Meeting documents

Following discussion of the Call In request, the Committee will then decide whether the decision should be called in.

This is also an opportunity for the Committee to ask questions of those present for points of clarity.

The Committee discussed the information provided to them by the Cabinet Member and the Local Member who requested that the Decision be called in.

A member asked for evidence of the consultation with local residents in relation to the SQTS, as well as evidence that the local member was kept informed.  It was noted that whilst there is evidence of consultation with local residents and the local member it had not been presented to this Committee, being part of the SQTS development process during mid-2012.  He confirmed that there was evidence that during consultation on the SQTS considered the two options in the report based on the response to that consultation.

A member asked the Local Member whether she had raised the issue of use of the photovoltaic barriers during the process and briefed the process at that time.  The Local Member said she hoped that the District Council would have kept transport officers informed on the work of the M40CEG.  The previous Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation had pushed for the second option and she hoped that the transport officers would have discussed it.

The same member asked whether the rationale for the decision in October took account of evidence including the draft EIA and whether it was available during the thought process.  He also asked whether the type of barrier suggested was considered and whether these were in use anywhere else.  The Senior Manager said the Local Member had been supported when requested but that the EIA had not been carried out at that time.  There had been no consultation on this policy decision but public consultation had been carried out as part of the strategy and this could be corroborated.  Any future planning applications would also include consultation, but none had been carried out specifically in relation to the Decision.

It was noted that the Local Member had referred to a site visit and the Chairman asked whether anything had arisen from that.  The Local Member said that from that site visit the Cabinet Member would have seen the reasons to consult in relation to option 2.  Residents are unable to sit in their gardens and putting in in excess of 120 buses would increase the problem.   There were already noise and air quality issues in the area and the barriers would help reduce the noise and pollution.   This had been repeated to the Officer attending, who wrote a response suggesting three options.  The second option had been to put in the barrier and the third option had been to do nothing.  The Local Member stated that the site visit did not seem to have any impact on the Decision made.

With regard to whether there was adequate consultation the Senior Manager reiterated that consultation took place when the SQTS was being developed and that report is available.  However, the Local Member repeated that there had been no consultation with people on Daws Lea; they had been spoken to after the decision had been made.  The Local Member also stated that the SQTS had been scrutinised by Wycombe District Council who produced 20 recommendations and sent them to WDC Cabinet who did not support all because they are not Transport Authority.

A member asked why Option 1 was now being considered when it appeared that the previous Cabinet Member had recommended Option 2.  There were known issues in relation to the poor air quality zone along the M40, as well as the fact that the roads in the area are narrow.  The Senior Manager said his term of office had overlapped with the Cabinet Members.  He stated that the original consultation was open as well in the report.  With regard to air quality, there were other officers present who could comment on this, but he believed that the situation would not be improved by taking away a certain amount of treeline if the barriers were implemented.  The barriers, if viable, could be put in for whichever option is agreed and it was not a differentiating factor.

Having discussed the papers presented under this item, Members unanimously agreed to call in the Cabinet Member decision.