you. Councillor Givens.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 4:21:24
Thank you. Do the the footways either side of the Princess Road need to be
widened do you think? Are they not safe as they are? That's not my
assessment that's the transport report so it's not a personal opinion of mine
to give on that. Thank you. Move on to Councillor Wilson you have three minutes.
Over to you. Thank you chairman after nearly five hours we finally got to the
Cllr Stuart Wilson - 4:21:53
nub of this site allocation and what the critical problem is which is accessing
from the northern part of the site and in fact this application as has been
noted should have been the first one presented today because this is where
all the issues rest by and large so I think the order effect in which you've
been asked to consider these is right and I applaud you for adjourning the
previous item to get through this one it does conform with a local plan we do
have strong reservations we've always had strong reservations about Princess
Road and it will cause issues I am particularly concerned about the
displacement of parking and in the transport assessments that have been
going on for the last five years. It does talk about not having an alternative
provision for the displacement of transport on Princess Road and perhaps
one of the things that you might want to consider. I'm also concerned about
the potential removal of the trees on Coors M roundabout. We did raise this
with officers some years ago and I understand that other planning
authorities do seek restitution in terms of section 106 payments for a loss of a
community asset for mature trees being removed and again that's something you
may wish to consider in your discussion. I do fundamentally though believe that
the provision of a four -armed roundabout at Coors M roundabout and a link road
through the site is what made the allocation of Holland's Farm in 2019 viable. It was not
about a question of safety necessarily, it was as was explained to us because we went
through that whole local plan process from 2016 about providing an alternative link road
away from the centre of Bournen, down Cause M Road along Furlong Road away from Penny's
corner not named after my colleague but another illustrious resident to
alleviate traffic through the whole of Bourn End and to provide a north -south
access it is not just about highway safety and so from my point of view I do
believe that the provision of a forearm roundabout there it's not without its
challenges as Miss Messyen has said and boy have we talked about that a lot over
the years and we're grateful for the fact that you know she's engaged with us
on that, but this does deliver the policy
and it does set out to try and achieve something
for the residents of Bournend.
Thank you, just in time.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:24:35
Any questions?
No, okay.
On to Councillor Tim Bingham of Bournend and Wylburn Parish.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Public Speaker - 4:24:50
Sorry. So our position, I think, is that this, first of all, I'd like to say if the committee
is minded to approve this application, then I hope they will refuse the one that we discussed
a few moments ago and the reason for that being that if you approve the last one then
they just won't build the link road.
So I'd like to say in support of Councillor Wilson the concept of putting the link road
in in the first place was actually to move traffic off Corzine Road which is a very dangerous
and narrow road.
So there are a lot of benefits which are not brought out in the transport assessment to
taking traffic through the link road so we would support that application because
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:25:55
I think it does fulfil the intent of the policy B2. Thank you. Thank you. Any
questions? No? Okay. We're back to the applicant
stroke agent mr. small overture oh sorry now miss straighten rather than
Public Speaker - 4:26:16
counsellor traiton sorry so can you have three minutes as the to do keep born in
green separately from as you were as a wood counsellor thank you here we are at
the third application today referring to an application on the site of b2 most
unusual situation. You've heard concerns all day which have often referred to the
previous applications not fulfilling the link road and this application now in
light of the earlier approval of Holland's Dam seems in principle to do this. So as a
spokesperson for Keep Bournen Green do I feel this is an appropriate application
and should be approved? Sadly not. Not because I'm trying to be awkward but
because Princess Road is not suitable access point either and never has been.
This comes back to an old argument about how sites and policies get put in place without
thorough testing and then are forced to fit when they need to be achieved.
It's very much trying to make a road which has always been unsuitable work in order to
fill a council allocation.
We've been arguing this for over ten years and it just can't go without adverse effects
on residents' lives.
Major alterations will need to take place.
The roundabout will be changed, trees will be removed, residents will have their daily peaceful lives after development not just during upended.
Princess Road is not a suitable access and never has been.
At the crest of the Chairman I'm going to keep the speech short.
I think everything has been covered extensively today and the frustrations are that if this is approved, residents, especially those in Princess Road will suffer immeasurably.
This will affect their lives every single day.
The issue before members is not whether access can be made to work on paper.
The issue is whether members can be confident these arrangements provide genuine, safe and
suitable access for all users in the real world and those that need to live with it.
Keep Bournain Green does not believe that that confidence has been established.
Thank you.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:28:16
Thank you very much.
Any questions?
