Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Mark Winn and Deputy Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services Carl Jackson attended. Apologies were also received from Cllr Clive Harriss, Rachael Shimmin, Sarah Ashmead and David Skinner.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2023.

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 September 2023 were agreed as a correct record.

There were no declarations of interest.

The following hot topics were reported:-

The Cabinet Member for Accessible Housing and Resources paid tribute to the work of Customer Service Advisors during Customer Services week and commented on their professionalism when dealing with difficult calls.

The Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services reported that last Friday the Council held a celebratory event to shine a spotlight on the valued network of carers. The Annual Foster Care Awards gave the opportunity for the Council to say thank you to all the Bucks Foster Carers and gave special recognition to a number who had shown additional merit in their role as a temporary guardian to vulnerable children and young people. If anyone was interested in being a foster carer they should visit the website below.

https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/fostering

The Cabinet Member for Transport reported that transport to school was working well with over 7,500 pupils in education settings. There were still a few complex cases to finalise but feedback from customers had been positive.

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Town Centre Regeneration reported that the Government had awarded a grant of £690,000 as part of the Brownfield Land Fund which would be used for regeneration.

The Deputy Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services reported that they had a very successful awayday with the Housing Team in Kings Church Amersham where conversations were held on how to deliver improved services to residents and some good ideas had been put forward.

The Leader referred to HS2 not being extended north to Manchester and the blight on Buckinghamshire countryside for the route to Birmingham. He would be writing to the Secretary of State on the case that Buckinghamshire had previously made on why HS2 should not be built and how it would be better value for money putting this funding into other regional infrastructure.  He would be asking for some of the savings made by not investing in the northern route to be invested in Buckinghamshire to put right some of the environmental damage made by HS2.

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment

Buckinghamshire Council has facilitated the planting of a huge number of trees to enrich our communities and to lower our carbon footprint, both through the Council’s policy and development planting or by replacing and adding additional trees. Sadly it has become evident that many of these trees perish within a short period of time after being planted. Is there a policy for the management of new trees planted within Buckinghamshire both within development and environmental projects, including watering and maintenance, and if this policy is in place do you believe it is robust enough? Is the success of this Policy being measured in terms of tree growth including the impact on the environment and lowering our carbon footprint?

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment 

“Buckinghamshire Council has facilitated the planting of a huge number of trees to enrich our communities and to lower our carbon footprint, both through the Council’s policy and development planting or by replacing and adding additional trees. Sadly, it has become evident that many of these trees perish within a short period of time after being planted. Is there a policy for the management of new trees planted within Buckinghamshire both within development and environmental projects, including watering and maintenance, and if this policy is in place do you believe it is robust enough? Is the success of this Policy being measured in terms of tree growth including the impact on the environment and lowering our carbon footprint?”  

RESPONSE from Councillor Williams 

“Thank you for this question regarding tree planting. Regarding trees planted under the Council’s Land Tree Planting Programme (CLTPP), as discussed at the June Transport, Environment and Climate Change Scrutiny Committee, our contractors undertake regular (typically bi-monthly) inspections of all sites planted under the contractor model. This includes maintenance such as weeding. 145,000 trees were planted last year. The net cost per tree was less than £1.00 with grant funding. For watering it would cost £30. Therefore nature needed to take its course. Each year a survey is conducted and re-stocking is completed during the planting season to replace any trees that have perished. Mortality rates for the 2021/22 season were higher than expected due to the drought conditions experienced across England. Survey results for the 2022/23 planting season are currently being collected and will be reported upon in due course.  

There is no particular policy that governs the maintenance (including watering) of trees planted under the CLTPP – the approach to woodland creation and maintenance has been informed by the advice from arboricultural consultants, guidance received during training sessions, and research. Newly planted trees that survive the challenges presented by extreme weather events (now often caused or exacerbated by climate change) are more likely to be resilient to those that come in the future.   

Within housing developments, any requirements for tree planting, canopy cover and green space will be assessed against any relevant local and national planning policies and in those instances where tree planting is secured this would be controlled thorough the imposition of planning conditions and/or S106 obligations on a site by site basis. Maintenance on small scale developments will often be the responsibility of the landowners themselves, however, on the large scale and strategic sites this will usually be a matter for whoever is responsible for the maintenance of the green spaces within a development; this may be the Parish Council, a Management Company, or Buckinghamshire Council or indeed a combination thereof. 

Regarding the ongoing benefit to the environment, forecasts for carbon sequestration were included within the June update on Tree Planting to the TECC Scrutiny Committee Agenda for Transport, Environment & Climate Change Select  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Leader introduced the Forward Plan and commended it to all Members of the Council and the public, as a document that gave forewarning of what reports would be discussing at forthcoming meetings.

