Interactive webcast player

Transport, Environment, Communities & Climate Change Select Committee
Wednesday, 4th November 2026 at 10:00am

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
  1. Sally Moore - Senior Scrutiny Officer
  2. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  2. Cllr David Carroll
  3. Mr Steve Bambrick
  4. Cllr David Carroll
  5. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  6. Cllr David Carroll
  7. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  8. Cllr David Carroll
  9. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  10. Cllr David Carroll
  11. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  12. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  13. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  14. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  15. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  16. Cllr David Carroll
  17. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  18. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  19. Cllr David Carroll
  20. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  21. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  22. Cllr Clive Harriss
  23. Cllr Justine Fulford
  24. Cllr Gregory Smith
  25. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  26. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  27. Cllr David Carroll
  28. Cllr Gregory Smith
  29. Cllr Adekunle Osibogun
  30. Cllr Gregory Smith
  31. Ms. Hannah Joyce
  32. Cllr David Carroll
  33. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
  1. Public Questions
  2. Cllr David Carroll
  3. Graham Dike
  4. Cllr David Carroll
  5. Cllr Thomas Broom
  6. Cllr David Carroll
  7. Cllr Peter Martin
  8. Cllr David Carroll
  9. Natalie Wheble
  10. Cllr David Carroll
  11. Natalie Wheble
  12. Cllr David Carroll
  13. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  14. Cllr David Carroll
  15. Natalie Wheble
  16. Paul Mountford
  17. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  18. Paul Mountford
  19. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  20. Paul Mountford
  21. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  22. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  23. Paul Mountford
  24. Graham Dike
  25. Cllr David Carroll
  26. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  27. Cllr Peter Martin
  28. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  29. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  30. Graham Dike
  31. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  32. Cllr David Carroll
  33. Graham Dike
  34. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  35. Graham Dike
  36. Paul Mountford
  37. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  38. Cllr Peter Martin
  39. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  40. Cllr Peter Martin
  41. Natalie Wheble
  42. Cllr Gregory Smith
  43. Cllr David Carroll
  44. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  45. Paul Mountford
  46. Cllr Gregory Smith
  47. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  48. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  49. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  50. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  51. Cllr David Carroll
  52. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  53. Natalie Wheble
  54. Paul Mountford
  55. Natalie Wheble
  56. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  57. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  58. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  59. Cllr David Carroll
  60. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  61. Cllr David Carroll
  62. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  63. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  64. Cllr David Carroll
  65. Tristan Lincoln-Gordon
  66. Cllr David Carroll
  67. Daniel Gigg
  68. Cllr David Carroll
  69. Natalie Wheble
  70. Cllr David Carroll
  71. Cllr Thomas Broom
  72. Natalie Wheble
  73. Cllr David Carroll
  74. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  75. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr David Carroll
  2. Cllr Thomas Broom
  3. Cllr David Carroll
  4. Richard Barker
  5. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  6. Cllr Thomas Broom
  7. James Loader
  8. Cllr David Carroll
  9. Cllr Gregory Smith
  10. James Loader
  11. Cllr Thomas Broom
  12. Lindsey Vallis
  13. Cllr Gregory Smith
  14. Cllr Thomas Broom
  15. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  16. Cllr David Carroll
  17. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  18. Cllr Thomas Broom
  19. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  20. Cllr Thomas Broom
  21. James Loader
  22. Cllr Thomas Broom
  23. Cllr Andy Huxley
  24. Cllr Thomas Broom
  25. Cllr David Carroll
  26. James Loader
  27. Cllr Phil Gomm
  28. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  29. Cllr Thomas Broom
  30. James Loader
  31. Cllr Justine Fulford
  32. Cllr Thomas Broom
  33. Lindsey Vallis
  34. James Loader
  35. Cllr Justine Fulford
  36. Cllr David Carroll
  37. James Loader
  38. Cllr Clive Harriss
  39. Cllr Thomas Broom
  40. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Thomas Broom
  2. Cllr David Carroll
  3. Cllr Phil Gomm
  4. Cllr Thomas Broom
  5. Lindsey Vallis
  6. Cllr Gregory Smith
  7. Cllr Thomas Broom
  8. Lindsey Vallis
  9. Cllr Thomas Broom
  10. Lindsey Vallis
  11. Cllr Thomas Broom
  12. Cllr David Carroll
  13. Cllr Justine Fulford
  14. Cllr Thomas Broom
  15. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  16. Cllr Thomas Broom
  17. Richard Barker
  18. Cllr Thomas Broom
  19. Cllr Alex Collingwood
  20. Cllr Thomas Broom
  21. Cllr David Carroll
  22. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  23. Cllr Thomas Broom
  24. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  25. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  2. Cllr David Carroll
  3. Cllr Ed Gemmell
  4. Cllr David Carroll
  5. Cllr Justine Fulford
  6. Cllr David Carroll
  7. Cllr Justine Fulford
  8. Cllr Wendy Matthews
  9. Cllr Anja Schaefer
  10. Cllr Gregory Smith
  11. Cllr David Carroll
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr David Carroll - 0:00:00
That was good, wasn't it? Can you hear me? Great, sorry about that down there. You've
jumped out your seat. We've got the sound right here, I'll stand back here shall I?
Sorry, apologies, it was a bit loud. Good morning everybody, thank you members for coming
is an important meeting. I hope the public enjoy it but there's so many items tonight
are really important to our communities. Apologies for absence.

1 Apologies for Absence

Sally Moore - Senior Scrutiny Officer - 0:00:43
Thank you Chairman. We've had an apology from Councillor Mike Collins
and Councillor Alex Collingwood is substituting for him.

2 Declarations of Interest

Cllr David Carroll - 0:00:48
I'm just taking this steady. The declarations of interest. Looking round.

3 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Right. Previous minutes in the previous meeting, any concerns, comments? None at all?

4 Public Questions

Public questions? There is one on the item six, that will be coming later.

5 Consideration of Motion: Ouse Valley Water Corridor Water Resources Management Plan

Right, can we move on to obviously the first item, number five, considering the motion.
just to explain motions come from full council to here.
And it's used to value what water corridor,
the sources management plan.
I've decided that the person who's put the motion together
to let him speak for three minutes.
So, can you come up please?
Thank you.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:01:50
Before I start speaking, Chair, firstly, thank you for the opportunity to speak.
That's not very good, is it?
It is working, that's fine.
Thank you very much, Chair, for the opportunity to speak.
In addressing the report that you've got with you today, to try and help you with the report,
I think it's important that we consider some of the basis
of the report.
The motion was not seeking the council
to commit any financial resources or anything
to this project, just the understanding
of the worth of it.
The arrangements on page one, the officer's recommendations
to the committee note that Angular Ward is to conclusion
that there are no further actions
and strength on paragraph 8 .4 apparently.
The directions established, the resolution asked
by the council is to support the concept,
not the project, the concept.
It did not ask for the council to ratify one
of the water company sources of their options.
Officers have answered a score question and treated
that the closure of the concept of using unless Robin draws
that line before he asks anything else.
Therefore, the answer is simple in paragraph 8 .4.
The two dates which are worked out under DEFRA,
Water Resource Planning Guidelines, April 2026.
AngularWater does not publish its resource position statement
until May 2027, so I'm questioning where that came from,
and does not submit its draught WRMP 29 plan until February 2028.
The committee is being asked to close roughly 16 months before the plan refers to its draught stage,
which seems a bit early to be honest.
The route of the plan is connected to the resource east.
It's cause for options by 2029.
The regulations plan runs until March 2027.
This is to find out the options.
So if we go on with that, if you, one of the key parts
of the report you need to look at is 8 .3 and ask questions
where that came from, because the report to the best
of my knowledge hasn't been published yet.
And in advance of this, I did give huge amounts of information
of the project to officers.
I supplied it to the Section 51 officer, the lead of the council.
I provided it to the chief executive which I'm really disappointed with the
recommendations in there because this is a concept proposal at this stage which
if goes forward will effectively make the Buckinghamshire plan sound the
Buckinghamshire plan in its entirety needs water. Just to say that's three
Cllr David Carroll - 0:04:53
minutes. Thank you. Okay thank you very much.
Reply from the officer please.
Chairman, thank you.
Mr Steve Bambrick - 0:05:02
I don't intend to repeat a lot of what's in the report before you today.
I think just simply to say that I think as the motion asked, the Council has examined the concept and the feasibility.
I think the original motion talked about,
specifically talked about subject
to Anglian Waters' assessment of the proposal.
As you can see, what's before you today is the outcome
of their assessment of the proposal, which sets
out that they don't believe
that the proposal either provides a basis
for resource management or flood prevention,
such that it would require them or any other organisation to commit any further funding or resource to it.
So having looked at the Anglian Waters conclusion, it feels that the Council's conclusion ought to be fairly straightforward in that concept.
in that in seeking to pursue this proposal without the support
of Anglia Water, it's likely to lead us
to no particular positive outcome.
So it's with all of that.
And again, what's also obviously respecting the kind
of the Canal Society's ambition and enthusiasm for the project,
But it is with all of that that the Council position remains recommended that we no longer pursue any further action on this project.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:06:45
Thank you very much and fortunately we've got the cabinet member just coming through.
Try and get your breath. Probably been the traffic hasn't it?
Okay so Robin has already spoke so over to you the cabinet member on the motion.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:07:01
Thank you very much chair. I do apologise if there was a 10 -10 stopped.
And I would like to first start by referring to the report which is before this committee.
It's brought from the full council requesting a cabinet engage the Ouse Valley water corridor concept.
Subject to Angling Waters Visibility Assessment.
Council referred it to the motion
to this committee for consideration.
And we now have the outcome
of Anglian Waters assessment of the concept based
on this technical feasibility, potential benefits,
and environmental application.
Chair, the conclusion is clear.
Anglian Water has determined
that the proposal does not offer sufficient water, resource,
of flood management benefits to justify progressing it
into its water resource management plan for 2029.
Consequently, Buckinghamshire Council does not intend
to commit further office of resource
or undertake additional work to develop the concept.
I want to be clear that this decision reflects Anglian
Water's assessment and the council's high level
understanding of the proposal.
Chair, I also want to address the importance of evidence -led decision -making.
As a Councillor represented Buckingham, I understand only too well the impact that flooding
has on our community, particularly following significant events that have happened in recent years.
Residents understandably want solutions and they deserve proposals that are supported by credible
evidence. My concern is that the U .S. Valley Water Corridor concept has been
promoted as a flood mitigation solution for Buckingham without the supporting
hydraulic modelling, visibility studies or economic assessment needed to
substantiate those claims. There have been several opportunities for
this information to be provided through the Buckingham Flood Risk Coordination
network, to my knowledge, no such supporting evidence has been presented through that forum.
Also raises concern during a cabinet question which was asked at the cabinet meeting on
the 12th of May.
We must be careful not to give residents an expectation of flood protection that has not
been demonstrated by the evidence.
That is particularly important for communities
that have already experienced devastating consequence
of flooding, such as ours in Buckingham.
But, Chair, I also do not want today's discussion to be solely
about why one particular concept is not being progressed.
I want to reassure residents
that substantial work is already underway to better understand
and manage flood risk in Buckingham.
The council, the environment agency, Anglian Water,
and other local partners have been working together
on a coordinated programme of measures.
And I would like to highlight some of these measures.
First, stronger coordination and accountability
through the Buckingham Floyd risk coordination network,
which was established in 2025 and now brings together the EA,
the council services including highways, water companies,
the town council, and community representatives.
This provides a regular forum to review progress, challenge outstanding actions,
and ensure that relevant risk management authorities remain accountable
for their responsibilities.
An addendum to the section 19 flood investigation covering the November 2024 flooding has also
been published and outstanding recommendations are being
monitored through a shared action tracker in that forum.
Also, Chair, I would like to reference the improved flood
warning and modelling that has been implemented in Buckingham.
In March 2026, the Environment Agency updated the Buckingham's
flood warning thresholds and revised the warning areas
and introduced an additional trigger linked
to the Brathley gage.
This provides greater resilience,
chilled Buckingham gage fill.
And I think that was a concern that some
of our local residents had.
Work is also progressing
to raise the Buckingham River level gage while the updated
upper Great Ouse hydraulic modelling is
substantially completed.
And I will say that is work currently being done by the EA.
Thirdly, practical drainage and infrastructure improvements have also been done by our highways
team.
Buckingham's wider highway Gully Cleansing Programme has been reported as substantially
completed.
Further investigation and works remain at Ford Street, including vegetation clearance,
de -tiltings and CCTV surveys to determine the most appropriate drainage solution.
And then Water has also completed its assigned section
19 recommendation, include sewer monitoring and modelling
at March end, raised manholes, non -return valves,
and improvements to the Buckingham Riverside
pumping station.
Chair would also like to acknowledge the work being done
by the EA.
The year has its initial assessment,
which is probably completed.
There's a meeting scheduled for Thursday to update stakeholders
on the results of that assessment.
This assessment will determine
if larger engineering interventions will be needed.
And this will include things like property,
flood resilience, river maintenance,
and strategic natural flood management.
There's also the option of further modelling at Tingip Mill,
which will help establish whether the options being
considered there should be progress or ruled out.
And this will be discussed on Thursday's meeting.
Chair, previous council work has also identified several
tributary catchments upstream of Buckingham,
where natural flood management could help reduce flood risk
if delivered at sufficient scale.
At Finnmere, there has been approximately 200 trees
delivered in late 2025 with intervention reported
to have performed well during a storm in January 2026.
Of course, an isolated intervention will not solve
Buckingham's flood problems.
and I must emphasise that.
But meaningful benefits would require coordinated programme
across a much wider upstream catchment.
And this is why the EA and the council are looking
to build upon existing evidence and mapping
to explore more strategic opportunities,
including floodplain reconnections
and other natural -based solutions.
Chair, I'd also like to talk about the community resilience.
Buckland Town Council, the flood action for Buckingham, have continued to develop the
committee flood plan, including flood warning arrangements and improved
information for residents. This is an essential part of our approach because
while we cannot eliminate every flood risk, we can improve preparedness,
strengthen resilience and reduce the consequence when flood occurs.
Chair, I would like to conclude on three points.
If I may, the first is that the Ouse Valley Water Corridor concept has been considered by angling water,
and its assessment does not support taking the proposal forward.
While intervention and new ideas should always be welcomed,
proposals presented to residents
as flood mitigation solutions must be supported
by robust technical evidence, a credible delivery mechanism,
and just demonstrable benefit.
This, Chair, I think is extremely important.
And thirdly, the decision not
to progress this particular concept must not be confused
With the lack of action on flooding in Buckingham, the Council and other RMA's are taking proactive steps to address this major concern that we know our residents are very keen on.
Chair, with that, I would like to stop and take any questions if possible.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:16:26
Thank you very much, that was very precise and in depth. That was brilliant, thank you very much.
The four questions, can I say something?
We're talking about the motion, the three points in the motion.
We're not talking about maybes, what has, what do you think about other things.
Can we be straight to the point on the motion?
So, Anja.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you to the cabinet member for this very lengthy report into flood action in Buckingham.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 0:17:05
What I would like to point out is that, he's quite right to point out, that one single solution will not solve everything.
I would also like to point out that a lot of the actions that he has listed are quite small scale.
They will not even jointly produce a solution quickly enough.
I obviously, we obviously have to listen to what Anglian Water have told us.
I have to say this is something that is relatively new to me, this report,
and it doesn't appear to have been published by Anglian Water.
May I therefore ask the officer, in fact, whether the council has obtained
a more detailed assessment of the options and the various ways in which Anglin Water is looking to take forward the water resources,
sewage treatment and flooding issues in the Upper Ouse Valley.
And if so, whether this more detailed report can be made available to members of this committee.
If we have only got the headline that has been presented to this committee at this moment, could officers,
or I would ask the committee to request that officers go back to Anglian Water and ask for this more detailed assessment please.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:18:33
Before we answer that, I did say we're sticking to the motion and the information we got today.
So that's what we're talking about. So can the officer answer that now please?
With all due respect, Chairman, I think that was speaking to the motion.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 0:18:47
We were seeking more information that would help us determine the motion.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:18:51
Thank you, Councillor and Chief.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:18:55
I would say there's nothing new to members of the Buckingham Flood Risk Coordination Network in what I've said today.
It's updates and briefings that is well known in our forum.
I've just put that piece of information here to update members of this committee on the topic of Buckingham flooding.
With regards to the detailed assessment of Anglian water, we are a separate authority.
I'm sure it's possible for, if any member is interested to apply by FOI to get that report.
On our side, we have asked a question of Anglian water and the responses come back saying they're not progressing with it.
If there's any detail which is required, I'm sure freedom of information can be used by anybody,
be it resident or councillor who's interested to obtain that piece of information.
David.
I think just to comment on that straight away, I don't think it's up to this committee to do a freedom of information request to get the information we need to make a decision.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:20:01
I would have, I mean, and David, if we do need to do it,
I don't think it's up to us as members.
That should be our committee doing that request.
But one way, either way around, either the council's got it
and can give it to us, and if not,
we don't have enough information.
And whether we do it as a committee,
I think it's a committee's job,
not individual members to go off and do it.
Thank you very much for that, Councillor Ed Garmon.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:20:22
Just to clarify that point, we have asked Anglin Water,
specifically if they're proceeding with the concept paper,
which was the subject matter of the motion.
They've come back with a single response saying, no, they're not.
We've not asked them for any in -depth report as to why they're not.
Because that's not, it's not for us to decide,
I'll determine that, it's their decision to make.
So if it's of further interest, I'm sure Anglian Water,
you would be able to provide you that piece of information if you need it.
But on our side, we have looked at it, we've asked them the question,
they've given us a response and we're satisfied with that.
Very quick comeback.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:21:07
I would just say if we haven't, if the council has gone and just said to them,
you made a decision and hasn't asked them why and got the full information,
how on earth can we make a decision?
And for this committee, we're needing to scrutinise that.
That's our whole role.
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:21:20
If I trust on the back and forth, I do apologise for this.
Sorry, I do, if I wasn't clear before, I'm happy to state that again.
The ask that was made by the motion was to ascertain if Anglian water will be progressing with the concept paper.
Officers have gone and asked that specific question.
The motion does not, we do not have the technical capacity in -house to look into or reassess what Anglian water have done.
That's not what we are here to do.
What we are asked to do by the committee was to ask the question, will they be progressing with the concept?
We have asked the question, we've got no response, and we've brought that response to this committee for the committee's information.
That's what we asked and we've delivered.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:22:14
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:22:16
Hi, Chairman. I'm obviously reviewing different reports from my fellow councillors.
You clearly can't read the report. If you read 8 .4 on page 16, it's in quotation marks.
Following an assessment of the Buckinghamshire Canal Option concept proposed by Buckingham Canal Society as part of the Water Resources Management Plan 2029,
the Bid Assessment Framework, we have undertaken an option assessment,
viewing and considering technical feasibility, potential benefits and likely environmental impacts.
Following the review, it's been decided the option would not progress to be an option in the Anglia Waters WRMP 29,
as it was not found to provide either sufficient water resort or flood prevention benefit.
So they've not just gone, we're not interested, they've gone, we've done the assessment and it fails to meet the criteria.
So based on what was said in the actual motion cheque,
we've gone to the dud number one,
gone to the Anglia water, they've come back and said,
we've done a physical assessment.
The answer is no, and it fails on two grounds, not just one.
So I'm sorry.
I'm amazed that my fellow councillors can't read a report.
Sorry.
Objection.
Hold on.
We can read a report.
You don't need to read it out to us.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 0:23:35
We will look straight to the point.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:23:36
So, Anja.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 0:23:40
Okay. I don't think there's any need for members of this committee to read out the wording.
We have read this ourselves.
I think it is entirely appropriate for a scrutiny committee to ask whether there is more detailed information available.
and that is all that we have done. If the committee as a whole does not feel that
this is appropriate then that is the committee's decision. It is a legitimate
question to raise and I feel it is our job as a committee to be curious and to
ask questions. Let's come back. As a former chairman of the scrutiny
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 0:24:24
committees we've been asked to do a certain piece of work. We've got a
detailed response back from the relevant person we were asked to go and interrogate an interview,
so I still don't understand where the counsellors are coming from, because we were asked to
do A, B, and C, we've done A, B, and C, and the response back is a detailed response.
It's not just a go away, I'm not interested.
It's a detailed response.
We're giving two reasons for failure.
Therefore, to me, that's a clear answer and a clear response.
It's not just a, oh, I'm not interested, go away.
it's very clear that that's what their answer to the thing is.
Technically it fails, both in terms of water resource and flood prevention benefit.
Clive and Justin.
Thank you Chairman.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 0:25:12
Whilst I commend the Canal Society's idea of bringing this canal back into its serviceable order,
And whilst I have great pleasure of riding up and down our blue corridors in and around Aylesbury,
I think the thing that is apparent here is they're looking to finance this through trying to use a scheme which will provide them with finance to achieve their ends.
And it's quite clear from the report that the sort of work being done on the Grand Union Canal is far more beneficial.
And in this particular instance, it just isn't sufficient to warrant the expenditure.
And I think that's the crux of this.
And as I say, I would love to see the canal back in use
with Alder, but hey, I'm just a leisure user.
I think realistically, we have to watch out where all the
pounds and pennies go these days, which is getting harder
and harder.
And for that reason, I would have to say that I go with the
recommendation of the report.
Thank you.
Just be.
Cllr Justine Fulford - 0:26:16
Yeah, I note the 12 .2 of the conclusion
that the concept remains an early stage of development.
That there could be something else which comes along.
But also, we don't have that information
that informed Anglian Waters' response to the council.
We need that information.
I would definitely recommend that this committee asks
for this to come back at a further stage, you know,
at a future moment when that information is available.
This shouldn't be hit on the head.
Maybe officers do not want to spend more time on it.
They can't without this information.
But we should push for this information.
I would hope that there would be no objection
from this committee to the concept.
I don't think that's what is being said in the conclusion.
And it should remain for scrutiny at a further meeting
of this committee when other information is available.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:27:29
And returning to the agenda, the motion as it is.
It seems quite clear that the response that we've had
from Angley Water is completely inappropriate.
It's just not detailed, it's not good enough.
And it's quite clear that the proposal is not just about restoring the canal to gain benefits for water security, but also as a proper flood buffer.
And until we get a sufficient and detailed response from Angling Water, backing up, they're pretty much a brush off response that we seem to have received.
Certainly that we're being given in the report here.
I don't think we can possibly discount the nature of the motion which says,
I'm just going to go back to it, I'm going to read it out seeing as we've been got
into reading out statements, to urge the council to engage
with the Hoos Valley Water Corridor proposal.
Now I think that as a motion that is completely appropriate for this committee,
what we stand for given the benefits that appear to be forthcoming from this proposal
that's come from the Ouse Valley management plan.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 0:28:52
May I suggest that the committee, regardless of how we decide on this motion, but may I
that the committee keeps a watching brief on any further developments of on
the Uss Valley proposals or any other proposals, amended proposals potentially
that might come forward because I'm not entirely certain that the last word has
been spoken on this and I fully appreciate that it's not this council to
make that council's job to decide yay or nay on this kind of proposal, it's not its job
to fund it, I think it would be appropriate to keep a watching brief on the scheme.
Could I just answer that?
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 0:29:41
And could I, Chair, put it into you, is it possible, maybe it's a democratic services
officer, I'm not sure, can we write to ask an FOI as a committee to ask for the information
we're talking about?
And if not, how could we do it on behalf of the committee in some way?
Cllr David Carroll - 0:29:57
Well, we can look into it, but this is a separate...
Great.
Just one very quick...
Sorry about the noise here.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:30:08
There's something wrong with this microphone.
It's echoing horribly as I talk, which is very distracting.
But there's a very specific technical question, really.
And that's that it seemed that there was a request, a need for,
in phase one of this project,
for a detailed hydrological modelling study.
I've not heard anything from the cabinet or certainly
in our papers to say that that has been carried out.
The brush -off response from angling water didn't seem to go
into that level of detail.
I'd like to respond to that.
And thank you very much, Councillor Smith,
for your question.
The hydraulic assessment is different
from the concept paper being proposed
Cllr Adekunle Osibogun - 0:31:02
by Buckingham Canal Society.
The hydraulic assessment has been done by the EA.
That's been completed.
And recommendations are forthcoming.
There's a meeting scheduled for Thursday
where this will be reported to the stakeholders.
And based on it, there is a potential option
which the EA would like to explore further.
I do not want to preempt the EA's presentation on that.
But on Thursday, stakeholders will be informed on that.
With regards to the concept paper, which is brought forward
by Buckling County Society, that has been assessed
by Anglian Water.
And they have found it not suitable based on water resource
and flood mitigation measures.
And based on those grounds, they will not be taken further.
The reason.
You can explain hydrological modelling for us then,
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:32:03
given that this has been discounted.
The technical details have been discounted.
My understanding is that without
that hydrological study, how can we possibly,
as a committee, possibly make a decision here?
And certainly, how can we discount engagement
with this plan, given what's at stake
in terms of flooding and also water retention?
Anna's coming back.
The hydrological model that I was saying
Ms. Hannah Joyce - 0:32:30
is owned by the Environment Agency.
They have built this model and just recently completed it.
and they're using it to assess options
in the Great Boos catchment.
We asked, back in June when this was raised last time,
for Angling Water to ask the EA if they could use
that model to undertake options analysis
on this particular concept proposal.
They have done that, as far as we're aware.
As we're all aware, we haven't actually seen
the paperwork, the actual report.
and that is what they have used to determine
that it does not present any flood risk benefits.
And I think it's important also just to clarify.
This scheme is downstream of Buckingham, sorry.
In order to have meaningful flood risk benefit
to Buckingham town, you need to do interventions upstream.
It's a really fundamental principle
that I think we haven't covered off.
In our professional opinion, we do not consider this proposal will have any meaningful blood risk benefit.
And I don't think we should be misleading anybody otherwise.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:33:44
Thank you. I'm coming to the end of this and thanks for the debate.
It was very interesting.
And we're talking about the motion, not thinking around fringes of this.
So conclusions.
Are you all listening?
The motion depends on the Angler Waters feasibility assessment.
The Angler Waters is not supporting the proposal.
I propose that the tech committee will advise the cabinet not
to take any other action on this motion.
Do we agree?
Agree? Hands up, no.
Agree. Clive, agree now.
Hands up. Thank you.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:34:25
On to, thank you for your time.
Can we move on to item six?