No, so we'll move on to the applicants to agent mr. Small
Public Speaker - 4:28:25
Thank you very much chair. And this is really short. And this is the original application submitted which is in accordance with policy be to
It is strongly supported by officers with no technical objections
Taking into account the mitigation proposed including that along Princess Road with the council's own environmental health officer
content
Hollings Farm to the south has now been given a resolution to grant, thereby securing the
principle of use of that road to the south of this application site as well.
In summary, this is a policy compliant proposal on an allocated site.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:29:05
Councillor Roberts and Councillor Givens.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:29:08
Yes, we've heard about the residents of Princess Road.
In terms of mitigation there. I mean, is this something would you be prepared to consider?
making parking available on your site
for
Residents of that part of Princess Road at the top end and is that something that could be incorporated at the reserve matter stage?
I'm looking behind me
Public Speaker - 4:29:38
Yes, I mean, I think that sounds absolutely fine in principle
This is obviously the outline application dealing with matters of principle which we're discussing
but with the with the detail to follow at the reserve matter stage, which will be coming back to this committee for
To consider an injury course, so yes
In which case could we look at potentially adding that condition somewhere?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:30:01
I don't think this is because we only talk about principles
Outline, I think we could say it as an informative. I'm not sure you
I'll let the officers think about that while we have the rest of the debate.
I'll come back then.
Yeah, but I think I agree where you're coming from, Councillor Roberts, indeed.
But it's whether or not we can, on an outline one, whether you can do that on the test piece,
whether it needs to be informative on the condition on the outline,
whereas I think on the reserve matter you can be very, very specific and say it's got to be X, Y and Z.
And I think that's why I'm slightly not, I get the sentiment you've got.
I'll come back to the technical question.
Yeah, that's fine.
Okay, so that was Councillor Roberts
and I had Councillor Gibbons as well.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 4:30:46
I'm sorry to keep haring on about this point,
but it really bothers me.
Is there a possibility that for Princess Road
it could maybe not be narrowed and be left as it is?
Because this trying to relocate the cars really bothers me
and I'm afraid I don't really agree with Councillor Roberts.
I mean, I'm no spring chicken.
I would not want to carry heavy shopping from your site all the way up to the
road to my house. This TPO and things for like removing cars I
can't see personally a solution anybody would be happy with where these cars
could go. So I just wonder whether there was a possibility that the road could
just be left like it was and the cars could remain parked outside their houses
or is there some other solution you could have where...
I'll bring Tim in at this point just because it's you're talking highway
technical so as better that Tim answers that question.
Tim Thurley - 4:31:46
So in terms of the on -street parking on Princes Road as part of the mitigation that we were looking to
secure for this development we would require parking restrictions to remove
the parking along that initial section of Princes Road so that it can operate
as part of the Link Road as it's supposed to do and as part of that
process obviously the applicant is going to have to look at what to do with that
displaced parking so if you can't park on that initial section where is it going
to go they've just stated the possibility of looking at providing some
parking opportunities within this initial section of their site it could
be that that parking is just moved further down Princes Road that's
something that like the applicant needs to look into as part of this part of the
process but we would be looking for TRO to put those parking restrictions in
just to remove parking along that initial section. But what if you're disabled what if you're in a
wheelchair or disabled in some way I mean I think the way you say this I don't
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 4:32:56
I know as it'll probably come out with the more reserved matters but it just
to me a bit you're not really considering how much this might actually
inconvenience people so I think what the officer said to us is those detailed
matters will come back to us at the reserve matters stage if that makes
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:33:14
sense so we're not saying it's not going to be looked at indeed are not going to
be dealt with this stage the officers made very clear to the applicant they
will have to come back and then evidence how that will be fixed in terms of your
report you phrase councillor Gibbon. So councillor Townsend. Thank you. It seems to
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:33:33
me that there's a bit of a flaw with that logic because access and safe
access is... Don't forget to ask questions to the applicant. Sorry I think we've moved on to highways and it links in. Can I link in because it follows from what we've just been
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:33:48
talking about. Is there any more questions for the... No. Because we then would then allow Mr Small to...
So if we're now moving on to technical,
will you then say thank you to Mr. Small?
He can continue to stay in the chamber,
but he's not then expected to be on the stand,
if that makes sense.
So okay, so we'll move on to the technical bit then,
Mr. Small, but then go back to your question to the officer.
Can I go ahead?
To the officer?
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:34:09
Okay, perfect.
So appreciate this is an outline matter,
but you are asking us to determine on the points of access.
Now our highways expert has said okay we're okay with this this is acceptable
subject to the three points that are summarised in your report the alterations
to cause end the alterations to Princess Road to increase footpath widths and a
TRO to overcome the issue of on -street parking. I don't know how we can make
that decision when we haven't seen a dimension deliverable design on what
those narrowed foot sorry widened footpaths would look like we don't know
whether that's possible.