RESOLVED – That the Cabinet Forward Plan be noted.

For Cabinet to note the Select Committee Work Programme.

The Leader introduced the Select Committee Work Programme and commended it to all Members of the Council and the public, as a document that gave forewarning of what Select Committees would be discussing at forthcoming meetings.

 RESOLVED – That the Select Committee Work Programme be noted.

The Transport, Environment and Climate Change Select Committee agreed to set up a rapid review into Streetworks and Statutory Undertakers at its meeting on 30 March 2023.  It was agreed that the review would not commence until May 2023 to allow the service to settle following the change in Highways contract to Balfour Beaty.  The review was chaired by the Chairman of the Transport, Environment and Climate Change Select Committee, Councillor B Chapple OBE, and also comprised Councillors Brazier, Caffrey, Carington, Cornell and A Wood.

In June and July 2023, the review group collected evidence through meetings both in person and on Teams. The review group then met to discuss and agree its key findings and recommendations which were detailed at Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report.  A series of questions on Streetworks and Statutory Undertakers had also been included as part of a Town and Parish Council survey on Buckinghamshire Council services which ran from 22 May to 13 August 2023, results detailed at Appendix 2 to the Cabinet report.

Cabinet was asked to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee Review.

RESOLVED –

(1)               That the Transport, Environment and Climate Change Select Committee Review Group, as well as the supporting officers, be thanked for their work and subsequent recommendations.

(2)               That Cabinet’s responses to the Review report and recommendations, as set out and circulated to Members, be AGREED.

Note: a complete breakdown of the scrutiny recommendations and Cabinet’s responses can be found here.

The Transport, Environment and Climate Change Select Committee agreed to set up a rapid review into Streetworks and Statutory Undertakers at its meeting on 30 March 2023.  It was agreed that the review would not commence until May 2023 to allow the service to settle following the change in Highways contract to Balfour Beaty.  The review was chaired by the Chairman of the Transport, Environment and Climate Change Select Committee, Councillor B Chapple OBE, and also comprised Councillors Brazier, Caffrey, Carington, Cornell and A Wood.

In June and July 2023, the review group collected evidence through meetings both in person and on Teams. The review group then met to discuss and agree its key findings and recommendations which were detailed at Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report.  A series of questions on Streetworks and Statutory Undertakers had also been included as part of a Town and Parish Council survey on Buckinghamshire Council services which ran from 22 May to 13 August 2023.

The Chairman of the TECC Committee reported that inMarch 2023, the Select Committee agreed a scope to review Streetworks and Statutory Undertakers in Buckinghamshire. He was joined in this by five other colleagues: Cllrs Peter Brazier, Mick Caffrey, Robert Carington, Caroline Cornell and Andrew Wood. All members brought valuable experience with examples of utility companies operating in their local wards. It was highlighted that permit applications had increased from 22,000 in 2019/20 to 65,000 in 2022/23 – effectively trebling the team’s workload. It was agreed to not commence the review until after the new Highways contract had settled down as the Streetworks Team had been transferred inhouse from Ringway Jacobs. The group held a series of evidence-gathering meetings in June and July which included an in-person meeting with a sample of utility companies that operate on the network. The Committee also reached out to Town and Parish Councils by including questions on Streetworks in a survey that was open during the summer.The 10 recommendations were spread across different themes: Streetworks Team, Statutory Undertakers, Communication and Lobbying.

The two recommendations that the Chairman wanted to highlight were core sampling to look at the materials Utility Companies were putting into the ground to ensure it was of the required standard, particularly as 43 utility companies operated on the network. The other recommendation was that the Council needed to lobby the Government to impose a higher fixed term penalty notice fine as it had not been increased for 20 years and therefore there was no incentive for statutory undertakers to comply with permit conditions. The Leader commented that in the last three years there had been a threefold increase in the number of permit requests which now stood at 65,000 in 2022/23. Many residents complained about these works to the Council but it was the Utility Companies who were at fault.

The Chairman extended his thanks to colleagues on the review group, the organisations and Local Authorities they spoke with, the scrutiny officer Chris Ward, Derek Carpenter (Streetworks  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Buckinghamshire Regeneration Framework and a series of town centre strategies had been developed to set out a coherent approach to regeneration across the whole of the county.  It provided the framework for how communities could organise themselves to determine their local ambitions and set out the regeneration vision for their local area. Three town centre regeneration strategies provided the local vision and place-based ambitions for Aylesbury, Chesham and High Wycombe, which were summarised with more details at Section 2 of the Cabinet report.

RESOLVED –

That the Buckinghamshire Regeneration Framework and the Town Centre regeneration strategies for Aylesbury, High Wycombe and Chesham, as key corporate documents of Buckinghamshire Council, be ADOPTED.

