Agenda item
Written question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Steven Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport and Councillor Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration
“Delivering on a development agreement (15/01218/AOP) to construct a cycleway within Buckingham
The above mentioned planning application and development agreement included a Section 106 agreement to deliver a cycleway serving the new Saint Rumbold’s Fields development on Tingewick Road, Buckingham. The cycleway, with a footpath alongside, could be provided along the Scenic Walk and the Railway Walk (map attached to the S106 agreement) and would enable the young people from this development to safely access the secondary schools and primary school within Buckingham. A cycleway would also assist local people in lowering their carbon footprint by reducing the number of journeys by vehicle. Can the Cabinet Member please update me on the progress that has been made to deliver the cycleway?”
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Steven Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport and Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration
“Delivering on a development agreement (15/01218/AOP) to construct a cycleway within Buckingham
The above-mentioned planning application and development agreement included a Section 106 agreement to deliver a cycleway serving the new Saint Rumbold’s Fields development on Tingewick Road, Buckingham. The cycleway, with a footpath alongside, could be provided along the Scenic Walk and the Railway Walk (map attached to the S106 agreement) and would enable the young people from this development to safely access the secondary schools and primary school within Buckingham. A cycleway would also assist local people in lowering their carbon footprint by reducing the number of journeys by vehicle. Can the Cabinet Member please update me on the progress that has been made to deliver the cycleway?”
RESPONSE from Councillor Broadbent
“Thank you for your question regarding the creation of a walking and cycling link, which relates to a development site titled ‘Land North of A421, Tingewick Road, Buckingham’. Your question touches on two matters, a Section 106 contribution and an element of the Section 278 works, which together contribute to the link that you describe. I understand that you have discussed this matter with officers and this response therefore confirms the current position.
To provide context, the creation of this walking and cycling link, referred to as the Railway Walk, is an identified cycle route proposal within the Buckingham Transport Strategy (Outline Cycling Strategy). The Transport Strategy, published and adopted in 2017 following local engagement and consultation, outlines a prioritised range of transport improvements required in response to local growth in Buckingham. This includes measures to enable sustainable and active travel. The Council is now working to deliver these improvements.
The Buckingham Transport Strategy proposes that the Railway Walk, which is an existing informal walking route that follows the alignment of the disused railway line, is upgraded through surfacing works and the creation of a public bridleway, so as to secure walking and cycling rights in perpetuity. Developer funding (Section 106 contribution) and developer-led works (Section 268 works) have since been secured through the ‘Land North of A421, Tingewick Road’ site to support this link.
Section 106 – Sustainable Transport Contribution.
The Section 106 agreement for this site includes a ‘Sustainable Transport Contribution’ that is ‘to be applied for the purpose of constructing a 3 metre wide pedestrian route with street lighting along the route shown by the blue shading on Plan 1’. The route to be delivered follows the alignment of the discussed railway line between the Tingewick Road (to the north west) and the A421 (to the south east). The Council is responsible for the delivery of this route.
The Section 106 agreement (see Eighth Schedule) explains that the Contribution is to be paid by the developer to the Council in 3 instalments, linked to specific dwelling occupation levels. To date, the Council has received the 1st instalment, with the 2nd and 3rd instalments payments requested and due imminently.
Buckinghamshire Council is responsible for ensuring Section 106 contributions are spent in accordance with the purposes and terms on which they are secured. The development and delivery of Section 106 funded transport schemes is managed through a yearly programme, whereby the Council works with partners to progress schemes across Buckinghamshire. The scheme development and delivery process includes engagement with Local Members, Parish & Town Councils and Community Boards.
It is necessary for the Council to prioritise the schemes that it develops and delivers each year. This prioritisation is influenced by factors such as:
- Limited Council officer resource and any capacity constraints of delivery partners
- The funding that has been received towards a project, in the context of the total amount due. For example, where larger contributions are paid in incremental instalments over a longer time period.
- Expenditure deadlines or funding clawbacks linked to any unspent Section 106 contributions, as specified in Section 106 agreements. These are typically 10 years.
- Alignment with key strategic, policy or local area priorities.
In light of the above factors, the Council has not yet progressed the delivery of the Railway Walk scheme. However, the benefits offered by the delivery of the scheme are recognised and officers are currently undertaking engagement with local members to discuss opportunities for active travel infrastructure in the Buckingham area and confirm local priorities. This information will be considered when prioritising developer-funded schemes for future year delivery.