We don't know whether this parking issue can be overcome,
whether a TRO would be granted.
And those are, they're both two quite contingent issues
upon which your opinion that this scheme is acceptable
stands and falls.
So how do we as a committee solve that?
How do we get over that?
Please, please help me.
So we have a plan for the roundabout design
Tim Thurley - 4:35:18
that's been submitted and considered.
It was the other two points that I was interested in.
Okay, so the existing carriageway width
on Princes Road is five and a half metres.
The existing footway widths are some 1 .7 metres either side.
We can look at reducing the width of the carriageway
to 4 .8 metres, which would still allow
opposing vehicles to pass, and that would also allow
the two metre wide footways to be provided either side of that footway.
So why don't we have those plans now as part of this application?
Because we're an outliner.
Because we're an outliner.
No we're not lying you're looking because outline no no because outline you're talking about
principle not detail we will come back to this committee as part of the reserve matters.
So on outline you only talk about principal access points and principal highway.
In reality, all that detail you're asking for comes back in a full detail report where
we go line by line, letter by letter and the rest in the reserve matter application.
But how can we be certain it's deliverable without that?
Because the officers have done a technical assessment already that shows in principle
it works.
And then the nuanced detail will come back to us at the reserve matters.
And the TRO?
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:36:35
Because we don't know in principle that works.
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:36:36
We don't know where, as Councillor Gibbons says, where are these people going to park?
Tim Thurley - 4:36:40
So the TRO is subject to public consultation anyway so any specific
issues like the Council referred to in terms of any disabled users
whether that will come out of the TRO process and that will be
something that the applicant needs to consider and address. I appreciate
that some of the dwellings and properties along that section of
Princes Road don't have their own off -street parking so it will need to be
place displaced somewhere but from our point from the highway point of view in
the highway safety points of view we need to remove that parking from that
initial section to allow to allow the link road to operate as it should do and
to allow the roundabout to operate as it should do okay
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:37:33
nice cancer Smith simplest question how many residential homes open a front door
onto princess road the bit that's owned by highways and to save you looking up i can tell
you there are none no front doors open onto princess road there is a a garage that deals
with car parts but it has its own parking there are no front doors so i'm unsure quite what the concern is
i did i walked the same stretch you did yes and i got the same conclusion as well but
but I think we still have to make sure that the whole if you're going to do
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:38:10
this route that the junction does work properly which is why we still have to
make sure that the highways team are happy and content that it's going to
work and operate correctly as it should do but I got the same sense as you did
in the approved adopted bit of the road I didn't see any front doors either but
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:38:29
yeah council waters this is not a highways point this is really picking up
on Councillor Wilson's point about the trees.
We're really gonna lose all those trees.
Have we got anything which is gonna offset that elsewhere
to recompense that within the 106?
There's no proposals to replace them
or mitigate that impact.
Faye Mesgian - 4:38:59
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:39:00
Faye Mesgian - 4:39:02
and is that something we could condition? No it's off -site.
Mr Charles Power - 4:39:07
Faye Mesgian - 4:39:09
We have 25 % canopy cover on site but obviously the actual I mean it's not all
of the trees on the roundabout there is a band of trees along the river which
will be retained but it is ten trees.
Are we taking obviously when we're looking at the sites obviously if the
roundabouts part of the site we're losing the trees on the site does that
make additional trees that we would need to find on site as part of that gain?
I mean 25 % is quite a lot of trees so they were I'm not looking for
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:39:53
anything in addition so the 25 cents in addition to what we have today is always
saying the kind of recovery is there's no trees on site cut that's up today
yeah so 25 % canopy cover across the site but the the roadworks aren't on the site
so the loss of trees for the road works while regrettable aren't part of what we
can actually seek recompense for but getting 25 % canopy cover on the site
does overcome through the development even with the loss of the trees offsite
maybe we should see what Bucks Highways can do in terms of building some trees
somewhere in the vicinity.
Mr Charles Power - 4:40:42
I'm not sure if having discussions about trees and highways is a good thing at committee.
Councillor Huxley, you've been very quiet so I'll let you come.
Thank you. I just wanted to ask a very quick question.
Councillor Longan mentioned the roundabout and only moving it a couple of metres,
Cllr Andy Huxley - 4:40:58
but how far does it have to move back?