6 East West Rail Train Maintenance Depot

Is everybody here?
Just put the name.
Thanks very much.
Thank you.
.
everybody is settled.
Thank you.
Once again, we've got a very important item here,
East -West Rail Train Maintenance Depot.
Friday, we published the agenda for this meeting.
Did you know that?
And then right after that, we found out there was a decision,
a big decision for our residents,
a really big decision.
So a public speaker can step up now.
Is it Mike?
Mike, could you put your concerns, please, or questions?
Can you tell everybody who you are, Mike?
Thank you, Chair.
So thank you again for giving us the opportunity
to raise some questions about the proposed train maintenance
Public Questions - 0:37:07
depot, allowing us to highlight some of the concerns
in our community.
The East West Rail Company updates,
which was produced for this meeting is interesting.
What in some cases it says and in some cases that it doesn't say.
The update refers to, I'm going to give you two numbers,
slide 15 in the Your Report Pack number 43.
So an invitation at the end of June to the Parish Council's
state of preference on the three emerging options at that time.
We declined to do so because EWR admitted themselves
that they had not at that point taken any account
of the feedback submitted by ourselves,
Mersley Parish Council and residents
on the three depot options.
And B, each option would have had very serious negative impacts
for our community.
We're told that there'd be ongoing engagement
once the feedback has been analysed.
That has not happened.
Despite the statement on page 22 there,
your page 50 claiming that there has been engagement
to help shape the emerging design
and proposed mitigation measures.
Over and above this, although EWR are claiming to have engaged with landowners in the lead -up
to the announcement of their preferred option on Friday, we have two family businesses who
had no engagement from mid -July until they were contacted by email on the same afternoon
as us with the announcement on the preferred layout option.
I spoke to both the Kraker family at Laura Salden Farm in Mersley Parish, and we've got
Christine Kraker here with us this morning, and the Hale family at Park Manor Farm in
our own parish.
and they really have been left in a desperate situation,
not knowing where they stand.
So I have several questions, which I thank the chair
for allowing me to ask.
Why has East West Rail failed to honour its promises to engage
with residents and landowners over the summer months?
Moving on.
Size 12 and 13 in their pack, sorry, your pack 1441,
refer to mitigation approach principles
and key environmental considerations.
And then we have the slides 19, 20, and 21, 47 to 49,
covering the three layout options.
Amongst the issues we have, EWR are aware that one
of the drainage ponds is located
over a high -pressure gas pipeline,
which contravenes safety requirements.
Why has the design of the layout options not been changed
to resolve this?
And also, why does it appear that nothing has been changed
and the layout designs take into account flooding risk
with the opening up of two aquifers.
The flood zone three area along the water course,
about a mile to the east,
along the running parallel to the railway line,
is barely a mile away.
Has this even been investigated?
According to an FOI request,
for which a response was received this month,
it has not been.
The EWR update makes no mention of the company's decision
to cancel the development of a second train depot
at Fulborne in Cambridgeshire.
Apparently, this is because they have found
a better value solution that will benefit
local communities and rail users,
with the location for train stabling
and cleaning facilities now to be split
between existing sites across the rail network,
taking advantage of the changes brought about
by the establishment of Great British Railways.
So, final question, why can a similar solution
not be found for the proposed Bletchley West TMD?
The facilities at the existing Bletchley train maintenance depot are currently being shared,
so why can that not continue?
Why can EWR not also use existing facilities in other locations?
Why is it necessary to build a new facility on the EWR line at all?
As we said in your previous meeting for us back in February, we have significant concerns
about the impact on both the long -term success of the EWR line in terms of meeting its targets
and providing the level of service
that the travelling public deserve,
as well as on our community.
And the impact, indeed, on taxpayers
from the wrong decisions being made
because issues are not being taken seriously enough,
which I believe is a repetition of the mistakes made for HS2.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:41:20
Can I just go around the table first for introductions?
Thank you for coming today.
Can you go from the team for the, there Paul, can you start from where you are?
Yeah, Paul Mountford, Design Director for East West Rail.
Thank you. Tristan Lincoln -Borden, I'm the Environment Director for East West Rail.
Thank you. Natalie Weebill, External Affairs Director for East West Rail.
Graham Dike - 0:41:47
Hello, I'm Graham D**** I'm the Depot and Savings Subject Mass Respirator for East West Rail.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:41:54
Thank you Graham and just for the public we got the cabinet member and the deputy cabinet member.
Do you want to say anything else that we were going to ask them to answer the questions?
Do you want to come in later?
Cllr Thomas Broom - 0:42:05
Yeah I mean I'm happy to Chair. I think some of what I've got to say would probably echo a good amount of what we've already heard.
I would say that our position is not one of surprise,
but we are heading towards the point of resignation.
This is not the first time we have had an announcement
of this nature made in this way.
And the difficulty of it is very much compounded by the material,
as you say, Chair, that was supplied to this committee,
ahead of this meeting.
The problem we've had with this from the very beginning
when we first heard about the decision
to put the train maintenance depot
in a piece of countryside just outside of Eutolongville
in Northern Buckinghamshire, which let's not forget,
currently is in fact a hill that will have to be removed.
The Bucks Council was informed of this decision, I think,
about half an hour before it was published.
And I think there was almost no early warning given
to the local community before it was put into the public domain.
It is really frustrating that we are here again
with another decision that we find ourselves with no advance notice for anyone in the community,
no advance notice for the council.
And frankly, it's yet another decision that seems to have been made entirely behind closed
doors with no meaningful engagement with anybody outside of the company.
We've been speaking to East West Rail over the months since this announcement was first
made and I notice in the pack that they provided, they listed a whole series of meetings that
they've had with the council.
I do think that that is, we are now getting into the territory where East West Rail is
just being deliberately deceptive.
You published this list in order to suggest that we've had detailed back and forth and
we've been discussing this.
The response that I've had from everybody who's been involved in this process is that
that the meetings that you have had with us
are not meaningful engagements,
that they are window dressing,
that they are effectively held
in order to generate lists like this
so that when you come into public forums,
you can mislead the public by suggesting
that you are having deep and meaningful engagement
with the people you should be speaking to.
Again, this is not the first time we've heard this.
I remember sitting in a meeting of the East West Rail Partnership Board not too long ago
to be told by one of your representatives that Buckinghamshire was the site of some
mitigation scheme, which it turned out was something you'd offered to do, which we had
already done several months earlier.
You offered to build a crossing for the good people of Winslow.
A crossing, the time you were telling this forum that this was your generous offer, had
in fact already been constructed by us.
So it really is getting to the point
where I'm struggling to trust anything that comes out
of East West Rail.
I don't think you're engaging with us or the local community
in good faith.
The evidence that I see before me
is that you are making a deliberate and concerted
attempt to mislead the public on the development of this TMD. I'm not going to
rehearse the arguments again about why we think this is completely inappropriate
as a site. Just to say again, you know, we're looking at various options here
we're talking about the difference between removing, what is it, 500 ,000
cubic metres of soil or 350 ,000 cubic metres of soil.
But fundamentally, the point is, you're trying to build a train maintenance depot on quite
a steep hill, which I think is something that we've understood for several centuries is
just a very stupid idea.
It really does make me wonder what the motivation is behind what's going on here.
because we are genuinely in the realms of the absurd.
I mentioned we've had a number of meetings in which our view across,
and this is across all levels of the organisation at Butts Council,
have not provided any meaningful engagement.
We did in fact ask to speak to you about the nature of meaningful engagement
because you didn't seem to be able to quite put your finger on what that would mean.
And then irony of irony is you did not engage with our discussion about what would actually
constitute meaningful engagement that would mean that we could do our job for our residents.
I understand we still had no formal response to the submission we made to you in July.
June.
June, sorry.
My colleague Peter says even further back than that.
It was back in June.
So we do seem to have an established pattern of behaviour here where East West Rail goes away makes a decision behind closed doors
Doesn't engage with anybody
In local institutions like f****** chair council or the parish council doesn't engage in any meaningful way with local communities
And then when it finally gets to the point
Where it is willing to you know lift the shroud
and let some light into the situation.
It does so in the most deceptive way it possibly can.
And I know that other representatives
in the organisation are in Westminster today talking
to the Transport Select Committee.
But one of the questions that I have repeatedly asked
in both public and private meetings is whether
or not East West Rail is undertaking this action
because it has been directed to do so by the department or by ministerial direction. Repeatedly,
you have refused to answer this question. And I think it is becoming increasingly salient
because I just cannot understand why anybody acting in good conscience would behave in
the way that you are behaving and have now been behaving for months and months. We have
I've had the great displeasure in Buckinghamshire
of having not only East West Rail, but also HS2,
which I think, given the actions being taken there
over RESET and the sort of, the stark and honest look
that's been had internally, is being recognised
even by the project itself as one of the great
infrastructure disasters of this country's history.
I have to say that at this point you are making all the same mistakes that they made over
the years, which we in Bucks have got to witness first hand and unfortunately have had to bear
the brunt of.
And it is incredibly frustrating that you don't seem to have any intention, any willingness
to try and prevent an entirely predictable repeat of mistakes that were made in the past.
And this is going to have implications for the residents of Buckinghamshire.
Serious consequences. But it does go wider than that.
You know, we've seen the vast amounts of public money that have been wasted through HS2.
And based on the way that East West Rail is proceeding,
I see absolutely no reason why we would not be coming back
to this in five years' time and asking you how it is possible
that you've managed to play the budgets
in such a catastrophic way.
I think that is a meeting we're going to have down the time.
And that is something that's going to affect everybody
within Buckinghamshire and beyond.
I'm not going to go on for too long because I could, you know,
I've probably got an hour of this, frankly,
and I would like to hear some answers to questions.
I would just close by pleading that you, in fact, do that.
Because the problem that we've had since the beginning of this
is that people have asked you questions about everything
from the macro scale of the project all the way down
to very small details.
and we have been fobbed off on almost every single occasion,
and in the few cases where we have gotten answers,
they've very often been then subsequently reversed.
So please do take this as an opportunity
to start taking this seriously,
to dispense with some of the contempt
that you have shown for the residents of Buckinghamshire,
to actually answer the question
and attempt to salvage in some measure
the owner of this project because at the moment
nobody anywhere in the country,
and we've got the bad experience here now
but you're about to do an awful lot of work
across the rest of the corridor.
Right now there is no reason where anybody
along that, the rest of the route,
should trust East West Rail in what they say
at any stage.
And that is gonna cause problems in those places
but it is gonna cause problems for the project as well.
And as I've said, the project is being paid for by the taxpayer.
So we are in a situation where harm is being inflicted on people who not only have no power
to resist, but who are finding themselves in this position at very short or no notice
whatsoever and I think the project is really really underestimating
quite how much worse the situation is made for local communities when they are
kept in the dark and are not given any chance to engage or respond. I'm gonna
Cllr David Carroll - 0:53:12
Cllr Peter Martin - 0:53:18
leave it there for now chair but I may come back later. Peter did you have your
Transport.
Yes, East West Rail is a pioneer for the changes
in the development consent order process, which
came forth in the Planning and Infrastructure Act in 2025.
This was the government trying to speed up
nationally significant infrastructure projects
in the way that HS2 could have been.
What it seems to have done is introduced a much lighter
engagement process with communities, with residents,
and with the council.
As we've heard from Councillor Chapman from Longville,
it seems to have resulted in poor engagement specifically
for his residents and those of neighbouring parishes.
For the Bucks Council, we said in our 9th of June response
to the statutory consultation that we had significance
and concerns around the lack of evidence
and environmental information from the project.
And we asked that the project provide that information
before it makes a decision on its preferred options.
Regrettably, that wasn't taken on board
by East Bush Rail Company, and as the chairman said,
we were all wrong -footed when the announcement
was made on Friday to us and to local residents directly impacted.
So the new process is certainly not working as far as we're concerned.
Let's look at the situation for residents as Councillor Chapman's highlighted.
We had a public meeting at Longville on the 6th of March, which I had the
misfortune to chair, and we heard at that meeting
the plight of a number of directly affected residents
and businesses from the first phase of East West Rail.
And they were concerned about what was going to happen
with the train maintenance depot,
plunked in the middle of their community,
their rural community, for reasons which were not
fully substantiated.
It appears the evidence is there somewhere,
but it seems to be very thin.
We've asked for more detail, and it hasn't been provided.
So I said at the end of that meeting,
when I summed up what was presented
and what was said, that the project needed
to up its game in terms of information provision
to key stakeholders and also communicate properly.
That message was echoed by the local MP who also attended
that meeting and he said he didn't want to hear of cases
like those presented by the residents again.
We're now hearing them again directly.
In my view, this situation is totally unacceptable.
Well, Thomas has presented the overview.
I'm trying to present the view from the parishes,
from Buck's council, and from the residents.
We're talking about people's lives, their livelihoods.
And the project just seems to be riding roughshod over that.
It's not really wanting to listen.
And it seems to be a consequence of this new development consent
order process which gives the project power to basically ignore what irritable people
in the community are trying to say. They should be standing up for their rights, we should
stand up for our residents as we're elected to do and try and speak the truth of the situation.
I just wish the project could really get to grips with this and albeit it doesn't have
have to do as we ask out of common courtesy and politeness.
I think it should and it needs to engage with these
severely impacted and very concerned residents
that we're hearing from.
Why on earth is the project not doing this?
I do not understand and I'm very frustrated
by the whole process.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr David Carroll - 0:57:52
Thank you. I did remiss to say that we've got Dan, Daniel and Fiona who are going to talk about the Pacific part of this and they're coming back next year as well.
So I want to bring you in now. I'll give an opportunity to our members in a while just to see can we get...
Thank you for coming obviously. Thank you for... you're going to talk about the future.
You've obviously heard about the past and the lack of communication.
Can you answer some of the questions from the residents
and the cabinet member, please, and then go from there?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Natalie Wheble - 0:58:29
We do have some opening remarks
which do address some of the questions.
Would it be okay for us to go
through those opening remarks before we tackle any
of the direct questions as a follow -up?
Cllr David Carroll - 0:58:41
Well, to be honest with you,
we are here for the public, we really are.
So could you answer some of the questions given to you
on a mic at the moment.
So is that possible to do that now and then go
Natalie Wheble - 0:58:53
on from the rest of it?
Yeah, absolutely.
So in terms of the specific questions around our engagement
that we have been doing over the summer, apologies.
I think it's worth just going through some of the activity
that we have been completing.
So over the summer, we invited parish councils, landowners,
and other stakeholders to share their views
on the three emerging orientation options
that we were working on from the Trade Maintenance Depot.
We do understand that some stakeholders,
including the parish council, didn't want
to express a preference on those options
because they felt all three would have adverse impacts,
and we fully respected that decision.
We did, however, receive useful feedback from a range
of stakeholders, including the landowners and some
of those who are here today.
And that feedback was considered alongside ongoing technical,
environmental, operational, and land assessments
that the design has developed.
So following that engagement in July,
the teams have been spending the time focusing
on completing the work that was needed to identify
that preferred orientation option.
That work did result in the position
that we were sharing last week.
We've communicated that preferred orientation
to those directly affected and also to local stakeholders
and making clear that that is our position today.
As the project continues to develop,
we do remain committed to ongoing engagement
with directly affected stakeholders,
local communities and local authorities, including things
like mitigation measures and the feedback
that we have had has already had an impact on some
of that design development.
For example, engagement with landowners led us to look
at how we can manage the construction of some
of the bridge work that we need to do.
For example, working offsite and bringing the bridges in place
to minimise the impact on landowners and things
like the environmental mitigation screening, et cetera,
that we are working through as we continue
that design development.
We are currently preparing engagement materials
to support further public engagement.
And we plan to hold a public event before the end of the year
where we can go through the work that has been happening
since our consultation event that we held in Newton -Longville
in May following the public meeting
as Councillor Martin referred to in March.
So that will be another opportunity for us
to provide information to residents and stakeholders
to discuss that preferred orientation
and the developing design
and mitigation measures being considered as we work
through before submitting our development consent order next year.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:01:42
Okay, I've got a question from a member of the committee.
Caroline.
Thank you, Jay. I've got several questions, but I have one for Mike Chapman.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:01:50
But I also, I refuse everything that you've just said.
I don't know why you've chosen this place because it's nowhere near Cambridge.
At the moment, we have a lot of trains going up and down that line.
And they managed to do that train medicine.
So how does that happen?
And why is it nowhere near Cambridge?
It's miles from Cambridge.
And then can I ask Mike to chat on the question afterwards?
Can I ask Mike to chat on the question afterwards, please?
Okay.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:02:21
Can you answer that question, please?
Natalie Wheble - 1:02:25
Sorry, can I just be really clear on the question there?
In reference to the Cambridge site selection,
could you just repeat the question for me, please?
Why have you got the TMD here? Why do we need a TMD because the trains are managing without it?
Why have we got it here? Why is it not near to Cambridge?
Bedford possibly and why in the middle of countryside and ruining people's livelihoods?
Paul Mountford - 1:02:49
Okay, so in terms of why we need a train maintenance depot
So the trains that are running at the moment are freight services that have existing
locations, they are maintained in specific areas already, they are generally running
from Southampton through to Daventry.
When we open our passenger service, we will need a train maintenance depot specifically
for those passenger train units.
But the ones that go past now don't seem to have to need a train maintenance depot, do
they?
We've had some passenger trains going through.
They would be diversionary services, not timetable services on that particular route.
they will already have a maintenance depot
that they would return to for stabling overnight.
It is not on the East West Rail route
because that's not their primary route.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:03:29
But this is not anywhere near Cambridge.
Paul Mountford - 1:03:32
So is Cambridge going to have a separate one or not?
So if I come on to Cambridge,
because Mike also raised the question around Fullborne.
So as part of our depot and stabling strategy,
we have the train maintenance depot in this area,
and then we were looking for some stabling for service,
shut down and start up in the Cambridge area.
So we did need some stabling at both ends of the route,
or towards this side on the west side of the route,
and over in the Cambridge area.
To come back to Mike's question about how we've now
removed that from the scheme, whilst there are some
similarities in terms of they both provide stabling,
that is pretty much all the training care centre provided
was stabling and very light maintenance,
and it's consumable refilling.
And even our consultation event, it is worth noting
that we did say Fulborn was an option.
We were still looking at that point with wider industry.
We were looking for a much smaller amount of stabling.
It was around six units that we want to stable
in the Cambridge area.
We're looking at 20 to 25 units here.
In terms of existing facilities,
there just simply isn't space in existing facilities
close enough to the route to stable and maintain
that number of rolling stock units.
So that does drive us to need a maintenance depot
for those units.
I disagree with you.
What's wrong with it?
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:04:50
We've got some other questions as well, actually.
Alex, can I just say, why isn't it at Bicester?
Why is it not at Bicester?
Why is it here?
Why isn't it where you've got some existing stock?
Paul Mountford - 1:05:02
Why?
Why is it not at Bicester?
Is that the question?
Okay, so that, we've published our option selection report.
Previously we did look at sites in and around the Bicester area through the assessment factors process we've been through
we looked at different aspects of
operating running maintaining the fleet and what the depot does and on the scale of balance
Noting the concerns that you have over the current location
There isn't a perfect location for one of these facilities and on the balance of that assessment factors process
it led us to a preferred site in the area we've got it now.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:05:44
Even though this is just down the road and Bletch is just up the road.
You haven't explained why. The member asked you why.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 1:05:51
You just explained a process. You didn't give her any why.
So could you answer the question, why?
Why? The question why again.
Paul Mountford - 1:06:02
So we have a balance of requirements.
I might bring Graham in if we need more detail on this.
but ultimately we need a train maintenance depot
because of the phasing strategy of the route that is