Section 278 works – Saint Rumbold’s Park
Your question also mentions the provision of a footway/cycleway link within the development site itself, through Saint Rumbold’s Park. This link would provide access to and from the development site and the Railway Walk. This link is within the ‘red line boundary’ of the site and forms part of the Section 278 works that are to be delivered by, the developer. This link is to be constructed as part of Phase 3 of the development site.
The provision of this footway/cycleway link was secured through Condition 20 of the Outline Planning Permission, reference 15/01218/AOP. Condition 20 was approved through the reserved matters application, secured through Condition 1 of the reserved matters application (reference 17/04668/ADP), which states:
- Condition 1: the construction of any work commencing on St Rumbolds Park full details of the design specifications and method of construction for the pedestrian/cycle link through St Rumbolds Park and timing to implement the works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
- Reason: To ensure the remaining details required by condition 20 of the outline planning permission are satisfactory and are carried out
The Council is responsible for ensuring that Conditions are met before they are discharged. Based on the information that has been provided by the developer, the Council has agreed that Condition 1 has been met. However, prior to the construction of the link, the Council is currently investigating whether a variation to the surfacing material that is currently proposed (Breedon Gravel has planning consent) can be made. It is hoped that a hard surfaced pathway can be achieved so as to maximise the opportunity for active travel connectivity between the site and the Railway Walk, once it is delivered.
I understand officers have informed you of the current position, as discussions are currently taking pace with the developer and archaeology team, and will provide a further update once available.”
Question from Councillor Tony Green to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment
“The report states that residents residing in the former Wycombe area receive a free garden waste collection service for their first bin or bags. This is not a factual statement as the service is not “free”. Wycombe District Council decided many years ago that green waste collection would be funded, like other waste collection, out of the general fund rather than as a separate charge to users. This meant that the cost was collected from residents through their council tax, meaning that those residents in lower band properties, which were more likely to generate less green wate, paid less whereas those in higher band properties, which were likely to generate more green waste, paid more. This is the general principle of council tax.
The annual charge that is being proposed is, by comparison, a regressive tax as the same charge is levied onto everyone who uses the service irrespective of income or the amount that they use the service.
I believe that a fairer method of charging for green waste collection, if the decision is made not to continue funding it from the general fund, is to charge by usage. This means that a resident with a small garden who uses their green bins four or five times a year will pay less than a resident with a large garden who might use their bin 20 times a year.
Given that stickers are being supplied to residents who opt into the scheme, it would be relatively easy to have a unique bar-code on each sticker, identifying the property. When the bin is put out for collection, the contractor would scan the bar-code and register the collection. This would enable the resident to be billed for the number of collections that they utilise.
This seems to me to be a much fairer way of charging. Would you agree?”
Response from Councillor Strachan
“Garden waste charges have been in place across the Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and South Bucks collection areas for a number of years and have operated on a simple basis where one payment is made to opt-in to the service and however much waste is produced by the resident and placed in the bin will be removed.
Furthermore, it would not be usual process to charge all residents for a service which is not used universally. The green waste kerbside collection is used by an average of about 35% of households so it is fairer to charge at the point of use rather than via council tax.
A 'pay as you use' method would be very difficult and costly to set up, implement and bill resident who use the system. The current charge of £50 per annum per bin equates to about £1.08 per week and this income would almost certainly be nowhere near enough to cover operational costs for a pay as you go system. So, this is not supported.”
Question from Councillors Lesley Clarke and Arif Hussain to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Environment
“The Cabinet is aware that the Wycombe District Council legacy area has never charged for green waste and this cost would cause another expense, considering that last year Band D Council tax precept was levelled up to bring it in line with the other 3 legacy councils. Something called equalisation!
Would the Cabinet therefore consider implementing the charges for Green Waste over a 5-year period, with the yearly amount being £10 for the first year, increasing incrementally by £10 per annum, bringing the total at the end of the fifth year to £50, the now proposed charge for the green waste collection across Buckinghamshire? And for this to be to ALL legacy council areas showing this to be a unified cost across the Buckinghamshire Unitary Council area?
This would show that the “equalisation” charge from a Unitary Council does acknowledge the increase in costs for some but shows a promised eventual savings to ALL its residents in the long term. We are concerned that likely backlash may well see residents of the former Wycombe area requesting this Council remove their green bin, which would lead to extra costs for this Council, notwithstanding, of course, the extra storage costs of the green bins returned to the Council. Further the decrease in the green waste collection will, we believe, have a knock-on effect not only on the Council’s recycling rates, but also on the composting of this collected green waste, of which this Council does receive an income? It may too, see an increase in fly tipping, which is something we believe that no one would wish to see?