Tim Thurley - 4:41:13
Faye Mesgian - 4:41:16
It's going to be larger than it is and it's good I don't know exactly but it
doesn't align with about eight metres I would say and it would have to be more
significant a more significant roundabout than what is there now. It's
about aligning it with Princess Road because at the moment it's slightly
offset. Yeah, there's going to be a more substantial roundabout rather than a small roundabout.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 4:41:42
It's not very big now. To be honest, I don't know about the local
members, but I use it a lot and actually it's not fit for purpose. Currently as it currently
stands there's a lot of times where you can get some interesting discussions going,
who's getting this right away. I think this will give clarity of where the right away
might look back and won't actually be. I was concerned about obviously losing all the
trees and the roundabout and concerns about the link road as well.
Faye Mesgian - 4:42:20
I mean it's actually moving 15 metres
aligns with Prince's the Prince's Road access point would come directly onto
the roundabout so therefore there'd be no conflict they'd be clarity there'd
be clarity that exactly four -way junction onto the roundabout each having
Equal right and therefore at the moment if you did it as it was now, there might be some
So we've done the technical bits
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:43:08
What's feeling of the view of the members in terms of debate
proposals, Councillor Robertson.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:43:18
Yeah, so we were on technical things,
I must have overlooked that.
I was gonna ask around the potential for adding a condition
about the on -site parking provision,
whether there is anything we can do to the condition
to help with that, to ask the...
You mean for the displaced parking?
Yeah, for the displaced parking.
There is a condition, number one,
about the details of the access layout, appearance scale,
landscaping, blah, blah, blah.
But is there anything we can add to that?
Not really, because we don't have the TRO work
to work out what the displaced parking is at this time
Mr Charles Power - 4:44:01
to be able to.
The TRO needs to, as my colleague said,
work out what the displaced parking is.
And then the developers have to deal with a displaced parking. So
through the TRO
that's the way we would look for it to happen and then it would come in as part of
The reserve matters applications. Okay. So well, here's what the TRO said
Here's what the displaced parking was on that TRO. Okay, and then here's where we'd put it. So that's okay
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:44:33
So just to clarify it then
You're saying that reserve matters if there's a TRO at that stage it would identify how much displaced parking there was
That's as I understand the way that it was
Solution would be for the displaced parking. That's that's how I understand it would work
to
Tim Thurley - 4:45:06
it'll be part of the it'll be part of the process it would identify the you
know the amount of displaced parking that would occur and then you know the
council will be working with the applicant then to what the applicant
would be putting forward proposals as to where that displaced parking will be
accommodated to identify what the mitigation would be for the displaced
parking. And the TRO is controlled through the section 106 agreement rather than
through conditions so we do control the TRO yeah so it works its way back down.
Okay that helps explain it thank you. That gives us actually better control
with the 106 actually. Okay right so currently we've got the proposal for
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:45:53
approval do members want to discuss it debate it just go to a vote I'm in your
hands
it's Roberts yeah I've I've listened to all of this and I think the main thing
for me is that it's the fact that this application that we're now considering
delivers what was in the plan I haven't heard any anything that provides
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:46:24
substantial enough harm to refuse that so I propose that we accept the
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:46:35
recommendation I've got a seconder I'd like to second it and because it does
fulfil what's in the original local plan, but it also means that you have the full range
of access points which actually shares out the amount of traffic and natural flow will
take place from that.
It is not perfect, but it is fulfilling a whole range of things and I think, as Councillor
and said there were other points which are being made and I think the roundabout
going in and doing it in the in a proper way will actually be the best that we
can do so that's why I would second this one. Thank you.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:47:24
Councillor Smith. Very briefly to sum up my points is that it's very clear that
there is substantial harm for local people perhaps not in planning
planning terms but there is a significant harm for local people at the
loss of this amenity space the loss of this green space but that has to be
offset against the benefits that come from the housing that is needed in this
area and across Buckinghamshire which really has to carry greater weight and
it's quite gratifying it's quite glad to see that there is some real benefit for
local people in this development as well in allowing this this link road between
the north and the south of this site so on balance I think I would have to go
with the officers recommendation for approval
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:48:08
it's a cast out I personally can't conclude that I would support this
application it appears the safe operation of this appears to depend on
a parking order whose outcome is unknown a footway design that hasn't been
demonstrated and we can all see that there are there will be severe harm to
the residents of that immediate vicinity so for those reasons I wouldn't be
supporting this application.