on the western side of the route.
We went through a long listing process,
and it does come back to the process.
We identified over 35 potential locations for a depot,
and through various sifting criteria
through the operational requirements of our fleet,
environmental impacts, and the other criteria impacts on area,
the location that went from a long list to a short list.
There were two around Bistair,
there was one near Newton Longville.
When all things were considered,
that provided us the best option available
in terms of the factors that we were looking at
in terms of our operability, where we needed the depot,
where we needed the stabling, and to run the service.
Brian, are you gonna give some advice on why?
Graham Dike - 1:07:00
I think just to add some additional context
to that we are obviously looking at introducing a new set
of rolling stock to rolling stock fleet
that's currently not on the network.
And so just to go back to the reason why potentially it is
in the west, having the depot location in the west
on existing infrastructure would help us with the delivery
of testing commission of the new rolling stock as well
as potentially supporting the training our train crew
to be able to operate those services.
So that helped us with the strategic vision
of why we needed the depot in the west.
With regards to the additional sites, we do work with industry partners.
We go to a lot of the industry forums where we discuss depot and stabling across the rail network.
There is an issue generally with capacity for depot and stabling in the west, not just in this location, but Wales and west.
As part of our engagement during CS1, we engaged with people at Bletchley, train maintenance depot,
where we was able to secure the only available stapling
at the time, which was for two car trains.
We're talking about 20 120 metre long vehicles.
So we, as part of our decision making,
that all inputted into all those depots and locations
and existing operators of how we could strategically
support the delivery of the East West Rail services.
In the Cambridge area, there was a potential solution,
which has come to fruition, which is while we was able
to take those options from an industry perspective.
As part of delivery of Cambridge,
we are also staging how we deliver Cambridge
because the impacts of the station.
So we therefore have to provide temporary arrangements
before we could do the upgrade to Cambridge,
which then means that we have had the potential
to potentially turn those temporary works
into permanent works, which is why full warm
is only ever an option and not a preferred location.
That those options are just not available to us
in the West, which is why we've ended up in this position
and this location today.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:09:02
Okay, we've got three speakers and the Deputy Cabinet Member
to come back, it's Anja, Alex, then Greg, then Peter.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 1:09:10
Well, Peter, you want to come in first?
Cllr Peter Martin - 1:09:11
Yes, if I could, because it's relevant
to the question that's been asked.
In our response to the information sheets
that the project provided about the Bletchley West Depot,
At the Nondu Depot on the 11th of September,
we requested a further workshop with East West Rail
to discuss our concerns about the site selection.
Unfortunately, that workshop hasn't taken place,
and the project appears to have made a decision
without giving us the benefit of that further information
and that workshop.
I think that really answers the question.
and the project's made its decision,
it's not really any interested in what the council
or residents have to say.
Just dismissed it.
Thank you.
Thank you, I agree with you,
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:10:04
because they don't actually honour any of their commitments.
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 1:10:07
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm afraid I have to come back to that why question.
We've got a little bit of an understanding.
I now understand that you've told us you need a new depot
because existing sites cannot accommodate additional trains of the length that hopefully,
at some point in the not too distant future, might actually be running down that line.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that particular bit and I know you're not operating the trains.
I still haven't, so you've talked a lot about criteria. This is the only criteria I've heard
so far that tells me why a new depot is needed and why it needs to be sort of on the western side
somewhere between Bletchley and Oxford.
I understand there are trains currently running
between Oxford and Bicester, so I'd quite like to understand
why the maintenance facilities
that these trains presumably are using could not be extended
for the maintenance of the trains
that eventually will be running to, well,
at least to Bletchley for the time being.
I also would, we've heard a lot about the particular challenges of that site in terms of the earth movement,
so I'd quite like to understand what criteria that site meets that cannot be met elsewhere.
And please don't tell me that you've looked at them, I want to know what they are.
That was a very good question actually.
So is it going to be Graham to answer that?
Graham Dike - 1:11:45
Yeah, I can certainly answer the why not the other depots.
So the operators in question at the moment that we're referring
to in that area is GWR and Chilton.
We have had conversations with Chilton with regards
to potentially Aylesbury and Banbury.
And we've also had conversations with GWR
about the potential use of Redding.
Unfortunately, all of them have come back
that they are very much fully utilised.
They may be able to support something, i .e. they may be able
to support with some form of maintenance,
but that doesn't solve the overall capacity issue
for the quantity of trains that we're talking about.
Having those trains maintained elsewhere
off network would also introduce significant risks to the operator
as well as driver training and other needs.
Unfortunately, most of the rail depots today are old,
Probably steam shed depots that have been upgraded and upgraded by as time goes by and there are housing development
There are all sorts of different situations stopping the expansion of those works
So unfortunately every time we have we have been able to have those conversations
There is an office of potential support
But it is supporting the minor of ways and doesn't resolve the overall need of for why we need the train mates and step
Thanks
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:13:02
Thank you Chairman. How do I start? Okay. Existing facilities. As of December, GWR becomes
part of Great British Railways. Children follow us to the soon after. Ultimately, it would
be one entity across the whole government piece. Therefore, and not be funny, but you
would actually want to be using existing facilities.
And you might say you haven't got enough capacity,
but ultimately GWR, which already LNER and the rest
already in the group already, will centrally
manage the whole process anyway.
So therefore, there's no requirement for a new depot,
because actually, the Great British Railways
were actually determining exactly the whole network
in the first place.
So I think events have overtaken you.
So it might be a great idea initially before Great British
railways, but now the railways are now live and in existence,
this requirement actually falls away.
Because actually, they would dictate exactly who, what,
why, how, and when, so there's the size of the train,
location of the train, and the rest.
And I'll put money that GWR and Chiltern
will work as an integrated package.
And this will just be part of that same integrated regional
package.
So I'm struggling with your assertion
that there's no existing capacity, because there is.
because GWR will dictate what that's going to be.
And I say, right, three trains go there,
four great trains go there, and that's how it will work.
I'm curious about your timeline, because if you're
going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time,
as we've seen with HS2, your 2035 timeline
won't work, because you're going to take at least five years,
because it's going to be a DCO plus durability
plus everything else.
You're taking 500 ,000 cubic metres of earth away.
Having seen what HS2 have done, that's
taking the best part of 10 years to just do one site, right?
So therefore, your delivery time,
in terms of your government statutory deliverability piece,
won't actually achieve it.
So you're better off actually going, you know what?
Let's just build the train line.
Let's get it operational.
And that Great British Rail was actually delivered the piece
there.
My final question is about the technical deliverability.
One of the key pieces about drainage ponds and attenuation
ponds, having dealt with other sites to do with strategic sites, if you can't deliver
it, is it almost a ruse to get some funding from the government?
Because actually, if you've got drainage ponds over a gas mill, I can tell you the national
gas grid will not accept it and will not allow it, because you have an application somewhere
similar where this was actually attached to the grid, it didn't happen.
All right, so you might give me some technical answers or whatever, but unfortunately I don't
believe what you've said so far and this pack is just literally a marketing exercise. So in my mind
you better forget the actual depot altogether, get the line running, actually get people on trains
and in Jeep the greatest of which I always will actually tell you how it's going to operate.
Thank you.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:16:12
Brian.
Graham Dike - 1:16:14
If I can just answer the first question I'll pass the others on to my colleagues.
With regards to the operator, what we have to think of at this point is that the rail network,
as I mentioned earlier speaking to the operators, they are at full capacity.
What we're introducing here is an additional 20 trains to depots that are already at full capacity.
So whilst I agree that in GBR we may be able to move things around, we are introducing 20 trains
and therefore we need capacity for that.
So therefore there is a requirement and a need for a train maintenance depot.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:16:47
So with respect in terms of the size of the whole network 20 additional cranes is nothing. I mean children has
Yeah, we're in excess of that already, right? So if we're 20 different rates collected across the whole network, it's a drop in the ocean
Graham Dike - 1:16:58
So again when we get when we talk about those locations
There is complexities around train driving the ability to train drivers the route knowledge and so on and so forth as well as the operational
Costs with empty coaching stop move moving things around off network
it doesn't distract from the fact that we need the additional space for 20 trains.
And as I mentioned earlier, they were able to support with some elements here and there,
that may help with some of the issues of how maybe the overall strategy of how we can repair
or maintain trains, but we are still injecting 20 trains and therefore there is a need to be able
to provide that. Putting just stabling in without those maintenance facilities would in effect put
that operator at risk because they are unable to provide the cleaning, the servicing and
the safety mechanism to ensure that there was a safe passenger service.
Paul?
I was just going to add to that as well and I take your point about Great British Railways
Paul Mountford - 1:17:56
will own operate the railway network but it is our understanding at the moment that it
will still be a route based operational control.
So it will still operate in a route like fashion so we do need stabling along this route.
So we can't have the stabling a long way from where this route is, otherwise it will affect
the service reliability.
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:18:21
I think it's worth pointing out to Andrew's question that criteria, so the need for proximity
to the line, the size, the amount of stabling that was covered within the section of the
option selection report to set out what were the things that we were looking for when we
went through that long listing exercise to try and identify sites that we could use.
I also just wanted to pick up on drainage and then perhaps come back to engagement as
well.
The drainage designs that we've got at the moment are still very much in the early stage.
We recognise that there is quite a lot of concern around surface water flood risk, the
risk to groundwater as well in the area.
These are the types of things that have influenced our decision making.
So as part of looking at the other sites, we looked at these factors and we felt that
this site performed better than those other sites in that regard.
But we're still early in the process.
So we need to develop that drainage design,
develop how we handle any runoff,
how we make sure that that is discharged the correct way
through working both with the environment agency
and with the local flood authorities as well.
And that work is something that will continue
to be developed as we move towards the application points.
Coming back to meaningful engagement, if I may,
I think it is worth noting that the Panel Infrastructure Act
has changed things.
I think you're absolutely right, it has changed things,
but it hasn't given us an excuse to not engage
and it hasn't given us an excuse just to go straight
to our application.
And what we have tried to do is make sure
that we present information as soon as we can
when it has been made available, when we have made decisions
or in the process of making decisions.
I think we would, our position would be that it is correct.
But what is important to recognise is that we're not
in a situation where we are providing all of the environmental information, all of the reporting
information at a statutory consultation as you would typically see for a development consent
order before the panel infrastructure reform took place. What we are trying to do is make sure that
we provide that information as soon as it is available and we've been working with council
officers to provide them with a forward look of the information when it will be available,
So things like our environmental assessment work, when the outputs of our noise modelling
or our traffic modelling is available, providing a forward look and a clear date for when that
will be made available so we can organise the right meetings.
That is our commitment, so we're trying to make sure that we provide that information
progressively to enable us to have good meaningful conversations about the potential impacts
that we are identifying and then be able to influence the design as we develop towards
our development consent order.
Cllr Peter Martin - 1:20:56
Sorry Chairman, I can't let that go.
You're trying to tell us you've had meaningful conversations, our officers confirm that that's not the case,
our residents confirm that that's not the case, and from my position as Deputy Cabinet Member of the Council, it's not my position either.
So you may think it's meaningful, I'm afraid we don't.
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:21:19
And I think what we need to make sure that we do now is work with your officers.
Cllr Peter Martin - 1:21:24
I think you need to work with our communities, with our officers and with the council.
We need to have an honest and open engagement and not have information that's published
trying to wrong foot the select committee here causing a great deal of disruption.
you knew about the preferred location before Friday,
and yet you didn't tell the residents,
although you told us you had told them.
So that was not correct.
I don't see any meaningful engagement, I'm afraid,
and I think the changes to the DCO process
have lulled you into the assumption
you can get away without proper engagement.
As a pathfinder for the new process,
in my personal view, the project has failed very badly.
Natalie Wheble - 1:22:19
I'd like to respond to that if that's okay.
Okay, yeah, thank you.
Mr Martin, and I think it's important to say
that we absolutely are intending to act with honesty
and being as communicative as we can.
We have to find this balance, I think referencing
what Tristan was saying around East West Rail being identified as a Pathfinder project.
We have to find this ability to respond to the request by government to be a Pathfinder
project, which means moving at pace to deliver benefits of this scheme as early as we can,
whilst also making sure we maintain our commitments to meaningful engagement with those who are
impacted, be that landowners, communities, and stakeholders.
As soon as we have the level of information ready,
our intent is to communicate that as early as possible.
But what we have to balance is making sure we have the right
level of information to make those conversations meaningful
versus coming out as early as we can.
And that is the approach that we are navigating through
under this Pathfinder status that we've been given
to have early engagement that's meaningful in a way
that brings the benefits of East West Rail as soon as we can.
Okay we got Greg, Ed then Carolyn's coming back.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:23:40
Thank you chair and we've gone into a lot of detail on most of the things that I had concerns about.
But I did want to start off by saying it is actually quite positive to be discussing a rail infrastructure project
that really does bring proper benefits to the residents of Buckinghamshire unlike other rail infrastructure projects
that we have suffered incredibly from in this area,
and maybe some of the frustrations
are falling over from that.
But also interesting that the size of the site
equates to about the same size of the two motorway service
stations that we nodded through as a council quite recently
in the Chiltern Hills.
So let's keep that in proportion as well.
But what I was really concerned about,
and all the concerns that are left after this discussion,
is trying to understand from the ore report and from the ore responses just what proportion
of this site is actually Greenfield site.
How much of this is actually already kind of part of the rail infrastructure
and why is it that there are other elements along this route that are current infrastructure,
certainly considered Brownfield sites that could have been expanded and developed further
And that you don't seem to have focused on that option
in a sufficient way that would be a bit more satisfying,
I think, for this committee.
Right. You're going to answer that one?
Cllr David Carroll - 1:25:05
Anyone? Christian?
Paul?
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:25:08
Paul Mountford - 1:25:09
Yes, I think in terms of the other sites, the Greenfield,
Brownfield, and where we put it, it is that range of factors.
Unfortunately, the existing sites,
all those other sites are just simply not big enough
for the facility that we use.
The use of the existing site is 100 % greenfield.
Yeah, the majority of it is, yes.
The majority of 100%, yeah.
There is a railway that runs through the south edge of it,
but everything to the north of the existing railway is, yes.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:25:35
And that's the number that caught the problem, isn't it?
I think it's -
You haven't got your mic on great.
Sorry, yeah, no, I'm really just mumbling to myself.
I just don't want to.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 1:25:55
So on our page 40, your page 12, your thing, so you say, you talk about the environmental
sustainability strategy, set of environmental commitments driving sustainable design and
performance.
Well, I could work that out for myself.
What is the strategy?
I mean, you know you give us it here and then you don't give us any strategy
Which I think is to be honest what my colleagues have been saying on other items and that runs through this
Report that you seem to have given us where there doesn't seem to be any detail on anything
And I do have a question which may be a question over to our my colleagues
I'm quite sure I'm asking this one to on the 20th of October
There was an environment of sustainability forum going over climate and carbon
Don't know who that was whether that was us in the council or whether that was you doing it or you on your own
Should I go through all the questions or do you wanna join us? I hope you answer this first
yeah, okay the
Going down further
Then you've got your
Environment and sustainability subgroup who's that with is that with the council or is that just your internal?
environment and sustainability subgroup
And I can see there that in October 26 you did an overview of climate change.
Very interested to know what your overview of climate change is and if you recognise
how fast it's going, what happened this summer, the fact that we're at double the
speed in this decade as we were in previous decades with the temperatures going up that
will reach 2 degrees by 2034 and 2 .5 degrees by 2045.
And if you take them into account, so I'd be very interested to know if actually you
are doing any of the things you're suggesting you're doing?
And then to an actual specific, because carbon is mentioned
a few times in this report, can you make a commitment to us,
because you're worried about carbon,
that you would build with zero carbon steel,
and zero carbon cement, and zero carbon materials, all of which
exist.
And over the course of the period that you're in,
which is this next five to 10 years,
they will get better and better and better and more available.
So can you give that commitment today
that you will build with zero carbon materials.
Then in terms of biodiversity, green field,
and everything else, how many trees are on this site?
How many would need to go?
Can you make a commitment today,
because we in Buckinghamshire are retain
or relocate council in terms of trees,
so we don't want to cut trees down.
If they're in the way, we will move them
and try and keep them on site.
Will you make the commitment today
that any trees on site you will move and keep on site?
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:28:33
Okay, I'll come up and tackle each of those.
So from what our strategy is, is a document that you can find on our website.
It sets out a series of pillars, is how we refer to them, and they are things like carbon,
things like climate change, things like biodiversity, and that sets the direction for the project
in terms of the objectives that we want to achieve.
So things like achieving biodiversity net gain, things like enabling net zero operations
for our services and I'll come back to the sit and concrete in a second.
So that's how our strategy works, that's very typical for these big projects, so you set
these kind of lofty ambitions and direction and that then influences the way that we select
our sites, it influences the way that we develop the design and the requirements and specifications
that we place on our designers.
In terms of the subgroups and the forums that we've had, so we had a climate and carbon
forum and a subgroup.
The naming has got slightly confused because we've gone through a little bit of a reset
of the way that we talk about the engagement that we do with local officers.
But if I just spend a second explaining that, these are all meetings that we have with local
officers.
So we have introduced something called our planning forum.
So this is a meeting that all of the senior local officers are invited to.
This is where we talk about the DCO progress, the key kind of matters of the DCO.
Beneath that, we have a series of subgroups.
One is around environments and sustainability, another is around heritage, and the third
one is around traffic and transport.
And again, relevant officers are invited to those.
We have a programme of engagement where we present the outcomes of our assessment or
key topics in those meetings.
At the moment, we are developing a set of information or deliverables that we will provide
throughout those meetings or shortly afterwards to start to address some of the gaps in information
that local officers feel like that they have.
In terms of what happened at that climate change meeting,
so just to give a bit of context
to what we have to do as a project.
So we need to both think about the potential impact
of climate change on the infrastructure
as part of the environmental impact assessment regulations.
But then we also have to think about our impact
on future climate change.
So what contribution in terms of emissions
are we likely to create as a project?
So in terms of the actual assessment
that we do of the impact on us,
so I know we've talked about floods and flood risk.
Our climate change risk assessment process, which is the formal thing that we'll do,
and we'll publish as part of our environmental assessments, and the team responsible for
that will have spoken to local officers about the process and the methodology that we're
using.
That will look at the impacts of future flood risk on the project.
It will look at the impact in extreme temperatures, so the fact that we have now very dry summers
potentially, so the change in dynamics within the soil and the underlying geology underneath
the railway is something that gets considered, potential for fire risk, all
of these things are considered as part of that assessment and our design teams
then look at the adaptations that we might need to make in the design to try
and minimise our exposure to those future extreme climate scenarios and we
do look at the exact terminology and the projections for different climate
scenarios and some of the more extreme ones to make sure that we're accounting
for the 120 year design life cycle that we have for the railway.
In terms of our impact on climate itself, so the carbon emissions that we produce as
a scheme, and we have recently published our commitments under something called the Construction
Leadership Council's five client carbon commitments, which are a little bit of a mouthful.