We believe in considering to levy this charge in this way the Council will keep to it green credentials, albeit on an incremental basis, and helps ALL Buckinghamshire local residents to keep using this service and not see them using the grey bin for green waste, or indeed taking it to the waste recycling sites themselves, which would, after all, increase the carbon footprint that the Council is trying desperately to reduce in its pursuance of net zero?
Thank you for listening.”
Response from Councillor Strachan
"Thank you for the question. To confirm - the charge will be opt-in and not compulsory - residents can still access household recycling centres for free disposal or make use of discounted compost bins the Council offers. Having a starting charge increasing annually is not the method by which other areas introduced charging and under the current circumstance doesn’t seem logical to reduce the charges across the county.
The notion of a variable charge based on households implies that charges could be raised significantly if household income increases. Currently charges are pegged to contract (or in house) service costs. This method is transparent and fairer for all Council taxpayers than a more variable approach.
Also by having a £10 starting charge in year 1 for all residents in the County would cost the Council at least £1.8M in lost income.
To confirm the council receives no income from composting garden waste, it is a substantial cost to the Council to have its green waste treated and turned into compost. The cost, however, is much more acceptable from the environmental perspective than options such as landfill or incineration.
Garden waste charges have been in place across the Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern and South Bucks collection areas for a number of years. There is no evidence to suggest fly-tipping of garden waste happens more in these areas than the Wycombe area (where the collections are free). Garden waste is not a common material to be fly-tipped, and if it does occur it is usually a commercial fly tip of garden waste produced by a professional gardeners or companies.
All Household Recycling Centres accept garden waste free of charge and it remains one of the most popular items to be brought to the sites, irrespective of whether an area charges for kerbside collection or not.”
Question from Councillor Katrina Wood to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change
“As an elected member for an area in the former Wycombe District Council area you will not be surprised that I am disappointed to see the paper on waste charges coming forward to Cabinet today. Whilst I do understand the reasons it does not mean that I approve of yet another move that disadvantages Wycombe residents. Firstly, the Council tax harmonisation which adversely affected them, now the introduction of the charging for green waste and finally also in the same paper the alignment of collections over December and January to a far longer length of time than existing.
Other colleagues will be covering the introduction of green waste charges to Wycombe residents so I will concentrate on the reduction in service that is also being proposed in this paper.
Although collection rates drop in December and January it does not mean that there is no Green Waste being produced for collection. The only time it isn’t is if we have snow for that period! It is also easy to say residents can take the waste to a HWC but that is not easy for everyone to do. Many don’t drive or have disabilities that prevent them lifting heavy bags. Also with the increased costs in petrol it is another burden to residents.
Please could the Cabinet member explain the following.
The assumed take up of paid for waste collection in the former Wycombe area is only expected to be 32.5% of households, and at the moment the waste company are collecting 100% of properties in January. You will not be saving on salaries or operational costs, so why could the alignment not have been at 4 weeks which is nearer halfway between the two existing options rather than 6. Also please explain what will happen to the existing 1000 tonnes of garden waste collected in Southern Buckinghamshire in January, accepting that it will be slightly less if only around 32% of Wycombe residents will be having Green Waste collected but remembering that figure includes Chiltern and South Bucks reduced numbers as they already pay for their collections.
Surely this will be a false saving as that 1000 tonnes will have to go somewhere and at some time so more rounds will be needed in February to clear the backlog as vehicles will be fuller quicker and need to be emptied more often.
I would urge Cabinet to reconsider this option and reduce the winter shutdown period to 4 weeks and reduce the number of collections to 48 per annum rather than 46 as recommended.”
Response from Councillor Strachan
The alignment to 6 weeks has been set at the period to enable resources to be used on higher priority services during that period such as Recycling.
In the north they have been operating with an 8 week suspension period for over 8 years and that has worked well with very few complaints about that policy and no issues about the amount of garden waste that is then collected when the service is restarted. In fact, the Green waste volume does not return to spring levels historically until March and April. Those residents that might have more garden waste have the option to take it to their nearest HRC and there has never been the need for extra rounds in February to collect heavy bins.
To confirm - a further suspension period in the South will allow the Contractor to deploy its workforce more efficiently during a busy period of refuse collection which could well accrue further savings for the Council.”