Okay so that's four speakers so far. Does anyone want to speak or would you want to
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:48:42
now just go to the vote because I've got a seconder, so proposed is Councillor Roberts,
seconded by Councillor Waters. I'll just show those in favour of the Office of
recommendation has been proposed by cancer waters and cancer Roberts on this
one I think because it caused a policy be to again I will formally vote for
this one as well okay so those against two okay so is that then carried so seven
to two seven to two that's carried okay that deals the third planning

5 23/07579/OUTEA - Land Off Princes Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire

applications we now go back to the second planning application which we
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:49:25
adjourned which was one with emergency access we've obviously heard from the
speakers themselves are there any other technical questions we need for the
officers because I did think we did do a lot of technical questioning originally
already in the second application so to my thought process really was now just
done the debate about whether we approve it or not approve it I'm open to
members views
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:49:48
I move we go to debate but I think debate is quite important for this. Yes. Okay. Yeah, happy to go to debate
Cllr Mark Roberts - 4:49:56
Councillor Roberts. I think there's a question on this one about whether we could end up approving or
refusing this application so that I think we do need to discuss we could end up approving both
of them potentially. However, I was looking at the MPPF grounds on this and the thing
that came through to me, there's a DP3 in the MPPF, item 2D, which talks about providing
good connexions to the wider settlement and I think this does not meet that. And there's
The other things considered, we talked about the impact on the road, there's TR3, which
talks about the impact on the network not being met.
And I think those are some of the, TR6 as well, transport this substantial harm to congestion.
I haven't got the exact wording to hand, but I think those are, TR3 and TR6 have come up
on other applications and I think are relevant here for the impact on the roads that would
be used instead of Princess Road. But in particular DP3, the connexions to the wider settlement
because that's not met because it isn't providing the Link Road and of course it doesn't meet
policy be too so those would be grounds I would suggest where this is vulnerable
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 4:51:43
Cllr Larisa Townsend - 4:51:46
cancer towns in next I think the fundamental reason for refusing this
proposal would be that it doesn't comply with policy be to policy be to doesn't
talk about a North South link Road it talks about cause and roundabout and
ferry lane and that this application does not deliver on policy be to and I
think that is one of our most fundamental points to consider here.
Councillor Waters. I'm agreeing with the points of the made in particularly
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:52:10
Councillor Townsend. You know it is very very clear what is stated and I think
what we have got now we have already given permission to one application
which does provide exactly what is there so it's not like we're saying and that
I think should carry some weight where this one is failing to do that.
So at this point, we are already delivering something and failing to do that on this actually
is negative and that means that you then push a lot more traffic through to Millboard Road,
which becomes then the main access point for everything coming out of this estate that
to the north where what you've got now with the two different applications which you've
gone through is you do already have a variety of routes which is going to spread the traffic
and in that way alleviates things and reduces the impact because that was really one of
the questions that was being put forward earlier, what happens with the whole thing in the end
and with all of it together with all the various access routes, we're in a better position.
but I think the key points have been picked up already in terms of reason for refusal.
Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:53:34
Thank you, Chair, and just to sum up my thoughts, planning decisions like this are often really
finely balanced and I think this is one of those where the harm that this development
represents is clearly quite significant. You only need to walk the field to realise how
often this field is walked by people. So it's a real significant loss of
amenity. But in addition to that, and the bit that really tips the
balance away from the advantage of having much needed houses, is the
fact that it has no access, no sensible, no real access. Bridgestone
Road, I think we have seen, really isn't adequate. It's not a brick
wall, you can get through, but the harm, the difficulties, the
The devastation that that will cause on the people that live along that road, the people
that use that road to get to other roads off Bridgestone Road is so significant that it's
certainly in my mind that tips the balance away from accepting the officer's proposal
in this case.
And so on that basis, I'll be voting against this application.
Mr Charles Power - 4:54:44
Can I just come in at that point?
You've all just approved the access on Bridgestone Road.
so you can't now turn around and say that it's not a suitable access.
But the significant difference is that we are looking at an application as it stands
Cllr Gregory Smith - 4:54:57
and the application in front of us has Bridgetown Road as the only access.
The previous application has two access points,
one of which is extremely suitable and comes off a busy roundabout on a busy main road.
This is not the case with this application.
So you told us not to compare them, so I've tried not to.
I tried to look at this application just as it stands and as it stands in front of us
there is only one access point and
For the residents who live on that estate not just on Bridgestone Road, but the roads coming off it. This is wholly
Inappropriate inadequate and and I am just a bit surprised that that wasn't spelt out a bit more in the highways assessment
I'll just come back and that
Mr Charles Power - 4:55:41
Planning permissions are a material consideration when determining a planning application
application. So the fact that you have just determined a planning application that gives
an access route from Bridgestone Road into this site is a material consideration that
you now have to take into account when determining this application.
But we heard from officers earlier that this, the previous application that we've approved,
split the access at least 50 -50 between two access points and that appeared to make it
acceptable, though clearly damaging, but an acceptable set of considerations.
Certainly in my mind I may not have quite the laser shot focus of a planner
but certainly in my mind and thinking about the residents on that estate
there is a significant difference between the two.
I'm not saying that what you're saying is incorrect I'm just saying you have to
take into account that.