The Buckinghamshire Regeneration Framework and a series of town centre strategies had been developed to set out a coherent approach to regeneration across the whole of the county.  It provided the framework for how communities could organise themselves to determine their local ambitions and set out the regeneration vision for their local area. Three town centre regeneration strategies provided the local vision and place-based ambitions for Aylesbury, Chesham and High Wycombe, which were summarised with more details at Section 2 of the Cabinet report. The Cabinet Member made the following points on the three areas:-

Aylesbury  - the Strategy supported the town centre to become a thriving community with greener streets more outdoor spaces improved accessibility and greater biodiversity.

Chesham was an ambitious town recognised as a strong creative community town represented by many artists, musicians and other creatives. The Strategy wanted to capture this momentum and to explore opportunities to see how culture and creative sectors could be leveraged to drive regeneration forward.

High Wycombe and Cressex Business park – the Council had a strong track record in delivering in this area including the multi million pound Future High Street Fund demonstrated that this was a place that can deliver regeneration and heritage led development. The Strategy had been widened to include the Cressex Business Park given its economic significance to the town.

The Council would need to work in partnership with key local stakeholders to bring these strategies to life. Local councillors and stakeholders have helped shape these strategies and would be pivotal in realising the changes. The Council’s Growth Board has a Regeneration Sub Board, chaired by the Leader of the Council to ensure that these Strategies were implemented. The Leader referred to the changing high street with an increase in online shopping and less use of department stores e.g. House of Fraser. The high street needs to remain vibrant and adapt and change. Many Councils did not have lots of funding for this area so needed to act as a catalyst for change and work with partners, particularly the private sector.

During discussion Cabinet Members made the following points:-

·       Whilst it would be good to have regeneration strategies for all towns, with the limited amount of funding available it was important to concentrate on Opportunity Bucks areas. A question was asked on whether there was enough funding to pump prime match funding from other organisations. In response it was noted that funding was a challenge and there were small pots of funding available e.g. from legacy AVDC. However it should be realised that Aylesbury was a bigger town centre than Kingsbury Square. The council was alert to available government funding and making bids including working with the private sector. Rather than do a wholescale project with limited funding small projects should be undertaken with the funds currently available. The Cabinet Member then asked the Deputy Cabinet Member for Regeneration to speak as she had been the main driver of these Strategies. The Deputy Cabinet Member reported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Supplementary Planning Documents provided guidance to implement Local Plan policies. Cabinet received a report on the Aylesbury South Site Allocation (D-AGT1) Supplementary Planning Document which it was recommended was approved and would apply to the allocation Aylesbury South (D-AGT1) within the adopted Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2021). The allocation would contribute to and take forward the principles of the Aylesbury Garden Town initiative, as designated in January 2017.  Once adopted, the Supplementary Planning Document would become guidance for developers and decision-makers for the central planning area.

To adopt a Supplementary Planning Document, the Council was legally required to conduct a public consultation for a minimum of four weeks, which had occurred from 22 September to 2 November 2022.

The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan set out a vision and framework for sustainable growth across the north and central planning areas area for the period up to 2033. It promoted new development to meet identified needs, that would contribute to creating a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit.  It also promoted growth that was shaped by strong place-shaping and sustainability principles to create well-designed developments that were sensitive to the areas local character, heritage, scale, land use and design.

RESOLVED –

That the Aylesbury South Supplementary Planning Document (site D-AGT1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan) be ADOPTED. 

Supplementary Planning Documents provided guidance to implement Local Plan policies. Cabinet received a report on the Aylesbury South Site Allocation (D-AGT1) Supplementary Planning Document which it was recommended was adopted and would apply to the Aylesbury South (D-AGT1) allocation within the adopted Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2021). The allocation would contribute to and take forward the principles of the Aylesbury Garden Town initiative, as designated in January 2017.  Once adopted, the Supplementary Planning Document would become guidance for developers and decision-makers for the central planning area.

To adopt a Supplementary Planning Document, the Council was legally required to conduct a public consultation for a minimum of four weeks, which had occurred from 22 September to 2 November 2022.

The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan set out a vision and framework for sustainable growth across the north and central planning areas area for the period up to 2033. It promoted new development to meet identified needs, that would contribute to creating a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit.  It also promoted growth that was shaped by strong place-shaping and sustainability principles to create well-designed developments that were sensitive to the areas’ local character, heritage, scale, land use and design.