Those set our targets or our commitments in terms of our transition away from using diesel
as part of our construction sites. So transitioning either to non -diesel fuels or to electric
machinery. It sets our commitments around steel and around concrete and the emission, the level
of emissions that we're willing to accept from our supply chain. Those are necessarily aggressive,
so we've looked at the four trajectory for each of those industries and we've pushed ourselves
to try and go beyond what we think will be available at the time when we start construction
five years time. I can't commit to buying zero emission materials but we are pushing our supply
chain to be ahead of where we think the industry will be when we start constructing.
And then finally to come to trees, one of the key as I mentioned one of the key commitments
in our strategy has been around BNG. Delivering biodiversity net gain is a really challenging
thing where you have to lose high value habitats so things like deciduous woodlands, veteran trees,
other complex and priority habitats.
So therefore, as part of developing the options
and our design, we have looked to try and minimise
the loss of trees, the loss of woodlands
as far as we possibly can.
This is probably one of the sites where we are
not able to do that, and it's one of the decisions,
and it's one of the aspects where this site
performed a little bit worse than some of the other ones
that we looked at, because it does necessarily
require the loss of a small area of woodlands,
and I can come back perhaps on a specific area
of hectareage, but we don't have the specific number of trees.
But what that does mean for us is that we need
to offset the impact of that.
So make sure that we achieve 10 % biodiversity net gain,
just even though we lose those trees.
So we should see ourselves either planting,
it might not necessarily be trees, because it might be
that there's other habitats that are more appropriate,
but we should be providing equivalent
and then plus 10 % biodiversity value at the end of the scheme.
Not good enough.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 1:33:57
On the trees, we in this council, for our county,
we want to start saving trees.
So instead of trashing them and talking about tree loss,
we don't want to talk about tree loss.
We want you to look at it and go, right,
what's it gonna take us to move those trees,
which is simply an engineering thing.
If you can go and build 20, 120 metre engineering things
for your trains, you can blooming well find a way
of moving some trees.
It's an engineering thing.
So that is not good enough.
So can you come back and tell us how you're not going to kill any trees and how you're going to find a way of moving?
Because it's not difficult.
There are tree spades and the cost about 10 grand up to about 200 grand, which you can buy to do it, and they're available for rent.
So it can be done.
And on the cement and steel, we are five years away from when you're doing half of this stuff.
This stuff already exists.
It is not good enough to have a pathway.
Just make a commitment, get the job done, and you'll help British industry as well by driving it forward.
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:34:50
I'll just briefly come back.
I think I'd be very happy to have a conversation around our commitments on concrete and steel.
I'd be very keen for you to perhaps have a look at what we've made and what we've published on
our website. I'm very happy to have a more detailed conversation about that. Similarly,
on the tree aspect, I think this is one of the areas where, you know, there is scope to have
really meaningful and useful conversation around the level of mitigation that we provide. I know
that's not necessarily what you want to hear in terms of moving trees around, but in terms of what
we put back afterwards, the way that we design the screening, the way that we design the
habitats that sit around the TMD, that is something that is very relevant to local communities
and we'd be very keen to have those sorts of conversations around how we can design
the right type of habitat and deliver it in the best way.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:35:36
Okay, just for the next questions the Cabinetman wants to come in.
Okay, thank you. Caroline.
I'm not sure why.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:35:45
Chair, one sort of very trivial question.
Who actually asked you to build the TMD?
Because it wasn't in your original plans, was it?
Natalie Wheble - 1:36:02
So, I mean, in terms of design specifics,
I'm happy to hand over to Paul on that one,
but the requirement for a train maintenance depot
is within the scope for the programme.
Paul Mountford - 1:36:13
Yeah, I mean our remit is to sort of build the infrastructure required to run the service
and as part of that a TMD is required to maintain and stable the train fleets.
There's no person who said can you build a TMD.
It falls out of the requirements of, as Graham said, if you add 20 new train units you've
got to have somewhere to service and maintain them.
So why wasn't it in the original plans?
Natalie Wheble - 1:36:41
The short listing for the TMD location was within the 24, 25 consultation.
I must have missed that.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:36:44
And the other one is just to say that on page 12 you talk about environmental mitigation.
Now I know in Winslow you haven't done that because I've had your chaps come down to have
a look at the mess you made in the spinny field and how much land you've taken, which
you know I don't look after.
I'm just going to point out you're going to have a huge rag work problem there where you
haven't looked after it.
So if you don't do that, you're not going to do this are you?
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:37:09
If I could just come back, I think it was me, Caroline, who came to visit you.
And I wanted to say that we're learning the lessons from other projects around the way that they've delivered their habitat mitigation.
There's lots of examples of big infrastructure projects, planting lots of trees and then not necessarily surviving.
What biodiversity net gain and the requirements are now in place on nationally significant infrastructure projects does,
is mean that we need to be able to demonstrate the maintenance regime and that there is a responsible body in place to ensure that those habitats are maintained.
We have to be able to do that at the point of application.
So I'm very confident that we will have a clear strategy and a clear mechanism for both delivering the habitats and then having a responsible body who can look after them
and make sure that we don't see what's happened on CS1.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:37:55
So that includes wind zone, the dead trees that you planted.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:37:59
Okay, Alex.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:38:02
Thank you, Chairman. Looking at page 53, which is a DCO timeline,
because you've got now a DCO route rather than actually coming to the Council and actually doing a proper planning application as you should normally do,
you're also trying to circumvent the actual residence
and all the public examination.
So my feeling is that you've chosen the site,
you're going to have it rubber stamped by the government
inspector, but I think when you look at that page,
there's a scope between, well, it's now November and February
when you have your design freeze.
I think you will have to have, I will request to everyone
that they have a new engagement with the cabinet member,
deputy cabinet member, but also the Lee Flood authority,
which is us, the Transport and Highways authority, which is us,
primary impact authority, which is us.
Because I could foresee we'll end up being a rule six party
where we formally object on all three grounds,
because actually, you haven't taken any of those in account.
Because the answers I've had so far are not good enough,
because you haven't even talked about the drainage
and the gas main.
So you're conceptually talking about concepts.
You might blind the inspector with, okay, it's going to be alright on the night, lovely,
but as we see from HS2, that clearly doesn't work.
And even in your biodiversity game, you're required to go off -site.
And you, again, haven't talked about where that might be, how that might be,
how that might benefit the residents of Buckinghamshire.
So I'll address a formal proposal that they had to meet with us fortnightly,
on all those grounds now between now and February
before they go to DCS application
and before they go to DCS application,
we have cited that DCS application
before it goes to public domain
because otherwise I think if you don't,
we will end up with formal ejections on
flood, environment impacts,
bi -net gifts, BNG, and transport issues, Chairman.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:40:11
I've got an expert on planning here so come back one at one.
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:40:14
I think you're absolutely right there is a lot of ground that needs to be covered before we submit
our application. We want to have got to a place where we have statements of common ground on lots
of these sorts of issues where we've been really clear about what we're trying to do and you
hopefully agree with what we're trying to do. I think there's probably, I would agree that I think
we need to quite clearly map out all the engagement that needs to be done. In theory that has been
mapped out within the local authority frameworks that we share with council officers.
But I think we're quite happy to take that away as an action to make sure that that is
robustly mapped out and very clear so that you feel like you have the touch points over
the course of the next six months to be able to get into that sort of detail as we progress
towards our application.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:40:58
Yeah, and the timeline's actually until February of three months.
Hence why I said fortnightly meetings on each of those aspects to ensure that each of those
aspects are fully covered.
so you can justify what you might or might not submit.
And it may still end up with a scenario where actually all three scenarios,
we actually still say no.
But I think it's not six months because it says clearly end of Feb,
design freeze ends, you then go for DTO prep, and then you end go submission.
So at end of Feb, basically the clock stops.
Therefore, unless we've had the meaningful engagement in the next three months,
that doesn't work.
So that's hence why I've said fortnightly meetings, not monthly meetings,
because you've only got three months in which to get this sorted.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:41:36
Three months to go. So what's the answer to this?
Tristan Lincoln-Gordon - 1:41:38
I think it's important to say that there's three months before we get to
where we freeze the design. There will still be matters
that, you know, the design that we freeze at that point in our application
will be what we kind of talk about as an outline design. It'll be a parameters
based design to be able to secure the application with more detail being
developed right the way up to construction. So I don't want us to
feel like that, you know, there is a complete hard stop at the end of
those three months which is why I refer to a longer timeline but I think it's right that
we take that away with officers and agree the right working arrangements to be able
to make sure that we have the right engagement.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:42:15
I want to bring in Daniel here because he's passionate about these projects. Do you want
to say you've worked along all this and we're going to talk about a specific part of this,
Daniel. Do you want to talk about that or we'll go back to him?
Daniel Gigg - 1:42:28
Thank you Chairman. I think from our perspective, from an officer perspective, we're still very
much waiting for the detail that we set out in our non statutory consultation response
back in June of this year and we're still waiting the information to come in respect
of the three layout options we have pressed and pressed for information and understanding around
how the decision was made in terms of the preferred options. So my request is really
that we do continue to have the right answers that demonstrate how East West Rail Company
have addressed our responses and we are very much committed still to engaging in various technical
meetings going forward and I think I'd very much welcome an in -person meeting
with East West Rail Company to scope that out so we fully understand the
programme going forward that takes us to examination so that we can ensure we are
being engaged appropriately and we know what deliverables are expected of us
before the examination commences next year. Thank you.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:43:45
What I'd like to do now is give you a chance to explain what's the future.
I know you're coming back next year anyway.
So over to you.
Natalie Wheble - 1:44:01
So in terms of what's next, as I referenced earlier, we are working on the design development
as the team have been talking about the intensive amount of work that's going on.
We intend to come out and speak to the community before the end
of the year around the design development,
particularly around the TMD detail.
Alongside that, we continue the engagement.
I think it's worth noting in the last six weeks,
we've launched a new East West Rail forum.
This is an opportunity for senior representatives
from local authorities and leadership across the line
of route to come together with our chief executive as well
to have those route -wide conversations and discuss the progress of East West Rail.
We are working towards our development consent order submission next year.
So there is a lot of opportunity for us to continue our engagement.
Since we were here in February speaking to your committee last time,
we have made a concerted effort to make sure that our engagement channels are open.
We've had those two public meetings in Newton Longville
that we have referred to, as well as our engagement
with directly impacted landowners.
And we are also out doing more community events
across the line of route.
And as I mentioned, the public meeting we're due
to have in Newton Longville before the end of the year.
So there is a lot of work to do.
We recognise that.
We know that there is technical information
that we are still working on.
And our intent is to work with the officers, again,
across the line of route on those elements of design to enable us to meet our timeframe
for development consent order submission next year.
Our core ambition is to be able to bring East West Rail into service as soon as possible,
bringing the opportunities that that delivers for more jobs, access to more jobs and more
homes for local people to be able to travel more easily across the region.
That is why we are developing the East West Rail Scheme and that is our core objective.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:46:03
Okay, I'll bring in the cabinet member then I'll finish up the discussion.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 1:46:07
Thank you chair. Yes. Well, I started the meeting being
disappointed but not surprised. I don't think my position has particularly moved since then.
I hope you see the irony in when you're presented with
When you're presented with the fact that you're essentially just creating busy work
That is designed to look like it is engagement without actually meaningfully engaging
I hope you appreciate the irony that your response to that is just to read a part of a pre -prepared statement
That you've written before I've actually asked you that question
I mean that really does sum up a lot of the process the fundamental problem we have here and actually I think it's come out
quite well in the questioning that's happened,
is that East West Rail is very happy to talk to anybody
about a decision that it has already made.
That is not meaningful engagement.
The problem is that you don't talk to anybody
before you make the decision.
You certainly don't listen to anybody
before you make the decision.
And if you continue in this pattern
of making decisions behind closed doors
with no transparency, no scrutiny, no apparent interest in upholding your duty to the public
as a public sector body, then we are just going to continue this.
And that's all I've heard from the responses to the questions that have been asked by committee
members.
Everything's been pushed into long grass.
I'm astounded that you're talking about the route -wide forum that you're setting up, which
is a blatant and transparent attempt to avoid independent scrutiny.
There is already a body that does that job, it's just that you don't run it.
So you are seeking to undermine and replace the independent body and replace it with one
that you control, where you decide what is talked about, you decide what is on the agenda.
There is nothing I've heard today that offers me any reassurance and I don't think any of
people here from the communities affected have heard anything that provides any reassurance.
We have said to you clearly and unequivocally what you are doing at the moment is not good
enough. What you are doing at the moment does not provide meaningful engagement. And then
you have spent two hours telling us in detail about how you're going to continue to do exactly
the same thing. Again, I hope you see the irony of that as a response to the charge
that you're not meaningfully engaging with people.
I do think it's interesting,
I don't think we've heard from you,
you may have said it somewhere else,
but I don't think we've heard from you at any point before
that you've been identified by the government
as a Pathfinder project for the changes
to the DCA process.
I think there will be people outside of this room
who will take note of that.
And it does reinforce the importance
of an answer to my question
about whether or not you've been given any direction,
whether that's soft or hard as a nudge
by either the department or the ministers
in the department in order,
in terms of where you are locating this depot.
Because today will be, I think,
the fourth time I've asked you that question,
and it is the fourth time
that you have not answered that question.
And I think it came up peripherally
in some of the things said by other people.
We've even got to the point now
where other bits of infrastructure on the line
are disappearing to be further dumped into rural North
Buckinghamshire.
And again, I would extend that question
of is that as a result of any advice or direction
that you've received from the department
or from a minister or official.
I don't particularly see any commitment in anything
that you said to improve what you're doing
or even to acknowledge the shortcomings of the process
that you've engaged in so far.
I said at the beginning of this meeting that the pattern of behaviour that you're exhibiting
amounts to an attempt to deceive and mislead the public.
I still believe that to be the case.
And not only is that the foundation of what you call engagement, but you seem to be doubling
down on that position and have spent, as I say, two hours entirely avoiding giving any
any commitments to engaging meaningfully with either ourselves or more importantly the local
communities. Because at the end of the day we are here to represent their interests and
we are stepping in because you have failed already to engage meaningfully with them.
But we just cannot get away from this point that it is not meaningful engagement only
to talk about decisions that have already been made. And I think that's got to be the
big takeaway. We may well be too late because, and frankly we've sort of spent this whole
entire process being too late because out of nowhere you just told us you were dumping
this massive piece of infrastructure in rural North Buckinghamshire without ever having
talked to us about it, right? And then you proceed to not even particularly engage on
how you're going to do that. What you are undertaking is an exercise in industrialising
the countryside.
And this is part of a wider pattern that we are seeing,
particularly with the changes to the National Significant
Infrastructure Programme and DCOs.
We're seeing it in the south of the county with data centres.
We're seeing it in the north of the county with your TMD.
We've got a couple of other projects that are also being
pushed through this process.
And it just seems to be designed to take away all transparency
and accountability from bodies that should be upholding standards in public life and
are not. And it really, really worries me that you guys here today clearly don't think
that there is any way that you will be held to account for your actions. And I think Tristan
at one point was saying, you know, well we've been given these powers but that doesn't mean
we necessarily need to act in a bad way.
But you're already doing that.
That's what everybody in this room,
that's what everybody in these communities is telling you,
is your behaviour is already unacceptable.
And yet you clearly think that there is no mechanism
to hold you accountable.
And my real concern is that there might not be.
And that's why it's important for us to have these sessions
and it's important for us to put this on the record.
because as I said before, you know,
we've got to this point after almost 20 years with HS2,
where they're finally acknowledging
that the fact that they just ploughed through all resistance
without listening has actually caused the project
to be massively over budget and massively behind schedule.
And now you're doing exactly the same thing.
And we are, I just hope that we do not end up,
I will not still be in my post by this point,
but in 10 years, 15 years time,
I just really, really hope we are not in a room like this
listening to somebody telling us,
well, we've had a reset and we've looked back
at what we did and you know what?
It turns out that blithely proceeding
without any regard for any human beings
turned out to be a bit of a mistake.
So I continue to be unsurprised but disappointed.
Genuinely, anything you're willing to do
to upgrade the level of engagement that we have,
to make it a more meaningful process,
we will absolutely undertake in good faith.
And if you do, I will come back to this committee
and say East West Rail have turned over a new leaf.
They are doing wonderful things.
But that has to involve, as a baseline,
proper engagement before decisions are made.
Natalie.
Natalie Wheble - 1:54:09
Thank you, Chair.
Just in response to a couple of those points,
if I may. I think I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when we say we are absolutely
committed to doing the right thing by the communities in which we operate. We don't
recognise the position that we are not doing that. We understand the location of the TMD
is an unpopular choice for those who live nearby. We do understand that. We are working
on trying to deliver a scheme that has the best end result for the railway, for the economic
growth opportunities that it presents to the region.
I did also just want to pick up on a couple of points, if I may, in terms of being a Pathfinder
project and how we navigate our way through the government, us on ours, as being this
Pathfinder.
We have a Pathfinder working group that we have with local authority and officers that
we have on a regular basis, which was set up, I think, at the start of the year.
And our absolute intention in those meetings is
to discuss how we work with local authorities
to navigate our way through the Planning
and Infrastructure Act as it has been passed.
So we are noted as a Pathfinder project.
And that work with local authorities has been ongoing
for some time.
And I think I'll leave it there.
Obviously, understanding the frustrations in the room.
Like I say, we know
that the train maintenance depot is not a popular decision.
Wherever we would have placed it,
there would be difficult decisions to make.
And we have to make those difficult decisions,
and we then have to work through the process
in doing our design development to do the best we can
for the communities that are impacted by our decisions.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:55:50
Thank you for that, and thank you for everybody talking today.
And obviously the message is from me, us, the council,
but more important than residents, they feel totally,
totally let down with the communication and other things.
We only found out something on Friday.
I felt let down for that.
So please, I know you're going to try and say that, that, that.
The message is that, isn't it?
I hope you go away with that.
We'll see you in February, I hope.
May come back in February.
So we're on this.
We're really unhappy at the moment.
So just hopefully take those messages back.
Can you please?
And thank you for attending today.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 1:56:28
Just to go on that point, your meeting diaries and when the PCO has to be prepared,
2nd of February is the next meeting, 13th of April is the meeting after that.
I think it's critical if East West Ireland are trying to act in good faith, which they claim to be,
they have to appear at both those meetings and then give an update to us on how they've engaged with the cabinet and the wider council
because we lead flood authority, lead highways authority, lead environmental authority, planning authority,
to actually show actual delivery rather than actual just hot air and words.
Because like the rest of my fellow council, I believe I don't feel we've actually had any substantive responses.
So a lot of hot air and whatever. But in terms of what I do in terms of planning,
I can tell you that you would have been thrown out of court quite happily and lost on appeal.
Yeah.
Okay, well I'll certainly be here next year, so you'll have to come back to see me.
Cllr David Carroll - 1:57:25
So the message is, you got the message haven't you?
So thank you for your time and see you next year.
Thank you.