And what you've now done is given me
a difference between what you've approved
and what is before you, where previously you were just
saying, well, the Bridgestone Road access isn't acceptable.
Now you've made it more nuanced, saying that the Bridgestone
Road access at the level that it would
be if it was the only access into that part of the site.
So, you know, I was just trying to point you in a direction, shall we say.
Yeah.
I think actually we had got that before we made the decision before, and we did realise,
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 4:57:26
because the officer had already said, and is logical, the more access points you have,
the more distribution, the choices which are there is motorists will take the easiest choice,
not the slalom, difficult choice through a road, that might not be modelled in, but we know how traffic really works
and if you actually put the main route through, that will be the one that most will take.
It will also share out and put the balance of harm is reduced, but I think this option makes the
I forgot the name of it.
Bridgestone Drive, very secondary,
because if you're looking at the applications
which are there, it's not gonna be the primary route,
it's not designed to be the primary route,
and that I think is what is very significantly different
in terms of what we're agreeing.
Yes, it can be used, but it would never be
what it was envisaged,
what's being envisioned in this application,
which is the primary route,
and that is something significantly different.
Okay, I think Councillor Munger might have indicated, no?
Yeah, so I had to unlist,
just the other ones took us a long.
I then got Councillor Jackson and then Councillor Rolle.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Llew Monger - 4:58:42
I agree with the points already made in general.
I think the key point is that the acceptance
of this application does give us the opportunity,
if not, although it doesn't deliver the link road in full,
it makes the delivery of the link road achievable.
So it supports B2, which was the fundamental
policy decision in relation to this site.
References to MPPF have been made by Councillor Roberts,
I'm sure officers have picked them up.
I wonder if given that we move to a refusal on this,
that officers might be able to help,
whether it's appropriate to make reference to the fact
that this application delivers that requirement of B2
and makes a link road through the site achievable
because I think that's an important factor
in what we're considering.
I took the view from what the rest of the committee
was saying was they don't feel it actually does deliver
the link road as set out in BE2, but I could be wrong
when I look at my other members.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:00:14
Sorry, the other, yes.
Yes, the reason it was,
the first gender is three previous one where this one doesn't that's in some
way in the in the refusal of wording yes yes thank you that's what that's what I
thought you were coming from but where you destroy ticket I'm like I did yes
sorry yeah yeah we worried at that point okay can't change the own name followed
Cllr Jackson Ng - 5:00:42
by Councillor Roberts Thank You chairman I'll just sort of recollect my thoughts
on this. I understand the way we've done it is that we've gone straight to the
application which we've just passed because we felt that it was more sound
and better for the residents and in line with the local plan. We're now being told
actually we should go along with officers recommendation this time around
for this one because we've approved that one and then there was no
there was no impact on Breachstone Lane Drive
or whichever it is.
My view is, if I can come back in,
I mean, I wasn't on a site visit,
but I've driven down that road
because a friend of ours used to live around there.
And I live myself on a small narrow road
with a cul -de -sac exactly like this.
And from my experience is that whilst in theory
you could get traffic through,
My personal experience says to me that this is going to be havoc for the
residents as such my mind is that I'll be minded to oppose this. Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:01:49
Thank you. Councillor Roberts followed by Councillor Huxley.
Yeah I mean what I was hearing and what I suggested earlier were grounds for
refusing this one and those were the the points I made. I thought there was
one more. There's another element here which we maybe want to consider. MPPF TR4 has got
a section item D which is about allowing for the efficient delivery of goods and ease of
access by service and emergency vehicles in ways which do not compromise key placemaking
principles so that in my mind Bridgestone Drive on its own is not
suitable as in meeting that criteria and I think that's probably a good one that
Cllr Andy Huxley - 5:02:40
we could add in as well. Well Councillor Huxley I'm going to summarise and then
because I've written down with the policies you talked about as well and
then just test those with the officers to see if they're happy those would be
the reason well the committee ultimately made the decision mr. Parra
unfortunately committee ultimately do make the decision really follow on from
Councillor Roberts is just saying that if the access into Jackson's field was
down the Bridgestone is Princess Road going to be used for access to get into
No. Emergency access only. This one is emergency access only for Princes Road.
So they would be able to get into Jackson's field from
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:03:33
Princes Road? Only for emergency access. So no standard
vehicle access. This second application was purely for emergency
access only I fire engine so how are you gonna stop it says I need me used for
the likes of a fire engine not for the standard vehicle yeah so the standard
ones we already got in place elsewhere they are either on massive follow the
fire engines control and or others just a point thank you so I'm sensing from
and the committee at the moment,
they're not happy with this particular application.
I've got written down based on the discussion so far,
tell me if I've missed anything.
