Agenda item

The Chairman, Councillor Gary Hall, and Jim Stevens will present the comments received since the extraordinatory Community Board meeting on 16^th September 2021 and agree next steps.

The Chairman advised that the Warrendene Road petition had come to the attention of the Community Board and that, luckily, one of the Board members, J Stevens, was a qualified expert in highways and transportation and had taken the lead, at the request of the Community Board.  Councillor David Carroll, on behalf of himself, Councillor Steve Broadbent and Councillor Clive Harriss, requested that the idea to ‘Build a new access and a small customer parking area’ should be discarded immediately as it involved the use of Green Belt land which would not be supported.  The Chairman stated that it was a local matter, and it was agreed that this idea would be discounted. 

J Stevens provided a presentation, appended to the minutes and highlighted the following key points:

• Country Supplies operated from two sites: Oakleaf Farm, Warrendene Road and Shana in Walters Ash. 
• Lorry parking was a daily occurrence and at peak trading times there could be as many as nine lorries parked along Warrendene Road waiting to access the Oakleaf Farm site. The lorry parking had been an issue for more than twenty years.
• The residents submitted a petition in February 2021 which requested that a large part of the business be moved from Oakleaf Farm to the Shana site.  The Community Board (CB) considered the petition in March 2021; the role of the CB was not to make decisions but to find possible solutions. 
• The petition and suggested ideas for possible solutions were discussed with key parties. 
• The petition report was written by the Service Director, Communities, Highways and Technical Services, Buckinghamshire Council (BC) and stated that BC had no powers to require Country Supplies to change its business operations. 
• The recommendation in the report stated that the petition request could not be supported due to displacement and adverse traffic impact on Walters Ash.  The report recognised the residents’ concerns and also recognised the work undertaken by J Stevens and J Binning that looked at other ideas that might solve the lorry parking issues. The report stated that no decisions had been made on any of the suggested ideas identified in the work conducted by J Stevens and J Binning.
• The report stated that the Director was aware that J Stevens was an experienced highways engineer and he (the Director) had no reason to question the quality or content of the work that J Stevens had carried out,
• The detailed report, written by J Stevens and J Binning, was an ‘ideas’ report; no decisions were made by the CB and written feedback was invited.
• The supplementary report was the most recent report, also written by J Stevens and J Binning and looked at the residents’ feedback. The report provided an initial technical response from J Stevens and input from BC’s Head of Legal Services had been sought to help formulate the responses.  It did not make any decisions or recommendations.
• Approximately 40 comments had been received which had been grouped together into themes.
• J Stevens provided the following summary information on each theme, based on the more detailed explanation set out in the supplementary report:

1.             Major objection to the idea of a new access and customer parking area – this was omitted due to the Board’s agreement that this idea be discounted.

2.             Concerns with road safety at the Cross Roads and Bryants Bottom Road – this was omitted due to the Board’s agreement that the idea of a new access and customer parking was discounted.

3.             Lack of knowledge of a public consultation and lack of time to respond – there had not been a public consultation.  Any consultation would need to be advertised and properly conducted.

4.             Country Supplies should be forced to move away from Oakleaf Farm – BC had no powers to force the business to move to another location.  The owner was looking for another site but this would be in addition to the two existing sites.

5.             Status of the author (J Stevens) of the Detailed Report and Terms of Reference – the supplementary report contained part of J Stevens’ CV.  J Stevens stated he felt he was adequately qualified.  The Terms of Reference were set by the CB.  J Stevens used his experience to shape the workplan to deliver the Terms of Reference requirements.

6.             Concerns that meetings have been held in secret – no meetings had been held in secret. All meetings had been arranged by BC and attended by J Stevens and J Binning, Community Board Co-ordinator.  J Stevens had asked that they be confidential as he felt it was appropriate as potentially sensitive issues would be discussed and he wanted a free and open discussion which may not have happened had they not been in confidence.  The work was shared with the Residents’ Association at the appropriate time.

7.             Request for parking restrictions in Warrendene Road – parking restrictions would not reduce the number of lorries visiting the site and would result in displacement to other local roads and was therefore not a solution.

8.         Control on the number of lorries by imposing a daily limit - the Road Traffic Regulation Act does not include provisions for applying restrictions on traffic generation numbers from a legitimate business.  The Council, as the local planning authority, has the power to impose Planning Conditions on planning permissions granted for new development and this could include restricting the number of vehicle movements and hours of operation. But, imposing such Planning Conditions could only be considered as part of the statutory planning process and could not be imposed retrospectively.

9.             Rebalancing business operations between Shana and Oakleaf Farm – BC had no power to pursue this option.  It would be down to the owner to consider; any changes could have a consequences on the other site and would need to be fully assessed from a number of perspectives.

10.         Lack of site visits by J Stevens and the Community Board Coordinator – four meetings were held virtually due to lockdown during the pandemic.  J Stevens advised he was familiar with the local network and had viewed each site from vantage points and he felt confident to write the report.  Site visits would not have changed his views on the impact of the petition request or the suggested ideas set out in the detailed report.

11.         Introduce the concept of ‘just in time’ delivery – J Stevens advised that this concept was more appropriate to production lines where demand was known in advance.  It could result in less large lorries but increase the number of smaller vehicles.

The suggested ideas that appeared to have a consensus of support were listed; J Stevens stressed that taking any ideas forward would require trust building and co-operation between all parties.

The following key points were raised in discussion:

• In response to a query on the source of the vehicle data; J Stevens advised that the owner had collected the data in March, April and May, and J Stevens had carried out the analysis and there had been enough relevant information to quantify the scale of the parking problem. 
• J Stevens confirmed that this data had helped his work and that he had quantified the scale of the problem.  He considered it unnecessary to collect data for the total traffic generation to and from the site because the issue was with lorry parking numbers on Warrendene Road and this had been quantified.
• Cllr D Carroll asked if the CB would monitor the suggestions?  J Stevens advised that firstly, the appropriate decision makers at BC would need to decide which ideas should be taken forward and who should take the lead on the matters.  Half yearly meetings could be monitored by the elected members and the parish council with the residents.   J Stevens emphasised that there was a large amount of momentum behind taking solutions forward and it would be disappointing if it was lost.  It needed to be clear on who would monitor the progress and it could possibly sit within the Transport Service.  This matter could be monitored within the Traffic and Road Issues action group or the CB itself.
• A resident stated there was data in the original report but advised that there was one date missing and that was when the police needed to be called.  The resident felt the number of vehicles entering and exiting the site was relevant as the parking issue had escalated over the last 20 years as the business had grown; the site was not adequate.  The resident stated that the issues were ongoing, and that more analysis was required.
• Cllr S Broadbent thanked J Stevens and everyone for their contributions and advised, as the local member, that if the CB were to contact the Transport Team to ask for a lining assessment related to the highway code, that this could be undertaken, possibly, without public consultation.  However, other lining would require public consultation and the CB would need to provide funding for the relevant studies.  The Chairman clarified that funding decisions were made by the CB and that an extra ordinary meeting could be held if a decision was needed quickly. 
• Cllr D Carroll stressed that it was crucial that the Residents’ Association (RA) was involved; it was agreed by the Chairman that the RAs should have representation on all the action groups.
• D Ransom advised he had submitted a statement on behalf of the RA.  D Ransom welcomed Cllr Carroll’s comments and requested that BC found holding areas for the vehicles.  The RA supported the initial findings and would like to see regular meetings held before the end of the year and requested additional data analysis before ruling out the idea of movement of some of the business to the Shana site.

It was agreed that the Traffic and Road Issues Action Group would initially take forward the next steps on the suggested ideas for a solution.