7 Bus Service Improvement Programme

Cllr David Carroll - 1:58:38
Okay everybody, we're reconvening.
Item 7, Bus Service Improvement Plan.
Company member.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 1:58:53
Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate that we've overrun slightly on our initial item.
So I'm not going to go through the full presentation.
I know members of the committee have had the reports.
I think my overview here would be that despite the fact that we've seen significant cuts to capital funding from government,
We are making the most of the funding that we do have across the county and I'm very privileged to have an excellent team who is working on this.
So we are working to deliver the capital funding that we do have to improve bus stops across the county.
I think we've got about 130 stops in our long -term pipeline.
There's 50 that are being progressed at the moment and delivering infrastructure upgrades
all over the county including in a number of
wards of colleagues who are here today
I think we've got a strong offering in the bus space
And the team is really really dedicated to leveraging all of the influence that we have with commercial providers
to try and make sure that those routes are serving the public as best as possible.
And with that I'll take questions.
Cllr David Carroll - 2:00:11
Okay, yeah. Anyone else to say anything? Richard? Yeah, okay.
Do you want to say anything? No?
Thanks, yeah. So Richard Barford, I'm the corporate director for communities.
I'm very conscious you've had a long discussion on the early items, as the cabinet member said.
Very happy to get into questions. We have with me James Lowder,
who's our technical lead for public transport,
and Lindsay Valles, who's our lead service director
for this area as well.
OK, any questions?
Anja.
Richard Barker - 2:00:41
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 2:00:44
This is, forgive me, it's again a Buckingham North Bucks
specific question, but similar issues
might well arise elsewhere.
We have now, thankfully, got a second bus service
that is running from between Buckingham and Asbury,
which is great news.
Unfortunately, however, they usually
run within five minutes of each other.
And I do know that they're commercial services,
and they make their own decisions,
and they're not covering 100 % the same route.
But nonetheless, that doesn't seem sensible.
If we now have two services an hour,
but they're running at practically the same time,
that doesn't really, that meaningfully improves the provision.
So I would welcome James' input or insights into what might or might not be done about that.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:01:42
Yeah, so obviously, as I say, we work through the team to improve the service across the county.
I think it's fair to say that we have seen some pretty significant improvements in those services.
In terms of the specific point you raise, I will let James answer that because, frankly,
James' knowledge of the Buckinghamshire Bus Network is unrivalled.
But I would emphasise the point you made, obviously, commercial services, but that's an area where we do have some influence, and we can try and talk to them.
I do appreciate that you make the point, Councillor Shafer, about...
Because it's something that we do see with bus routing,
is that sometimes something that makes sense across the entire route of the bus
can seem a little incongruous in a specific stop along that route,
especially where different routes intersect.
But James, do you want to jump in?
Yeah, thank you for the question.
Yeah, you're quite right.
And in fact, actually, in that specific instance,
the second service started earlier in the summer.
James Loader - 2:02:50
It was Red Rose Travel put on a second express service
between Elsbury and Buckingham, which is obviously welcome,
because we now have two per hour on that corridor.
There's a few different things that
happened on that corridor.
So the service exit that was there before that now
extends across to Bletchley and the college and the hospital
and that sort of area to improve some of the services
in that area.
So they are doing slightly different things.
I think there is absolute sense in trying
to coordinate those two together.
We are looking to coordinate also some other services that run
through the villages to make, to reduce that duplicate mileage
and make sure they each do those sort of things.
And also there will be an opportunity I think,
not wishing to reopen the previous discussion,
but when and if the railway station in Winslow opens,
actually there's an opportunity to actually try
and coordinate those things to meet with trains.
So the railroad timetable and the bus timetable should be able to harmonise.
It's something we're really keen on doing.
I think at that point, once we're clear on a timescale and a railway timetable,
actually we can look at the different services.
We can look to try and feed them together so they each meet a different train or do the right things,
and linking from the villages as well.
So yes, it's very much on the intention.
We were having discussions about increasing the services anyway,
sort of this time last year that ultimately didn't come to fruition because the railway
station didn't open when we thought it would.
But yeah, absolutely.
And also it stretches to things like ticketing on the corridor as well, which is slightly
less important because of the government's fare cap, which means it does equalise fares
and you can jump between busses, but still it removes that sort of point of confusion
for passengers.
So these are all things that we would like to try and do.
And I think the catalyst is probably when and if the railway station opens to try and
try and make the best benefit of that.
Cllr David Carroll - 2:04:38
Okay did you ask a question Greg? You put your hand up didn't you? I've got a list
here so it's your next and then it's Caroline, Alex, then Wendy.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:04:51
Thank you Chair. Yeah thank you. Two questions unrelated really. The first one
is about demand responsive transport and how's that going? What's the
opportunities given the extra funding of being able to expand that and to what
to what extent is demand responsive transport
being able to link directly with the train stations,
particularly around those commuter times
when we see huge numbers of cars
travelling backwards and forwards to the train stations.
So demand responsive transport,
it would be good to see a bit more detail
around the pilot that we have in the report.
The second, completely unrelated,
is just about advertising on bus stops.
How successful has it been implemented now that we're not advertising fast food around schools? How's that?
How's that going and is there any?
Any likelihood of expanding those that sort of control around?
That revenue stream that has a very negative aspect in some ways
James Loader - 2:05:54
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:05:57
So in terms of demand responsive travel there is an item in the report
I'm afraid the ICB is not describing additional funding.
The ICB is describing the fact that that funding has been withdrawn by the Department of Transport.
So we have run what we think is a very successful pilot scheme with specific funding that was provided by the DFT in a couple of locations across the county.
Unfortunately, that funding has come to an end.
Now, one of the lessons learned, and this is a lesson that has been picked up similarly
by other rural local authorities that we engage with through bodies like England's Economic
Hard Land, the sub -regional transport body, effectively the cost per journey of the demand
responsive travel is simply too high to be sustainable.
You're talking about getting on for 20 pounds per journey on DRT.
So that is not a sustainable amount to invest in those journeys.
We've kept the pilot going as long as we could with the funding that was made available.
And of course the reason why the funding was made available was precisely to identify this kind of viability.
What we have done is use this as a really good opportunity to help us gather more information
about how people are travelling in the areas that we've been running the pilot.
and using that to make changes to the fixed bus network
so that the information that we've gathered,
even though that DRT scheme is no longer there,
because the funding's been withdrawn,
people can still benefit from what we've learned
during that process.
And I think we've already announced some of the changes
that are being made as a result of that
over the summer, I believe.
So that's where we are with DRT.
It's one of those things where, you know,
I completely appreciate that people who have potentially been using the service will be
frustrated that that service is being withdrawn.
But one of the things that we've consistently said is that in order to find ways of better
delivering value for money for the taxpayer, we do have to look at innovative solutions
and we have to test things.
And obviously we've tested it in this case with funding that we've leveraged in from
national governments so that we can deliver a benefit to
taxpayers in books in terms of the improvements of the fixed network
But part of that process has been identifying that the the cost per journey on this is just is just too high to be
sustainable and in terms of advertising on
Bus stops. I'm not entirely sure where we are on that if I'm being perfectly honest Lindsay. Do you want to jump in?
Lindsey Vallis - 2:08:41
So James and I probably picked that up between us.
So we have a contract with a company called JCDecaux who instal and maintain our bus
shelters and the contract is associated with obviously their ability to advertise on those
shelters as part of that kind of contract set up.
So we have recently entered into a further period of contract with them.
We've not been able to achieve a change in the contract as part of that process,
but when it comes through for retender, which is soon, next year?
Yes.
Next year?
Well that's when it begins, yes.
Oh, when it begins.
Yes, when the process begins.
Okay, we'll start to talk to them about whether or not we can do something differently around schools
to align with our kind of public health objectives and the wider approach we've taken around fast food
in those local areas.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:09:40
And can there be a discussion with this
or another committee?
Because it's quite a concern to residents
that we are supporting this sort of unhealthy
kind of advertising around schools and other places.
It would be good to see if there was a discussion
that should be had because if the contract isn't working
then surely we ought to be negotiating
a different contract with a different provider.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:10:09
I think it's important to say that it's not that the contract isn't working,
it's where is there an opportunity within that contract cycle to make changes to it.
And that's something we're potentially coming up to.
In terms of a policy decision on how restrictive we would want to be
in terms of what people can advertise where,
it's not correct to say that anybody's getting any support in doing this.
This is a question of whether we decide as an instrument of the state to limit someone's
ability to advertise their product.
So I think that's a discussion that we'll have.
But of course we'd be very happy to report back to the committee on that as we would
through the normal process.
So and obviously give you a chance to ask questions about the conclusion that we come
to.
Caroline.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:10:57
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Smith asked my question.
Cllr David Carroll - 2:11:02
College.
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 2:11:05
Thank you Chairman.
I note in 4 .1 the Council sought to grow the existing network focusing on multi -modal travel,
interchanges, leisure opportunities and community services.
My curiosity is where we are going, particularly with our two key employment areas
as in Cressis Business Park and Globe Business Park.
And then interchanging between Children Railways
in High Wycombe and also First Great Western in Marlowe
and Orbourne Edge because actually
if we could then have a much smarter system
between the two actually we may actually get additional funding
potentially from some of those big boards themselves as it were
Because to me, we want to try and make it as attractive as we can to get as many employees into Buckinghamshire as we possibly can.
And they are our two key strategic sites for employment apart from Pinewood.
And for me it was very much a case of, well I've had discussions with officers before, it's a straight no.
Well, based on your report, then what you've said to me before doesn't match because you've told me very clearly,
multi -modal travel, interchange,
leisure routines and community services.
Because I can tell you, I'm working in the city a lot,
I live in Marlowe and we all drive to Hobacombe.
And there's a whole queue of us in the morning,
at least 50 plus cars all going there,
being dropped off by our relevant spouses, et cetera.
Which is just crazy, right?
We could easily, yeah, we had a suitable transport hub,
net quality change piece
that would actually make perfect sense.
Thank you.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:12:52
Yeah, so just for anybody watching at home,
we talk about things like multimodal travel interchange.
What we're talking about is someone getting off one mode
of transport and onto another.
So I think in the example you were talking about that,
probably off a bus and onto a train or vice versa.
So that's absolutely something that we try to encourage.
I think the important thing is that that's
where we would like to get to.
But there is the reality that these commercially
run services and there does have to be evidence for the demand.
I think if you've got a particular area where you think
there is evidence of that demand, I think the thing to do
is to get any information on that over to us.
And we talk to the commercial providers all the time.
At the end of the day, they are incentivized.
If there is demand in an area to run a commercial service,
that means that that commercial operator
is going to profit from it.
So where there is an evident demand there,
it's usually not too difficult to persuade.
The issue is always persuading that there is, in fact,
that demand and that I suppose what I would say is
there are some scenarios where people will be using other modes
of transport other than bus at the moment.
The fact that you put a bus there doesn't necessarily mean
those people will want to choose that mode
over what they're doing currently.
But actually take the point and I think
that's something we'd be doing anyway in sort of our wider approach but it's a
really important one and and you know I've talked to this committee on a
number of occasions particularly around LTP5 and that what we're focusing on is
enabling choice by residents and so where people do choose to use a mode of
transport like that, where they desire to use a mode of transport like that, if there's a
commercially viable route there, we'll work with the operators to facilitate
that wherever we can.
Wendy.
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 2:14:52
Thank you.
Yes. Could I ask what level
of engagement you have with Heathrow?
Heathrow, even in their current configuration, are required
to try and push the modal shift onto public transport.
But the proposals that they bring forward almost entirely
avoid the south of the county.
Other areas around us get plenty of transport provided by Heathrow,
but we don't, we get one bus at four o 'clock in the morning,
which is really helpful.
So can you tell me what you're doing about that?
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:15:26
Yeah, so obviously there's a lot of changes going
on in this space at the moment
with proposed ether expansion plans.
And so there's a lot of discussions going on there.
We do have an element where we look at this at a sort
of strategic level where we're looking at all elements
of how those changes will be made.
I don't know if James wants to add anything about the specifics
of the arrangements we have at the moment.
Yeah, thank you.
James Loader - 2:15:50
Thank you for coming to me.
Yes, I'm involved in the various working groups and meetings
that are going on around Heathrow.
One of the key lines I usually make in my responses
and when I'm asked to speak at those is, you know,
just across the boundary into Iver and that sort
of general area because that's very much a potential source
of employment for people and access to get there.
And you're quite right to say that a lot
of what appears in the plans and the strategic documents
are looking further afield.
They're looking around the motorway,
looking to central London, looking
at Hertfordshire, north of Buckinghamshire,
that sort of thing.
So that's very much part of what we're looking at.
We work closely with our colleagues
in office development management and other directorates
to make sure we align those comments.
So yes, we are involved in those.
I do attend pretty much all the meetings,
but certainly as many as I can get to in person
where possible as well to make sure
that comes across as clearly as possible.
But I can completely agree that that particular core
of the county is important to make sure it's connected
in one way or another, yeah.
Yeah, I think it's really important
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:16:58
that we take the holistic approach to Heathrow.
And so you will have engagement with officers
from effectively different departments of the council
to make sure that, you know,
residents always feel the impact
of having a big airport just down the road.
And our intention is always to make sure
that we maximise any potential benefits.
Obviously understanding that those don't necessarily
mitigate the impact of having the airport there