I've got the MPPF, policy DP3 brackets 2D,
TR4 section D, TR3 and TR6,
but also they don't feel that this actually accords
and delivers under B, local plan policy BE2
because of the nature we described
the Council of Waters described and the others described that having Bridgestone
drivers the singular access points overloads in effect the network and the
wider network and the rest so that's how I understand the thoughts and reasons
for refusal I'll just clarify with offices whether those are correct ones
or whether some of it this this this or this you know so that's based on the
Mr Charles Power - 5:05:14
comments that's what they seem to feel is that sufficient one thing I haven't
quite got a clear picture of from the members is and I know I've told you to
consider these things in isolation but this does have the potential of bringing
traffic north from the other development you've approved today and so are you
saying that in a in addition to what this application is potentially putting
on the Bridgestone Drive you're taking into account the fact that you've just
traffic north go through Bridgestone Drive and that's part of what your
problem is? I think it stands alone. This in its own right is too much. If you took the other site into account it would be massively too much.
I'm just asking for clarification. No I took it the members were looking at
doing as they've been asked to on its own merits as it stands alone the
consequence of this application on British Drive Drive is unacceptable
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:06:32
harm and then the bit the policies they've talked about is where they think
it's why it's policy non -compliant so they also may not agree that all those
policies of course are all non -compliant but that's and I took it from the
members it's this application on a standalone basis doesn't doesn't work
and does not in effect fails on that basis that's one getting those round the
So does it there's something along the lines of the proposed development fails
Mr Charles Power - 5:07:02
to provide an access on to cause and road roundabout as required by policy
be to in addition by reason of its proposed access arrangement the
proposal along with any honour because you've just told me not that the
proposal would generate a significant increase in vehicular movements on the
local highway network of Bridgestone Drive
and then go on to say that that's why you're,
in policy terms, that's why it's unacceptable.
Is she included on this drive?
Is that legal?
I'm trying to make a case.
It's not my case, it's their case.
I get that.
And I asked the question,
I got the answers to that.
Sorry, just to make sure.
We are saying this application fails
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:07:49
to produce the full link between the two sites which is in the local plan so the
both sites are important in terms of that because actually in terms of
particularly the statement of where that link road should go through and where it
comes out is stated precisely in the plan and it is not through some other
side route that it's going to be achieved through Bridgestone if you
actually link the two sites. It is important to say that that is not what's
envisaged because you're failing to get this link of the two sites which is the
overriding plan and to fail on that. By itself it creates a major problem on its
own site but it has this extra problem of not not performing in the way that a
plan envisaged from a plan led link road with a particular help place it actually
Mr Charles Power - 5:08:54
would come. So that's why I said the proposed development fails provided
access onto the Corzine Road roundabout as required by policy BE2.
So it does yeah so so the southern bit it does the northern bit it doesn't so
that's why I've referred to the northern bit not the southern bit but my question
was well did you want to take into account other potential impact from the
fact that it does link to the southern bit and things traffic from the southern
bit would end up obviously going potentially down Bridgestone Road but you
I was told no.
Well, I think it was a yes, not a no.
Yes.
Cllr Jonathan Waters - 5:09:35
In my mind, it was actually.
It was a not in itself, but if it,
because we don't know that the southern,
we can't guarantee that the southern development is
going to get developed.
Mr Charles Power - 5:09:47
We don't know that, but there's a material consideration
in front of you that you've granted permission
for the southern area with the link.
So you could say, and the potential impact
from the southern, which is what I'd started writing but crossed out.
Cllr Mark Roberts - 5:10:04
That sounds better because it's the impact of this as it stands plus the potential development
from the potential impact from the other development.
You all happy with that?
Mr Charles Power - 5:10:18
Well we haven't got to...
I'll read it out again, they can vote on it.
But I need to write it down first because otherwise we get into the problem that we...
So one of the questions that the lead officers just reminded us that we obviously still have
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:10:45
to make sure we have in our mind as a committee a view that the harm in effect tilts the balance
to significantly outweigh the potential benefits of this application as it stands as its own
plus the potential connected application
that we just approved in terms of the Hollands Farm piece.
So I think I'm getting the sense from the committee members,
they definitely feel that that is the case,
that the substantial harm of this application
is fully overturned.
And I think because the members did talk
about multiple pieces, about the fact
it fails in terms of our local plan itself,
I think that was a fundamental first point.
I think also then the DP3, TR4, TR3, TR6 in MPPF,
I think if it had been before August,
there might have been a different answer,
but because we've got the new set of rules
now coming through, I think in my mind,
based on what the committee is saying to me,
that's why we think it's reached that threshold
and passed that threshold.