This document was the culmination of a number of years’ work which had begun with the legacy AVDC. It looked at the development framework for the site allocation AGT1 of the VALP which was being developed. It was a 95-hectare strategic urban extension allocated to the South of Aylesbury between Aylesbury Town and Stoke Mandeville. The SPD set out how 1,000 new homes, primary school, SE Aylesbury Link Road, multi-functional accessible green space, local centre and cycling and walking links should be developed. It reflected the AGT principles including the provision of 50% accessible green space. The SPD set out how to overcome some of the challenges to the development including the barrier of the railway line and Aylesbury Southern Link Road creating a new settlement identity between Aylesbury town and Stoke Mandeville and ensuring an adequate settlement buffer between the new housing and Stoke Mandeville. The SPD set out infrastructure requirements to ensure there was a cohesive and co-ordinated approach by the multiple landowners across the site. The preparation of this document had included engagement with local members and town and parish councillors. A public consultation was held between September and November last year and was now being recommended for adoption. This document and the Stoke Mandeville Neighbourhood Plan would be used as the policy basis to determine planning applications for the overall development of the site.  

The Leader clarified whether this would become a material document in the consideration of planning applications and this was confirmed. The Leader then asked for clarity around the buffer between Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury town to ensure separate entities were maintained. The Service Director Planning and Environment reported that this document set out the guiding direction of any further planning applications; any planning application would need to respond to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Buckinghamshire Council made a commitment to devolution of property and assets to Town and Parish Councils and other community organisations as part of the Unitary business case. To support the Council’s devolution programme, a Service Devolution and Asset Transfer Policy had been published in November 2019 setting out the approach and arrangements for the devolution of the responsibility for running services and community asset transfer. Over time, the approach to the management of the programme had been refined as the new Council had learnt more about the devolution of assets, particularly following the implementation of five pilot projects.

Cabinet received a report with an updated policy for approval that better reflected the current approach in order that a clear direction of travel was given to Town and Parish Councils and other local organisations who might be interested in pursuing a devolution opportunity.  Cabinet Members were asked to note several small changes in the updated policy, as follows:

·      A clearer focus on the process for the devolution of assets.

·      Reference to freehold only being considered on an exceptional basis, with a final decision made by Cabinet.

·      The Devolution Board considering the criteria with which to assess applications on a case-by-case basis.

·      Heads of Terms to be agreed at the end of the ‘Expressions of Interest’ stage to help applicants develop a business case that responds to any specification or terms provided by the Council.

·      Car parks owned and/or run by Buckinghamshire Council where they generate income, hold an operational benefit, or retain a commercial interest were out of scope. The previous version had a blanket approach to all car parks being out of scope.

RESOLVED –

That the updated Devolution and Asset Management Policy be AGREED. 

Buckinghamshire Council made a commitment to devolution of property and assets to Town and Parish Councils and other community organisations as part of the Unitary business case. To support the Council’s devolution programme, a Service Devolution and Asset Transfer Policy had been published in November 2019 setting out the approach and arrangements for the devolution of the responsibility for running services and community asset transfer. Over time, the approach to the management of the programme had been refined as the new Council had learnt more about the devolution of assets, particularly following the implementation of five pilot projects.

Cabinet received a report with an updated policy for approval that better reflected the current approach in order that a clear direction of travel was given to Town and Parish Councils and other local organisations who might be interested in pursuing a devolution opportunity.  Cabinet Members were asked to note several small changes in the updated policy, as follows:

·        A clearer focus on the process for the devolution of assets.

·        Reference to freehold only being considered on an exceptional basis, with a final decision made by Cabinet.

·        The Devolution Board considering the criteria with which to assess applications on a case-by-case basis.

·        Heads of Terms to be agreed at the end of the ‘Expressions of Interest’ stage to help applicants develop a business case that responds to any specification or terms provided by the Council.

·        Car parks owned and/or run by Buckinghamshire Council where they generate income, hold an operational benefit, or retain a commercial interest were out of scope. The previous version had a blanket approach to all car parks being out of scope.

The Cabinet Member for Communities reported that no new projects would be undertaken currently to ensure completion of current projects, which had been more complex than expected. In the future only two projects would be considered at a time.

In terms of an update:-

• Aylesbury Christmas lights were completed July 2022
• Prestwood Recreation Ground was recently completed in September 2023.
• Aylesbury Remembrance Service would remain with the Council.
• Denham Scout Hut had been delayed due to a fire but the Parish Council were trying to identify funds to progress the project
• Green Street Community Centre was a complex project but with partnership meetings it was hoped to be completed by end of March 2024
• Aylesbury Special Expenses – the leases for all the Centres had been drafted and were being reviewed including Aylesbury Town Council looking at the management agreements in relation to existing tenants and running the Centres. It was hoped that this would be concluded by end of March 2024.

The Leader welcomed the report and commented that originally they had hoped to devolve more resources but this had not been achievable with staff resources and also with the current financial challenges on the capital side assets could no longer be gifted to other organisations. The Capital Programme was already over committed. Confirmation was given that the Council was still committed to this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

24 October 2023 at 10am

24 October 2023