in the first place.
Andy.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:17:33
A couple of issues.
One, we've probably got less input these days
on some of the smaller bus companies within the county.
There appears to be, I wouldn't say necessarily a monopoly,
but Red Group have become quite a big bus company
within the county, and I just wondered whether there was
any impact on, whether there was any impact, if you like,
on services within the county as a result of that situation.
The other thing I wanted to mention was we used to have,
Well, certainly one group which I was a member of,
Elsbury Vale Transport Users Group.
And I feel as though we need some sort of input, if you like,
from members of residents or residents within the county
and whether we could, we've talked about this before, James,
about whether this could be promoted through the community boards or something like that,
which gives us a county -wide issue that we can report on services on a regular basis.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:18:56
Yeah, so I think we have arranged a series of webinars through the community boards
to sort of build that level of engagement on what the bus services look like across the county.
It is true to say that we predominantly,
services are predominantly provided
by two commercial operators across Buckinghamshire.
That has some limitations,
but it does have some advantages as well.
You know, there is more,
it's always easier to get things sort of lined up
and connected when they're two different parts
of the same organisation.
So, but I do take your point about feedback.
I think it's something that we're always looking to do.
And I know a lot of people are in direct contact with James.
I know a lot of people are in contact with James through my inbox.
And we do try to pick up those issues wherever we can.
I mean, it would be really interesting actually once we got to the end of our cycle
on the current engagement with the community boards to maybe we can take stock of that
and look at how helpful that's been and see if we can sort of tweak that offer to make sure
that we're getting what we need to get.
But it seems to be a really good opportunity and obviously that's why we decided to do this with the community boards because we can engage
Both across the whole county but also within specific geographies where I know there are there are always going to be specific patterns in specific
Localities so I think that's a helpful way of doing it, but we'll take that away
And and and I think that's probably we'll use that to develop our our offering through the community board
And we'll continue to report back to the committee on it obviously
Cllr David Carroll - 2:20:37
Phil, Caroline, then Justin.
James wanted to go to the handbook.
Oh, James, did you want to come back on that one?
Sorry, I'm...
Yeah, apologies.
James Loader - 2:20:44
That was the first part of Council Huxley's question around the make -up of the bus network.
So, I suppose it goes back a couple of years to the closure of the Areva depots in the county.
I think going back to that point in time, in the south of the county, Carousel busses really stepped up to the plate
and replaced things.
We didn't lose any services down there.
And the Red Group did similar in the Aylesbury area.
Since then, both those organisations, I think it's fair
to say, have been adjusting to their new size.
And then, you know, without having ARIVA in the picture.
What we're seeing, particularly across the Red Group part
in the north of the county, well, actually,
what we saw pretty early on actually was
that they increased the services on some
of those key corridors that ARIVA were previously running.
They routinely invest in new vehicles.
So there's a good number, I think it's around 20 or so brand new vehicles
currently driving around Dalesbury in that general area.
And that programme is something they invest in continually.
In terms of sort of things like service performance as well,
I feed back to both, well, not all operators,
but both main operating groups around specific areas
where there could be improvement and all those sort of things.
So it is an ongoing process.
It is now a couple of years into the end of the Areva sort of domination of the north
of the county in particular.
So yes, I don't see any particular issues around that situation because in practise
it's not much different to how it was when Areva were the main operator.
But being a different operator, they are able to do things slightly differently and invest
in different ways and plan in different ways.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:22:29
Jim, it's very kind of you to allow me to join your meeting today.
I've learnt quite a lot here, so it's been a privilege so far.
Rather than a question, I'd like to put a few points across to the team,
because the North has been mentioned about possibly the lack of it in Buckingham.
I'm struggling with that one slightly because the route from Elsbury
goes right through my ward, including Winslow, where I'm a town councillor, and we're quite
happy with the service that is supplied there. It looks after the school runs extremely well,
and I will admit that James and I have done a lot of work, and his team have done a lot
of work to ensure that those young adults get to school on time, and they do, and the
residents are quite keen. The only area we lack, Chairman, and this has always been my
point in the rural area is, you know, the locals are in the village always say,
we want more, we want more. Well, they always want more.
But my, and you picked it up, cabinet member, about community boards.
The appetite is to have more community busses that we look after ourselves,
the community like it. My community board is pushing for another one to cover my
I would say those busses could help supply onto the main line,
so to speak, like you're looking to supply the train
when it eventually gets going, you know,
because we've already agreed busses will be able to pull up
in the Winslow railway station eventually.
But that's my point.
It's more the rural area, Chairman,
I would like to discuss more with yourselves.
But I need to give James 100 % compliments
in what has helped solve me because we've had some loads of road closures through villages
in my area and they've had to detour the whole bus service so I just want to I need to complement
them it seems like it says compliments compliments compliments
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 2:24:42
okay I don't miss your dialogue later on anyway so Caroline I'm just a real question it's pretty
But I live in the rural north, you know, frozen, forgotten by the world, everything.
But to get from Buckingham to Silverstone and Buckingham to Westbury is just about impossible.
So do we have a look at that? Because there's a lot going on at Silverstone, the Tech Park and everything.
And the same with Westbury because that goes on to Brackley with the Tech Parks there.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:25:05
Yeah, absolutely. And sort of the common thread between your question and that from Councillor Gome
is the difficulty of operating a responsive bus network in a very rural area.
and it is a challenge.
As I said previously, this is something
that we are aware of.
This is something that we try and engage with and work
with commercial operators to help provide those services.
But it's sort of part of the, it partly
goes back to the answer I gave previously about demand
responsive travel as well.
And I've said this before at this committee,
that effectively the denser a population you have,
the more efficient the public transport system becomes,
the more dispersed it is, the more rural it is,
the more challenging that becomes.
And that's why it's important that we look at
innovative solutions to see if there is something
that will help us out.
I think that's, the specific you mentioned,
I think is something we're having to take away
and have a look at.
I don't know, James may well tell us
he's already working on it.
That's very often the case, I find, when I talk to James.
But I think we'd be very happy to do so.
James Loader - 2:26:09
Not in a direct sense, but we do work with, particularly as playing to Silverstone, although
most of the Silverstone site is within Buckinghamshire area, working very closely with West Northamptonshire
and a part of their enhanced partnership. We have regular busses
that run from Buckingham across to Brackley, regular busses that run from Brackley
to Silverstone. Can we somehow at
least initially connect those two things together in a meaningful
hallway as opposed to our own funded service across the country through
Dadford or through Whittlebury for example.
And again with Westcott, there are regular busses passing that site on the main road.
And hopefully again, by connecting Buckingham across to Bistemore regularly,
that at least allows access that way without having to come down to
Bursby or drive yourself.
So it's very much trying to build that network together.
And once we've got that demonstrated demand, actually,
that the case for direct service or something like that,
then starts to bring itself forward.
But yeah.
Just in.
Cllr Justine Fulford - 2:27:14
I think I measure some of Bakiyosha's services
by how many inquiries I get.
And unlike Councillor Broome, I get very few,
which means either the service just isn't there at all
to complain about, or it's running really well.
Sometimes I think it might be the first.
I mean, we still mourn the passing of the 710 to Heathrow from Chesham.
I don't think that's running anymore, is it?
I know it was cancelled at one point.
But more generally, I'd like to know how the council is trying to promote bus travel
as an alternative to car drivers like myself.
I can't really get here for the committee meetings without leaving home at 7 o 'clock.
So I drive.
I always drive here.
I'm sure that I'm not alone. I'm sure we all drove here to the Gateway this morning unless we live within walking distance
So it's just that that shift
From from car driving to to bus and what this council is doing to achieve that
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:28:17
Well, I think I think the key point is that we're not trying to shove people
Against their will from one mode of transport to another I said earlier that the the sort of the golden thread that's running through
What we're doing is providing choice to residents for them to make that decision for themselves
So I don't think I don't think we would we would take an approach which is which is sort of
Designed to force people to make that decision
Because of course what we've seen time and time again in a lot of other places is that in adopting that approach?
You don't actually provide a useful alternative provision and you take away
important transport links from people in the meantime.
So for example, over the border in Oxfordshire,
we're seeing a number of schemes that involve effectively
closing rural roads, cutting off rural communities,
really reducing the size of the world in which particularly
vulnerable older people live through quiet ways
and forced 20 mile an hour speed limits and things like that,
really having a negative impact on people's quality of life.
So what we're focusing on is working with the commercial operators to make sure that they understand that if there is demand for a route somewhere,
that that is there for them, that that's an opportunity and that they can pick that up.
I don't know in terms of a specific link sort of from Chesham to Gateway, that's potentially something that we could look at certainly.
But actually I think the focus needs to be on making sure that people have the ability to make that choice where they want to.
It is also important to point out though that there are, that does also mean we have to respect when people make different choices.
And if, for some of the reasons I've described in terms of, you know, a lot of the time if somebody is in a vulnerable position they don't necessarily want to use public transport.
We don't want to be pushing people into using modes of transport that they're not comfortable with.
Or indeed pushing them into a position where they don't use any mode of transport because the only things that are available are options that they're not comfortable with.
So I think it's that approach of just trying to maximise wherever we can in terms of those objectives of making things more connected, allowing people to make those switches.
as we were talking about multimodal before.
But yeah, I don't know if there's anything
on the specific route.
Rather than James will be the person
Lindsey Vallis - 2:30:43
for the specific route, not me.
But in the paper, we talk about the demonstrated passenger
growth in terms of bus usage across Buckinghamshire.
So that's been really positive since we received
our additional B -SIP funding.
And when we look at that in comparison to our England's economic heartland kind of neighbours,
we're really performing well in that space.
So, sort of 19 .2 % total growth since 23, 24 in passenger numbers.
The other thing we've done, and you may have seen some of it this summer,
is we've really done a bit of a sort of bus promotion campaign through social media.
So yeah, through sort of better by bus.
And that's really building on our understanding
that families particularly want to use busses
for leisure opportunity.
And if you can encourage people to use busses for leisure,
often then they'll say, oh, do you know, actually, this is good.
And we could perhaps do some other things by bus.
So we've really worked on that over the summer this year.
And you might have seen some of that around as well.
James, I don't know about the Chesham Heathrow link.
So, yeah.
James Loader - 2:32:00
So, I suppose, so, yeah, specifically on the Chesham area, around this time last year,
I think probably a little bit before this time last year, the direct service between
Chesham and Aylesbury was reintroduced with some BESIP funding.
I think you can get to Aylesbury at sort of half past eight and half past nine on that
now, albeit that's Aylesbury town centre, not, I appreciate, the road in Aylesbury which
has that last mile element to it.
So that does it, we would hope to keep that going,
at least while the grant funding is available for it.
In terms of the link to Heathrow Airport,
so yes, there was before, it was the 730 bus service,
but that was a few years ago,
that ran directly I think from Chesham,
I think north of Chesham through Amersham.
That was lost during the COVID period.
Actually with the BSIP funding,
we have as a first stage to try to get something back
on that, we reintroduced the Amersham to Uxbridge.
service, which isn't the full end -to -end journey I appreciate, but we funded that
from last summer with a view to get in that particular connexion back within
the network. The hope is that if that proves to be successful enough that
could be back projected to either Chesham or at the other end onwards to
Heathrow like it was. But there are obviously a lot of busses
run between Chesham and Amersham. There's five or six per hour that do
that at the moment and there's many busses going between Uxbridge and
at the other end.
So again, trying to get that network together.
But yeah, that core bit in the middle
has been reintroduced as of last year.
And again, hopefully those become permanent parts
of the network with the funding we've had.
Yeah, thanks very much.
Cllr Justine Fulford - 2:33:34
I just really appreciate those responses.
And I just wanted to clarify to Councillor Broome
that I was wondering what work was being done
on making it the best choice,
making public transport the best choice,
It's not trying to force people into that.
You seem very focused on that,
that I was trying to force everybody out of their cars,
but that's not the question I asked.
No, I think he understood that.
Cllr David Carroll - 2:33:59
So, James, obviously,
you've got another question in a moment, so, okay.
James Loader - 2:34:02
Sorry, yes, it's just one.
I think I go on making the bus the better option.
We haven't really touched too much in our answers
on the capital programme as well,
and some of the investment in bus stops
and the infrastructure.
So what you'll notice, particularly around Chesham,
You've got some in Iver and the Aylesbury area as well.
Bus stop improvements make the quality of the bus stop
and the accessibility of the bus stop better.
Those are starting to go on the ground now.
So it's part of that whole package of,
yes, the bus is there, but actually the infrastructure
is updated, it's modern, it's got the right information there,
it looks better, so it's part of a bigger picture.
Clive?
Thank you, Jared.
Cllr Clive Harriss - 2:34:40
Something you're probably aware of,
bearing in mind that it's a new or local area.
A lot of the busses, when they are finished for the day,
end up taking the shortest route home.
And this means quite often they go through some
of our smaller roads and lanes.
And I think it'd be advantageous if perhaps we could look
at some of the routing to make sure they return to base
by the main roads, offering people a ride along the way.
This would get them out of the lanes
And at the same time, increase the number of busses
that are available, get admittedly going towards
where their bases are, which are usually
on the arterial roads.
So if we could do that, then I think people would say, well,
there are more busses coming along here more often.
There's plenty of developments in those areas.
So they're likely to say, well, it's worth looking at,
because there is a greater frequency.
I understand that in the rural areas, yeah,
It's very difficult to provide a worthwhile bus service.
Just a thought.
Yeah, I'm not sure what panels we would have
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:35:49
to direct a service after it's finished its route.
But it's certainly something we could mention
to commercial operators and say,
is there any way you can synergize that route
back to the depot with routes that are available?
I think we could do that.