If I can add on that, all those other DP3, TR3,
TR 4 TR 6 when taken together they represent a substantial harm so
Ms. Teresa Coppock - 5:12:01
basically the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the
adverse effects assessed when you assess against policies correct okay so have I
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:12:13
got a formal proposal for that okay council Roberts and I've got a formal
seconder council Townsend I will also get with the officers to give the exact
wording but you understand the thrust of what we're coming from based on what the
committee have said to us we'll work go away and get that written up to make
sure it's correct so kind of a show of hands in terms of okay well let it read
out of limit yes
Mr Charles Power - 5:12:37
so on top of what's just means that the the nub of it is that the proposed
development fails to provide an access onto the cause end road roundabout as
required by policy B2 in addition by reason of its proposed access
arrangement the proposal whether alone or in conjunction with the potential
additional traffic from the southern parcel would generate a significant
increase in vehicle movements on the local highway network of Bridgestone
Drive so that is all about vehicle movements it's not about highway safety
as far as ambulances, et cetera, are concerned.
We don't really have any evidence in that respect,
but what you've really been, I mean,
at the end of it, you said, well, it might include this,
and it might include that, and it might include that,
but actually what you've discussed
is the vehicle movements down Bridgestone Drive
and the impact upon Bridgestone Drive
from those vehicle movements.
So unless you're gonna tell me differently,
I think that's what you've actually discussed and agreed on and that that
significantly outweighs the benefits of the scheme as
Put by our legal colleagues. All right
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:13:55
Those are being cancelled Roberts a seconder being cancelled Townsend kind of a show of hands in terms of those in favour of the
proposal to refuse this application on basis of the
evidence given by the officers what the actual reasons will be.
Well, the reasons for the refusal, right?
So, and interestingly, I'm going to go as well, I agree with it.
It's unanimous that actually this one doesn't work at all.
So, yeah.
So, I think that's actually very good, clear debate at the end
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:14:32
about actually this one is fully refused for the following reasons.
Okay, so we have to go back to the minutes of the meeting from last time.

2 Minutes

We have sought clarification and actually we've, and I pushed back forcibly, that actually
it turns out that if you are part of the committee today, it is part of our committee's business
today to consider those minutes.
The fact you weren't necessarily there or not there, yeah, it means that all of you
can vote on those minutes as an accurate record.
We did do a slight update. I know you didn't have a chance to read it, but in essence, Councillor Roberts,
it's to strengthen the reasons for refusal of that particular application.
So that's what we I've made the officers go back through the webcast, go through the policies, go through the applications
we talked about and it's more about that detail. So on that basis if the
Committee are happy and content with me to sign those minutes off.
Yeah, a show of hands of agreed. Yes, okay.
Excellent. Okay. So that's that part. Just a slight nuance there that's in subsequent
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 5:15:44
to all that. Yeah. That the decision notes hadn't been issued as yet. Since the last
committee there has been a material change in circumstances and the applicant has indicated
that they will probably resubmit an application to the strategic sites to come forward to
us again. I'm not sure exactly when but.
It's the same application.
Well, we think it's the same.
No, we think— It will be the same.
It will be the same application, but there will be additional materials that are considered
material considerations as to why you have to reconsider the application.
So we'll have to go through the application all over again with the material—
It's legal, it seems.
I have, yeah.
Yeah.
Come back to committee, yeah.
OK.
So material change circumstances, application will be resubmitted and we heard, depending
on the app the timings and all the other applications that are coming through the system, it will
either be the 22nd of October or the one after that. We're not sure when, but we expect the
22nd of October, but, you know, we have to wait and see what actually comes through and
timings and the rest of it. But obviously it will be whichever members are available.
So we're doing the normal cycle, 22nd of November, 26th of October, so the same cycle as normal.
And whichever one we can bring it to, we'll bring it to that.
So it's known as information.
So I think that's most of the pieces now dealt with.
I think the only last bit is about the date of next meeting.
So the date of next meeting will be 22nd of October.
But there are already some applications coming through.
We already know, separate from that one.
10 a .m. as usual.
Would depend on which ones come through.
Depends on whether it be here or the Oculus.
Not sure.
Depends on which ones come through.
And the site meeting would normally be Tuesday the 22nd.
Is how we normally do it.
Because it's Thursday the 22nd.
Tuesday the 20th of October for the site visit meetings is normal.
So we're trying to get a cycle, someone can't make it I get.
But the West planning committee has Twitter, it'll be Monday and Wednesday and we have
Tuesday and Thursday.
So we don't clash with each other.
So that's the plan.
OK so we're now at 3 .47.
Webcast Finished - 5:18:07
Now declare the meeting closed.