Agenda item

Question from Councillor Stuart Wilsonto Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration, Councillor Clive Harriss, Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture, and Councillor John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources, Property and Assets

“Little Marlow Country Park Development Status and Plans 

The Little Marlow Lakes Country Park is a site wholly in the green belt and adjacent to AONB. It is formally designated a Country Park in the Wycombe Local Plan under Policy RUR4. Little Marlow Lakes Country Park is also designated as the Burnham Beeches SAC Mitigation site for the proposed development of 467 houses in Bourne End at Hollands Farm under Policy BE2 of the same Wycombe Local Plan. This is presently subject to an outline planning application at an advanced stage of determination (now due March 31^st, 2022) which would carry a total in perpetuity mitigation cost of almost £1.5m under a s106 agreement. Following recent questions to Cabinet Members at Budget Scrutiny and the Finance & Resources Select Committee, the status and plans for this Country Park within Buckinghamshire Council’s broad oversight remain obscure and wholly conflicted. 

Can the Cabinet Members please clarify the status of Little Marlow Lakes Country Park as part of Buckinghamshire Council’s Country Parks portfolio and its ability to simultaneously deliver: 

·            the natural environment and recreational objectives outlined in Policy RUR4;  

·            all the Burnham Beeches SAC mitigation measures required for Hollands Farm, Bourne End (Policy BE2, Development Brief and Appropriate Assessment); 

·            and the various development proposals within the Country Park for a major film studio, a large training facility for Wycombe Wanderers and a temporary (5 year) industrial stockyard, either in part or wholly sponsored by Buckinghamshire Council?” 

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration 

“Health provision in Buckinghamshire through Section 106 contributions 

Evidence suggests that it is difficult getting developer contributions to fund health services in the community.  Within North Buckinghamshire there has been no notable contributions in the preceding years before the Unitary Council and those contributions which have been made to Health Bodies and the County Council which now no longer exist as a result of organisational changes. Please could the Cabinet Member explain what work is going on to ensure that the appropriate contributions are being made through future developments to support health service provision within the community and what steps/policies have been put in place since Buckinghamshire Council came into operation to improve this situation for the well-being of Buckinghamshire constituents in the longer-term.”

Question from Councillor Stuart Wilson to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration, Councillor Clive Harriss Cabinet Member for Leisure and Culture, and Councillor John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources, Property and Assets

“Little Marlow Country Park Development Status and Plans

RESPONSE was provided by Councillor Chilver on behalf of the 3 Cabinet Members

“We recognise the huge value provided by Country Parks and green spaces - as has been particularly seen over the past two years, with record numbers of visitors to our own existing parks.

The approach to mitigating the recreational impacts of Hollands Farm was agreed with Natural England as the Wycombe Local Plan was prepared.  The rationale for this approach was that it was preferable to meet the need for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) on a nearby site as it was not possible to accommodate it on site.

The package set out in the adopted development brief demonstrates how this would be achieved and is aimed at access to and movement within the country park area utilising existing rights of way and not requiring additional purchase of land. 

In applying the Natural England SANG standard means an additional 4.15 ha of land on top of open space requirements would be required, the area designated in the Local Plan as Country Park is 326ha.  The mitigation measures are based on existing rights of way and therefore they can take effect regardless of current status of the country park.

Cabinet has considered and approved the recommendations from the Budget Scrutiny and Finance & Resources Committees and in the light of those comments, the relevant Cabinet Members have asked Officers to provide advice on the points raised on this issue and we will also ask Officers to address in that report to address any remaining points raised in this question.   The Cabinet Members are anticipating that report in due course and will be able to give a full response to Cllr Wilson’s question and publish that answer.”

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

“Health provision in Buckinghamshire through Section 106 contributions

Evidence suggests that it is difficult getting developer contributions to fund health services in the community.  Within North Buckinghamshire there has been no notable contributions in the preceding years before the Unitary Council and those contributions which have been made to Health Bodies and the County Council which now no longer exist as a result of organisational changes. Please could the Cabinet Member explain what work is going on to ensure that the appropriate contributions are being made through future developments to support health service provision within the community and what steps/policies have been put in place since Buckinghamshire Council came into operation to improve this situation for the well-being of Buckinghamshire constituents in the longer-term.”

RESPONSE was provided by Councillor J Towns, on behalf of Councillor Williams

“Thank you Councillor Stuchbury for your question.  The statutory tests for securing any financial contributions through S106 obligations are set out in Regulation 122 (2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) which are also reflected in government policy in the NPPF (2021) at paragraph 57.

Regulation 122 (2) provides that:

A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is—

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The Council therefore need to be satisfied that requests for financial contributions are supported by evidence and information to meet the rigorous tests of CIL Regs.

This would apply to any request, in relation to health provision, from the Buckinghamshire Clinical Commissioning (CCG) who are responsible for commissioning primary care services which focus on the treatment of minor injuries and illnesses such as GP surgeries or health centres, and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (BHT) who are responsible for providing acute and community healthcare services to Buckinghamshire.  It is important therefore that when we refer to health / medical provision we are clear as to whether this is primary or acute and community care as the CCG and BHT have different approaches to requests for financial contributions and there are differences in their funding regimes.

In order to be compliant with CIL Regulation 122, any request for financial contributions under a s.106 Agreement must provide justification sufficient to demonstrate that the financial contribution is directly related to the development, detail how the sums are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and provide evidence that the contribution is reasonably related in scale and in kind to the development.   Moreover, it is necessary for evidence and a detailed methodology for deriving the financial contribution to accompany requests as well as a reasonable degree of certainty that a project is in hand to deliver the capacity to meet the needs. 

There is a CIL charging schedule adopted in the former Chiltern and South Bucks, and Wycombe areas. This is a fixed charge levied on new development to fund infrastructure. The former Aylesbury Vale area does not currently have a CIL charging schedule. CIL can be spent towards the provision of infrastructure to mitigate  development and could in principle be used towards infrastructure associated with health where justified.

Any requests for infrastructure in the former Aylesbury Vale area would be considered and secure through a S106 obligation if it meets the tests under the CIL Regulations. Where this is evidenced and justified, it could include contributions towards health infrastructure. Health contributions would need to be evidenced based where seeking capital or and revenue funding (service costs) to justify that such mitigation is required as necessary, directly related to a development in relation to any impact of housing and population growth, and is reasonable and proportionate.

The Council has consulted and been in discussions with the CCG over the requirement for primary care in general terms, not just application-specific, and advised of the CIL Regulations and tests for some considerable period of time as well as during the local plan process and where requests have been made that meet these tests, they have been agreed through the planning process.

There has also been considerable dialogue including at a high corporate level between the Council, Buckinghamshire Healthcare Trust (BHT) and the CCG to assess the potential for CIL compliant contributions, including in relation to BHT an alternative provision in the way of capital costs.

The important next step for the Council, BHT and the CCG is to engage in the preparation of the new Local Plan for Buckinghamshire so that the future health needs and infrastructure required to meet those needs can be properly planned and delivered as part of future developments in the County.

I can assure you that the Council is committed to working collaboratively with the Trust and CCG and we are currently awaiting further response and information from them, so that we can progress this discussion.”