8 Home to School Transport Update

Cllr David Carroll - 2:36:06
Okay that's it. Can I thank you for that part of the, you're back on to the next item aren't you. So, which is never important one. I'm just going to school transport update, please.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:36:21
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Yes, you've got me for three items today, I'm afraid. My apologies.
So the last of our little triumvirate here is updates on homeschool transport.
Obviously, this is a really important area for the council, both in terms of the service that it provides,
but also in terms of the significant cost pressure it represents,
both for Buckinghamshire as a local authority and all other local authorities that provide the service.
We have made some really positive progress in recent years in terms of
improving the level of service that we are delivering. I think we're about to issue a
set of numbers that will show about a 10 % increase
rising to 94 % in terms of SEND transport arranged within given time frame.
That reflects a lot of hard work from the team who have been working to optimise the operation that we have
to make sure that information is coming through to transport colleagues at the right time
to ensure that we have transport provision in place for students when they need it.
The really remarkable thing though is that at the same time as that's been happening,
we've also managed to very significantly reduce the unit cost that we are paying for transport.
And that savings in the region of five million pounds, which have largely been based off
whether we've designed the framework we use to set out the contracts for providing that
service.
So it's a really important direction of travel to both be improving the service and increasing
the value for money that we attain in this area.
The wider context for this is I think in our budget this year we are spending about £40
million pounds on home school transport.
It is a really, really significant area of spend.
And that is whilst serving a comparatively small number
of students within the county.
I do want to take the opportunity here just
to make a comment as well about how this interacts
with some of the changes that are being made at the moment
in terms of government -centred reforms.
And in particular, what the government has set out in terms of what they call stepping
in and paying 90 % of the cost of the high needs block, that's a deficit of the dedicated
schools grants, but which is of course, in fact, that is money that they should have
paid in the first place.
So what they're in fact doing is dumping 10 % of the funding they should have provided.
the burden of that is going on to councils and council tax payers.
A huge omission in this process is home to school transport.
It is a very significant part of the cost that is incurred by councils
to provide services for SE &H students and it has been completely omitted
from national consideration with no plan at all, seemingly,
to step in and relieve local taxpayers of the burden of decisions of national government.
So that's the context in which we're working.
It's a very significant cost.
It is something really that a burden that local taxpayers should not be bearing, but
they are being forced to by the government.
And within that, we are consistently looking to improve that service and deliver better
value for money.
And I am delighted that a lot of the stuff that we have in this report is detailing exactly
how colleagues are doing that.
This particular effort is led very, very ably by Lindsay Ballas down the table from me.
And I just want to take the opportunity, while we're in public session, to give my thanks
to Lindsay and her team for the incredible work that they are doing.
As I say, improving the service while reducing the cost is the sort of silver bullet of what
you want to do in local governments.
And it's not something we manage to achieve all the time, given the difficulties that
we face.
So it's a huge achievement.
and we are very thankful to Lindsay and her team for delivering that.
Cllr David Carroll - 2:41:06
Here, here. Any questions anybody? Maybe not.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:41:12
Bill? Great.
Thank you Chairman, that was one of my reasons as Chair of the Children's Select Committee was to come along today
and pick up on that. It's quite sad to hear that Government are not looking after us with our children
with SEND that need homeschool transport because as my colleague Councillor Matthews also knows
as my Vice -Chair, SEND is increasing more and more so there's going to be a massive
concern of ours through that committee. So it's great to hear that you're working still
hard. So I'd like to just ask, like you know you've been able to bring the figure down,
and that's quite incredible task and achievement.
But when the children were sent,
I've always been interested in this,
one vehicle takes one pupil to school.
And I struggle with that at times.
Right now we know that some children
suffer worse than others.
I might get told off for this pushing the boundaries,
but how are you handling that?
You know, can we get more children travelling together
under that point is one question.
If you'd like, can I ask them to answer now?
Happy to, yeah.
Yes, if you've got more than one question.
Sadly I have.
Okay, we've got other people who want to come in though.
I have got one other, I've got others,
but I've got one other that I would like.
Answer that question then and we'll move on to other people.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:42:41
Yeah, so absolutely.
It's a really important part of that process
is in making sure that we are able to bring down the unit cost.
There's basically, there's two areas of pressure, right?
There's the volume, which as you quite correctly identified,
is steadily increasing and through your work on your select committee,
you will have seen this and you will have seen the forward projections.
You know, we don't particularly see a break on that at this time.
And again, we are experiencing potentially a bit of a spike at the moment
because of the way that the government is handling its
send reforms by basically saying,
well we're going to change everything,
but we're not going to tell you how we're going to do it,
and we'll do it in two years time.
Which has meant that there's a lot of people
who are trying to get into the system now,
which will create an additional pressure
in terms of volume.
That's the bit that we can't particularly manage,
because it is not defined by us.
Who is entitled to that provision
is determined by national policy.
So what we have to focus on is the unit cost.
And that is basically how much it costs
to transport each individual child.
A really important part of that process has been making sure
that we are putting children in forms of transport that meet
with their requirements in terms of the number
of other children using that.
That is determined actually through the EHCP process,
which will identify how many other children that child can travel with.
So we have very limited options if that number is one,
because we have to provide transport to that person on their own.
And this sort of answers the question that I think a lot of people in the wider public ask about,
you know, why are you sending kids to school in taxis?
And, you know, when you have to transport a child on their own,
and that is a legal requirement, that is, you know, it's not something we have discretion over,
you have to use that mode.
One of the things that we've been trying to do
is make sure that where we have someone who can travel
with a couple of other children,
that we are putting them on a mode of transport
that fits that many and no more.
And so that way you end up with fewer journeys taking place
while also ensuring that children are kept
within that envelope in terms of the provision
that we need to provide them.
I am slightly simplifying there.
it needs more complicated than that.
Linda, do you want to come in on some of the details?
Yeah, thank you.
Lindsey Vallis - 2:45:15
So solo occupancy is generally for a couple of reasons.
So Thomas has really clearly identified that sometimes the needs of the child
are such that through our assessment of that child's needs,
solo travel is appropriate for that child.
And each individual SEND child that goes on to transport
has a travel needs assessment completed,
which involves the professionals and the family in terms
of determining what is appropriate
for that child in transport.
So some of it is definitely needs -based.
But there's a really big part of solo occupancy travel
that is actually related to where the child goes to school
and where the child lives.
And that comes back to actually wider SEND provision.
So the provision of specialist placements for children to attend
where those placements are located and whether
or not actually you have someone from let's take Winslow, you've got someone from Winslow
going to the same special educational needs education establishment in Slough or whether
everyone else in Winslow is going somewhere else. So it's really when you look at it wrapped
up in the wider set issues we've got in the system. So while there aren't enough places
locally for certain children to go, we will need to transport them out of county, sometimes
to independent settings and that's what drives some of that solo occupancy as well because
you can't optimise a route very well for a SEND child and many SEND families would probably
like their children to travel with others but you can't do that if you don't have a
child on the route that you can pick up on the way to that establishment.
So some of that is driving costs into the system as well as obviously the needs -based
approach.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:47:05
Two questions, slightly unrelated really.
The first one is that residents have told me
that where things go wrong, it's often very difficult
to actually find anyone that they can talk to about it.
The communication system seems to be broken down.
Can you tell me if that's something that's been done to try
and fix that or if that's just a cyclical issue with, you know,
of the busy period when the school term starts.
And the second question really is
about personal transport budgets.
We're moving much more towards that.
Can we be sure that when a personal transport
budget is made out that it's actually fit for purpose?
It covers the real costs for that child getting to school.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:47:54
Yeah, so in terms of communications,
To be perfectly honest, I don't think that reflects
the reality of the service.
I think it is, generally speaking, very easy
to get in contact with the council
and raise this as an issue.
It's certainly something that will occasionally
come to me at peak times through colleagues
where an issue has been raised with them directly
and then it passes straight onto the team.
I would say, I mentioned at the beginning of this
that we're going to be talking
about the very substantial increase in terms of getting
that provision in place in time, up to 94 % for SEN children.
I think that is reflective of the fact
that those communication paths are robust.
Now, I completely appreciate that obviously
that means there's 6 % that aren't.
What I would say though is that almost all
of the arrangements we are having to provide here are
to a certain extent, bespoke.
This is a hugely complicated logistical operation
in which we have to take a completely independent view,
child by child, on how we are going to fulfil their needs
and get them to school.
I think a lot of the time it is perhaps underappreciated
the level of complexity.
This is not the same as putting kids on a bus,
a regular school bus, and getting them to school.
I would say if you have any individuals
who have had a bad experience,
I'm very happy to take that up.
So drop me a line and I'll look into that.
It may be that we can increase some signposting
so people know who to get through.
But if anyone's listening at home,
you can just call the council's main number
and you will be put through to people
who are specially trained to answer these questions.
So you won't just be talking
to a generic customer services operator.
You will be talking to someone
who can answer those questions.
And similarly, you can always talk to your local member if you are not happy with that
experience and then I'm sure they will be very happy to get in my ear and tell me that
I need to sort of sat, which I'm always happy to do.
But I genuinely think that the rate at which we're meeting that provision within the allotted
time scale is indicative that actually the process is pretty healthy at the moment.
That's not to say there won't be issues.
It is, you know, we have them every cycle, and obviously there are very much peak times
because a lot of issues present when the schools are going back, because that's when the start
of new provision is happening.
But it is something where we do stand up the resources that we need to deal with that,
and we do process that.
But the reality is that, as I say, in a system like this where you are effectively arranging
I think it's about 8 ,000 completely bespoke transport arrangements, you are going to have
some things that you need to sort out.
And we do acknowledge that and we will try and get that sorted as quickly as possible.
But as I say, I think the rate at which we are achieving that provision in place speaks
for itself.
Lindsay, do you want to?
Lindsey Vallis - 2:51:07
Yeah, so we are in the process, sort of a continuous improvement piece really, around
customer experience with families because we recognise that it is a complicated journey
that takes some time to navigate to get your child's transport arrangements in place.
And that is particularly true for CEM families.
And that's partly because of the complexities of the process, the fact that the arrangements
are bespoke, as Thomas has said.
And what we did this year, and we're moving forward with further work around it for next
cycle, is we're moving our contact approach into the Council's customer relationship management
system at the front end, which our customer services team and corporate business support
staff have access to.
So we've moved more of our process into that front space.
And when I say that, what that means is
that when the phone is picked up,
the people who answer the phone
at the front have got more information to hand to help
that person with their query,
where that query is not very bespoke in nature to the child.
So that's sort of a real focus for us is making
that better, smoother.
So making sure we've got very clear ways for people
to contact the service that where they use the CRM
to make an application for transport,
they can see the status of their transport application
through to a certain point, which gives some visibility
around progress, and that when they call,
they are able to get some advice about what the situation looks
to be with their particular application.
You know, there is that period of peak demand.
So you can see from the report, the referral kind
of all arrives from April and then the team are absolutely flat out arranging transport
from that point through until September and actually towards the end of September. And
it is a balance because the more time you spend talking to people on the phone, the
less you're making the arrangements. So if we can use our digital technology to make
as much of that information visible to people that can help us answer those calls, then
and that's got to be a good thing for families.
So we did a bit this year.
We have an improvement piece now
before we start again in April,
which we've already identified the next deliverables on.
So an improving picture, hopefully, for families.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:53:38
Yeah, and there's a slightly wider part to that as well,
where even within the,
because obviously this is a process that,
effectively, we are the last, we are the end point of,
but sits with our colleagues and children quite some time.
So we've tried to push information
about the transport element of that
further up that process,
so that parents are more aware of it,
so that they don't have to come to it at the late stage.
You also mentioned personal transport budgets,
and I don't want to skip that.
So personal transport budgets are increasingly
being taken up by families, I think
because of the flexibility that they provide.
It's an option that's there for people.
And from the data that we have, it
seems to be something that is increasingly attractive.
A PTB is not designed to necessarily cover the entire cost of transport,
partly because some of the people taking up the PTB are doing so,
because actually they're looking at the elements of transport
that we could potentially provide and they want to go a step further.
And obviously there's a reason why we are providing the level that we can provide.
So again, I think it's one of those issues where it's sort of indicative in the data,
really.
It's an option that's on the table that more and more people are picking up, and it gives
them that sense of control.
And it can be really, really important with a lot of these children that actually, if
their parents want to have that complete end -to -end consideration of all elements of how that
transportation is being made, then the PCB is a fantastic option for them because it just puts them entirely in the driving seat
And it you know potentially opens up options then aren't necessarily available to us
Lindsey Vallis - 2:55:32
Yeah, I would just say that that they don't always and they're not always used for transport costs
So we're we give families real choice and flexibility over how they use that money. What we say is there's the money
what you are required to do is make sure
that your child arrives at school on time
and ready to learn.
How they choose to use that then is up to them.
So there's a really lovely PTB explainer video
on the website.
It gives a few sort of scenarios.
So it could be used to fund a child minder
for another child in your family
so that you can drive your child
with STEM needs to school, for example.
It could be used to car share with a neighbour
and help cover the cost of petrol
to take two children to school.
So it could be used in some circumstances perhaps for things like buying a bike to cycle to school.
If that's, you know, if you're just, you know, three, four miles and you think that's something that you want to do.
So because of that flexibility, it isn't necessarily money that you would take and use to pay for a taxi.
So that video is one of my faves. Great watch if anyone wants to go and have a look at that.
And we've seen real uptake in PTBs.
So just giving people the kind of choice around that
and being able to present them with the amount of money
that we might be able to give them as an alternative.
And sometimes that works for families.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:56:57
Yeah, and it's just, once again, we come back to what is sort
of the golden thread through the whole transport space,
which is giving choice to residents.
And when you do give choice to residents,
a lot of the time they will pick the option
that gives them the greatest flexibility.
So that's part of the reason why we're leaning into it.
Cllr David Carroll - 2:57:15
But it's across all elements of the transport portfolio.
Cllr Justine Fulford - 2:57:17
Justine.
Thank you.
It's really regarding post -16 transport.
So I don't really know what assistance is available
to families of low income.
There doesn't seem to be anything.
I know you're not legally obliged to do it.
Is this council making any representation
to central government to have funding
to provide post -16 travel to households on very low incomes,
which we have many in Chesham.
And even those who are on quite substantial incomes
find it very difficult to send two children, a set of twins,
for example, out of county on a mixed route of walking bus
and train to get to courses which are not available in Buckinghamshire.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 2:58:12
Yeah so post -16 is a little bit tricky in the sense that there is just there is a
different requirement for provision and that can present challenges for
parents. I mean I think the first thing I'd say is that ultimately the
determination of that sort of level of provision sits with national
government in the loop of their decision.
And the one thing I would say is if they do decide to
include it within the wider statutory framework, we would
very much hope that they provided some funding to
actually provide the service, which, as I said, they don't
on the wider point, which is a significant problem.
I think in terms of the offer that we make, we try to make
it sort of as streamlined and easy to access as possible
for parents in that situation.
But fundamentally, it is a different level of provision.
And the reality is, as an authority,
we've just seen 44 and 1 half million pounds of funding
cut from Buckinghamshire.
We don't have a lot of wiggle room
to sort of increase discretionary provision.
And as I mentioned earlier, this programme,
Home School Transport, we're spending 40 million pounds
on this for a very relatively small number of children in the county.
Any increase in discretionary provision comes with an absolutely colossal cost attached to it.
And the reality of the wider economic landscape is that means that services would have to be cut somewhere else.
So I think our approach in this space is to provide what we're required to provide and do that as best we can.
But I don't think it is for us to attempt to usurp a position that is, to be fair, legitimately held by a national government.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 3:00:10
Ed, then Alex.
So probably a couple of overlapping things that probably overlap with what you were just saying now, and I've just heard it.
The one particular issue in High Wickham
is antisocial behaviour in the bus station, actually.
And without going into schools or whatever it is and times
to identify anybody, it seems to be the youth on their way
to and from school.
So that's something we would like to solve,
clearly one issue.
But then coming back to we've got all these kids that
are being transported to school with these various different
things costing us so much money.
Is there a way of potentially and staying
within regulation, which I have no idea,
taking our $40 million, looking at it completely differently.
And I think to one specific area in Wickham, which
is kids in Downley having come down into the bus station
to change to get a bus up to Sir William Ramsay in Hazelmere,
which clearly, I mean, if they were driving by car,
it's a very short route cutting across High Wickham.
Could we be spending our money in a look
at the entire school transport thing
and look at how we could have the kids that
are particularly needing it in with others.
And I don't know if this is the case.
But if in Downley, there's a couple of kids
that we're looking after already,
could that money be spent to pick them up,
and 30 other Downley kids transport them all over
together for the same cost as the two, and by the way,
might help us with the other problem at the same time?
I'm just sort of asking, is there
a more holistic way to look at spending
the money for a bigger effect?
Cllr Thomas Broom - 3:01:39
Yeah, it's a fair question.
So I think I'm relatively familiar with that.
I do think that there is, there are already a mix I think of both eligible and non eligible students using that route.
Because for eligible students it is a route that we would help provide for and for non eligible students it is just a route that is the available route to go.
In terms of that wider point about looking at provision, we do try and take a holistic view.
The rules in terms of eligibility are fairly strict.
The issue being, and you know, I always find myself giving some version of this answer
when we're talking about home school transport, is that you can always sort of put a case
that involves a relatively limited number of students
who sort of think, well yes, we can do that in this case.
The problem is we can't apply this
sort of on a case by case basis.
It has to be sitting within a system of eligibility.
And in order to expand that eligibility,
you end up bringing an awful lot of people
into that system, and therefore,
the cost very significantly rises.
And once you've identified somebody as eligible
in a discretionary capacity.
If then, for example, that commercial operator decides
to end one of those services, the taxpayer is then on the hook
to provide other more bespoke forms of transport.
Or if that child moves to a different education provider,
again, taxpayer ends up being on the hook.
So I think there is part of this wider conversation
about eligibility and the, you know, very small changes
in eligibility lead to very, very significant cost pressures
that we do have to be careful of.
We do have a wider programme, though,
where we look at those routes and how
we can get people to school and how, for example, we
can improve walking and cycling routes to school
so that they are available for people to use.
That's absolutely part of the programme.
And I think that's part of the report here.
Richard, did you want to come in?
Yeah, thanks, Thomas.
Richard Barker - 3:03:52
No, I completely agree with everything
that's just been said.
I mean, it's certainly the case, Councillor Gannon,
that the most financially efficient way
to discharge our responsibility here for home to school
transport is to provide an opportunity
to put a child to a young person on a public transport route
as part of their.
So even though they're eligible for home to school transport,
we have about 780 children of that 8 ,000 cohort
that are travelling through public transport routes
as an eligible child.
So that's good in terms of the financial efficiency of it.
So it's good in terms of the independence element
for that child or young person as well.
And providing that variety is a key part of our strategy.
So the public network, PTBs as we've talked about,
active travel opportunities and so on.
The consequence of the strategy kind of culminates
as the cabinet members mentioned previously
in terms of our unit cost situation.
And the latest unit cost reduction for us this year
which we're reporting to cabinet,
is a 16 % reduction as part of all of that.
So that's partly around variety.
It's partly around the discussion we had
with Councillor GOM in terms of optimising routes.
And it's also about the work that we've done
with the supply chain as well.
And I think the cabinet and the engine previously,
the procurement strategy that we've got in place now
is different to what went before.
And what it now means is we have about 70, I think, Lindsay,
70 providers delivering home to school,
transport for us.
We go through an eligibility process with those providers
around safeguarding vehicle standards and so on.
We've got some stringent cheques to make sure
that we're engaged with the right type of provider,
first of all.
But once they're in, once we've kind of passed
that eligibility hurdle, it's a price only decision.
All of those providers are aware
of that new procurement strategy,
and that is having a real positive consequence
in terms of cost.
The only thing I'd just quickly end on is in 3 .27 of our report we talk about a franchising pilot that we're looking at.
So we've been fortunate to secure some additional funding from government to pilot the opportunity around expanding the public transport system,
specifically through a franchising model linked to home to school.
and that's something that we're progressing this year again.
I won't be reporting, no doubt, back to the committee
probably this time next year, I don't actually think.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 3:06:22
Yeah, and that's, just to say, that's a really important opportunity for us
because we've always looked carefully at opportunities for franchising
across the wider network and it's always been the case that
the maths just don't add up for large -scale rural bus networks.
But we potentially have an opportunity here.
And this fits very much within the piece that we were talking about earlier in terms of
DRT.
We look for these opportunities to try things where we can and particularly where we can
leverage in outside funding to make sure that we are at the forefront of looking for better
ways to provide this service.
And Rich is absolutely correct.
But I would just emphasise again that the outcome that has been delivered and it's in
numbers is a better service for less money and I think that that really is an
achievement from the team and that is that reflects the goals that we have set
out to pursue as an administration in the council with that real focus on
Cllr Alex Collingwood - 3:07:29
value for money and improving services. Thank you Alex. Thanks Chairman. In the
report it talks about maybe, I think,
five million of savings already.
Talks about the fact you've got to find
another five million of savings going forward.
Not quite clear how that gets delivered,
but I then look to 4 .2 and 4 .3.
So I assume, maybe correct me if I'm wrong,
that we'll also increase the number
of same educational places locally.
Hopefully then massively reduces the cost
because if you're only travelling them two miles,
or five miles or whatever, rather than cross county,
cross border, cross wherever,
that actually then hopefully improves it.
I noticed that the, I've removed the lines
that the government obviously chose
to not give us the funding for a new same school.
So, and I applaud you for continuing making representations,
but knowing the current government we've got,
I think the fall on deaf ears.
Whether we then consider looking at repurposing
some of the schools that are closing,
our post -built schools already,
say one is one in Marlowe is closing at the end of next year,
we could then potentially reuse that as a SEND school.
And again, that would then help the South of the county
in terms of Marlowe, High Wycombe, Risborough,
and actually a SEND school for that geographical location.
Which then would again mean that you wouldn't have
a child going from Marlowe to Filberstam,
or vice versa and the rest.
So that way you actually could,
by spending the money to repurpose an existing school,
that you actually would then make it,
off the top of my head I think that's a eight form entry,
So that's, you know, 242 people's theoretically you could have in one school theoretically.
I mean, obviously, we're saying you probably couldn't have quite as many, but that scenario.
So I assume that must be the way you're thinking.
And I don't know how that interferes with the education team to, with you and them together,
that holistic approach. So maybe you can clarify, thanks.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 3:09:19
Yeah, absolutely. And it is really important to have that sort of whole process approach.
We do work very closely with colleagues from Children's Education and for many years now
we've had a programme board that sort of covered, bridged that to make sure that we're working
together.
I won't talk too much for my colleague, Carl, but I do know that he is pushing forward a
very significant programme of investment into existing schools to create mainstream send
places, not only because they provide better value for money to the taxpayer, but also
that there is clear evidence that they provide better outcomes for pupils and allow greater
integration at an early age.
So I think that is a really, really important point.
In terms of specific sites, there is always a question about whether you can properly
adapt a space to make that provision.
So that sort of comes on a side by side, but I would say this is probably a question to
take up with Councillor Gomes' committee on the point about school places because I'm
sure they're getting into it and there is a really ambitious programme there that I
know that we're delivering on at the moment. I think also in terms of how we
are we are sort of linking up that process we are we are always in that
it's an ongoing conversation and so that where there is work that's happening on
on the children's education side that flows down to us at home school transport
that we're having those conversations so that we are aware of things that are
happening and we can we can sort of try and plan ahead for that. There is an
element of instability here though you know the it is incredibly difficult to
model the changes in demands that come down the road and that is something that
that we are we are constantly putting our attention into to make sure that we
are prepared. As I said in answer to a previous question, I think if you look at
the metrics they will demonstrate that we are managing that pretty effectively
at the moment but I think we would all acknowledge that that is a constant
piece of work that we have to do. In terms of the wider context you're
absolutely right and you know I've already mentioned the slightly
cack -handed way the ESSENT reforms are being put through, the additional burden
that's being dumped on local authorities that should be paid by the government.
The fact that they've now withdrawn and completely cancelled the new SEND school that had been
committed to and was funded by the previous government.
And the fact, let's not forget, that there is a decent amount of SEND provision that
is happening out of independent schools, which are all now effectively 20 % more expensive
because of the slightly spiteful and vindictive decision
to become the only country in the developed world
that punishes education through the tax system.
So there's a lot of headwinds
from the start of this process to the end,
but I think from our perspective
and from the perspective of colleagues
at Children's Education,
we have to work within that framework
that we are required to within that statutory framework,
no matter how stupidly set out it is.
But I think we've got great working relationships
across the chain.
And as I said, I think the metrics at the moment
really do indicate that that's something we're working on.
We do have an additional sort of item
that we are keeping an eye on, which is obviously
the council has engaged in a programme
to accelerate the processing of EHCPs
and to clear through the backlog.
and we are keeping a very close eye on what pressure that is going to put on
the home school transport space in terms of demand just to flag that as a sort of
you know a bit of horizon scanning for the committee that is something we're
aware of that is something we're looking at we haven't seen that entirely
materialised at this point but we are very much prepared for if it does
Cllr David Carroll - 3:13:37
If you don't mind, Robin, your question has already been sent to the officers, you may get a written one.
I've been in the constitution and I've sat here all day, I shall ask the question.
All in.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:13:50
Otherwise we may have serious words to share, and there will be serious words, I assure you that.
Thank you.
As someone who is dyslexic and has speech therapy,
I think I have a foot in the game.
Hence why I bring this question to you today
and I have a duty and responsibility to speak
up for those people regardless of cost.
The report highlights a significant scale complex
of Buckinghamshire councils and homeschool transport
and the large amounts of proportion of children,
8 ,060 children and young people receiving travel
and the associations have special education needs.
The county, in the county some families have not had SEND
support in place soon enough.
The issues were handled professionally by officers.
I comment on how professionally they were handled.
What work has been undertaken to ensure
that the transport screen arrangement for children
and young people with SEND are sufficient,
robust to meet the educational, medical,
behavioural and care needs.
What arrangements are in place through the SEND Improvement
Programme, which is in the Algonquin Committee and it's
in different cabinet member,
homeschool transport programme to ensure
that any transport issues are identified and resolved quickly
with no missed application disruption
to the children's education.
Because a child with special educational need,
If you spend a pound on them, that will save you five pounds down the line.
We keep on about money.
Every pound spent on a child under five saves us thousands.
So I can show you, it's best if it does work, because I'm here today and I'm asking you a question.
So any money we spend on that definitely works.
And it's given and is in nothing else.
It demonstrates that education can work in that respect.
So I hope that we can get a response from the chair
around this and robustly sought to ask it.
Thank you.
Cllr Thomas Broom - 3:15:54
I mean, I would have to answer, Chair, if everybody minds.
I'll only be a couple of minutes.
So just over a third of eligible students
that receive travel assistance to school
from the council their children with special educational needs.
As you will be aware, eligibility decisions
for travel assistance are made by colleagues in Education
and Children's Services, who then make a referral
to transport services to put arrangements in place.
Every application that is received for transport
for an SEN child is specific
to that individual child and their needs.
And as a result, can take time to process and then
to make the necessary arrangements with suppliers,
in line with the public procurement requirements placed
on local authorities.
The percentage of eligible SEN students
of statutory school age pre-'16 with transport assistance
in place for the start of the academic year is reported
to cabinet as part
of the established performance reporting arrangements.
The Q2 cabinet reporting shows that 94 % had assistance in place
where the application
for transport was received before the published deadline
of the 26th of July.
Families who apply after this date were advised
that transport may not be in place for the start of term.
While this is slightly below the target of 95%,
it represents a significant improvement on the previous year's performance of 85%.
Where application issues do not arise, the process timeline should allow for a child's needs to be assessed,
travel arrangements to be procured from the supplier market and put in place,
communication to be provided to their families, and for the supplier to arrange meet and greet sessions as needed with the child and their family.
End to end, this process can take up to 20 working days.
During busy periods, the team work hard to expedite arrangements for families to try and get arrangements in place for as many children as possible for the start of the academic year, but unfortunately this is not possible in all cases.
The provision of safe and suitable transport arrangements is dependent on
factors such as when the referral for transport is received, when the parent or
carer submits the application for transport and whether there are issues
with the information received that need to be resolved or verified before
arrangements can be put in place. Arrangements for eligible students of
non -statutory school age, post 16, can also be impacted by factors such as when
timetables are received by families and provided to the council and when the fee contribution
towards transport is paid by families.
Client transport continues to work hard to improve the experience of families through
the homeschool transport programme which has overseen the delivery of a number of significant
digital changes to the application process to better support visibility of the process
and communication.
The cyclical work is underway to help shape the next phase of improvements for implementation
ahead of the new academic year.
As part of this, the service will continue to work with colleagues in children's services,
as well as partners such as Send IAS and Fact Bucks to inform changes and provide feedback.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 3:19:15
Thank you for the response.
I look forward to the written response.
Cllr David Carroll - 3:19:20
I'm sure you won't be the only question we'll receive on this subject for myself. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that. Thank you cabinet members and the staff, officers. Thank you for
everybody. We'll talk about the obviously the work programme in a minute, just quickly,

9 Work Programme

but it's been a gruelling long meeting but I think it's been positive I think so. Thank you for that.
Can we just quickly go on to the work programme as seen?
Happy with that?
Ed, Ed?
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 3:19:47
Yes, just a quick one.
I was going to mention to you before informally,
but I don't get a chance, is quite a lot of councils
around the country have been doing screenings
of what's called a national emergency briefing.
It's something that was done in Westminster a year ago.
I mean, I was actually in it.
It was all parliamentarians and things.
And it's on climate science, economy, security,
and all sorts of things.
but it's a very short 45 to 50 minute briefing.
I've, I mean, firstly, could we do one for our committee,
but actually could this committee, in a sense,
sponsor it, I don't know, propose it,
that it could be done for the council?
Cllr David Carroll - 3:20:21
No, we can't do that, because it's executive decision
on this sort of stuff, and it's all to the council.
We, I've actually been invited to one outside this meeting,
which I felt really interesting.
Cllr Ed Gemmell - 3:20:39
Cllr David Carroll - 3:20:40
So anyway, we talked about it. So should I write to cabinet or to write to the cabinet?
Yeah, okay. I'll copy you in our asset. Thank you
Justine
Cllr Justine Fulford - 3:20:49
Yeah, specifically on the February programme climate change and air quality strategy. I think we
Did we agree that the flooding would be in that item?
9th of February, Climate Change and Air Quality Strategy.
So I thought at some point we'd agreed to consider flooding.
Cllr David Carroll - 3:21:13
Cllr Justine Fulford - 3:21:16
Yeah, we are, it's very important to me in my area actually.
So if it's not in that review of that item,
then I think we should have it on the programme.
Okay, on the programme, okay.
Okay, so anyone else?
Great, oh, I'm sorry.
Cllr Wendy Matthews - 3:21:35
Cllr Anja Schaefer - 3:21:36
going to, if I may, raise the same point but add because we had it, I raised it last time,
it shouldn't just be flooding, we also need to get some views on water resources. I think
we all felt at the last committee meeting that this was something that we would like
to get the water companies and other responsible stakeholders in to get an understanding of
how they're managing the water resources in the county, particularly in the light of the
exceptionally dry summers that we have had this year and last year.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 3:22:11
Great. Yeah, a couple of things really. Firstly, the opportunities bucks report
for the next meeting, will that include something about the retrofitting
insulating homes? We know that 50 % of the homes in Buckinghamshire are very low
And the energy doctor scheme, I think, is part of Opportunity Bucks, is that right?
It would be nice to hear about what we're doing on that.
26 % of our emissions are home, so it's really important for us as a committee.
The second issue, just sparked by what Councillor Gemmell said about trees.
Could we have, have we ever had a report from the, about tree preservation orders and what
we are doing what we can do across the county on that. I know that we have
powers to make them but we don't enforce it would be nice to have an

10 Date of Next Meeting

Cllr David Carroll - 3:23:10
idea about what we're doing. Thanks. Anyway thank you for that and thank for
your time and I will see you next year.
Mr Steve Bambrick
Corporate Director Planning Growth & Sustainability
View profile Mr Steve Bambrick