Agenda item

Question Time

Meeting of Cabinet, Tuesday, 11th October, 2022 10.00 am (Item 5.)

Question from Councillor Stuart Wilson to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

Little Marlow Lakes Country Park

“I understand from the Head of Planning that all Cabinet Members have received my detailed response to the draft report on Little Marlow Lakes Country Park, so I do not need to repeat the many failings and misleading statements of the report now in front of you. It is important that Cabinet Members understand the powers of the Countryside Act 1968 sections 6 and 7, as well as the obligations of Buckinghamshire Council in implementing the full intent of Policy RUR4 of the Wycombe Local Plan and the prior 2002 Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Buckinghamshire Council has a Corporate Plan that, at its very heart, it is to be Customer-Focused. The delivery of Little Marlow Lakes Country Park in full as envisaged by the Wycombe Local Plan is not only a planning obligation, but also a moral contract with all residents and our natural environment in the south-west of the county. It provides extensive recreational space to offset housing development in the area and protects this beautiful Green Belt setting between the Thames and AONB land. Natural England said to me in an email, “We would love to secure the future of Little Marlow as a Country Park”. Residents and other stakeholders were promised the whole area, not a fraction. This report may present a convenient and lowest cost solution for the Council, but it misses the expectations of our communities by a country mile. It is Council-Focused, not Customer-Focused.

What communication has the Council had with all stakeholders, including landowners and prospective developers, as well as all local bodies and representatives regarding the provision of Little Marlow Lakes Country Park in compiling this report; and has the Council completed a thorough investigation of all options with all such stakeholders, or has it rather relied on supposition and assumptions about deliverability and cost without detailed consultation; and how can the opportunity for Little Marlow Lakes Country Park be quickly re-framed in detailed consultation with all such stakeholders following a decision to defer today so that it truly delivers in a customer-centred manner for residents in line with national and local planning policy, all the powers of the Countryside Act 1968 and the extensive funding already identified?”

Question from Councillor David Watson to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

Little Marlow Lakes Country Park

“To my mind the complexity of this report raises as many questions as it attempts to answer. It includes a range of misleading statements and inaccuracies and some confusing use of terminology, such as the term “designation”. That term does not appear in the relevant sections of the 1968 Act. The paper makes it clear that there are a number of potential options for moving forward. The practicalities of those options need further detailed consideration by a suitably constituted Project Board. A second legal opinion should then be sought to ensure the principal options are compatible with the 1968 Act.

Can the Cabinet therefore please confirm that any further action to formalise the provision of the Country Park , in accordance with the 1968 Act, is delayed until a suitably constituted Project Board has considered in detail a number of the most practical options and reported back to the Cabinet that their practicability has been confirmed by Counsel’s opinion as being compatible with the 1968 Act ?

It is assumed that the scope and requirements of Local Plan Policy RUR4 will remain extant until such time as they may be changed following a formal Local Plan review process.”

Written Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

West End Farm, Brackley, Buckingham

Further to my written question to the Cabinet meeting on 13 September, 2021, can the Cabinet Member please provide an update on this matter? Is the Council or partners any closer to discovering who and how these people came to be buried on the outskirts of the town of Buckingham. I look forward to your verbal and written response on the progress made on this important archaeological site that will enable the facts to be known and the history to be understood.

Minutes:

Question from Councillor Stuart Wilson to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

Little Marlow Lakes Country Park

Response from Councillor Strachan

“Thank you Councillor Wilson for your question and also for your detailed response to the draft report which is now before Cabinet. I understand you have been sent a copy of the response to your detailed comments and I too will not seek to repeat here what is already contained in that response.

The report before Cabinet sets out a practical solution to a problem which I’m afraid has not previously been addressed. I’m pleased to endorse the approach set out in the report as it ensures that we can move to the next steps to providing a substantial country park in the Little Marlow area, within the means of the Council and whilst also supporting the growth aspirations set out in the adopted Wycombe Local Plan.

The report is also clear that future expansion of that country park onto adjacent land, within the RUR4 allocated area, is not ruled out in the future should the opportunity and means become available.

As set out in the report, to date there has been no formal consultation with adjacent landowners and stakeholders and in part that is the reason why this report is at all necessary, so that the Cabinet can provide a clear direction and in order to confirm the requirement for a business plan for the park. There have however been a number of informal consultations with a variety of stakeholders in the preparation of the report.

Should Cabinet agree to the recommendations contained in the report, the next steps are clearly set out. Most particularly these will be to delegate responsibility to the Directors of Property and Assets and Leisure and Culture in consultation with the relevant cabinet members to prepare a business plan for the park and to report back to Cabinet for a further decision. It will therefore be a matter for those with delegated authority to take the next steps how they arrange that and who they involve although of course I would expect the local members to be kept up to date with progress.”

Question from Councillor David Watson to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

Little Marlow Lakes Country Park

Can the Cabinet therefore please confirm that any further action to formalise the provision of the Country Park, in accordance with the 1968 Act, is delayed until a suitably constituted Project Board has considered in detail a number of the most practical options and reported back to the Cabinet that their practicability has been confirmed by Counsel’s opinion as being compatible with the 1968 Act?

It is assumed that the scope and requirements of Local Plan Policy RUR4 will remain extant until such time as they may be changed following a formal Local Plan review process.”

Response from Councillor Strachan

“Thank you Councillor Watson for your question.

The matter is, by its nature complicated but the question before Cabinet is essentially a simple one, does Cabinet wish to pursue the making of a Country Park in this location? The fact that the Country Park is allocated in the Wycombe Local Plan is without question. It is also the case however that no further steps to create the park were taken by the predecessor Council and therefore it is right that the Council should now return to the matter and determine the next steps.

It is clear that WDC relied on powers contained in S7(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 1968 – but those powers were limited by S7(3) below. The WDC resolution was for an area of land that included both Council owned and other land. If this Council cannot implement the decision in its entirely then it needs to be considered afresh.

S7 Power to provide country parks.

1. Subject to section 6 above, a local authority shall have power, on any site in the countryside appearing to them suitable or adaptable for the purpose set out in section 6(1) above, to provide a country park, that is to say a park or pleasure ground to be used for that purpose.

3. The powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section and by the next following section may be exercised by the local authority—

a) on land belonging to them, or

b) on such terms as may be agreed with the owners and any other persons whose authority is required for the purpose, on other land, and an agreement under paragraph (b) above may provide for the making by the local authority of payments in consideration of the making of the agreement and payments by way of contribution towards expenditure incurred by the persons making the agreement in consequence thereof.

The Council is in receipt of legal advice that confirms the position and the Council’s Director of Legal Services has confirmed he is content that the advice is sound.

Finally, to be clear, there is nothing within the Cabinet report that alters policy RUR4 of the Wycombe Local Plan. The site is allocated for a Country Park and remains so until such a time as any changes are adopted in a later development plan, which of course could include a Neighbourhood Development Plan.”

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

West End Farm, Brackley, Buckingham

“Further to my written question to the Cabinet meeting on 13 September 2021 can the Cabinet Member please provide an update on this matter? Is the Council or partners any closer to discovering who and how these people came to be buried on the outskirts of the town of Buckingham. I look forward to your verbal and written response on the progress made on this important archaeological site that will enable the facts to be known and the history to be understood.”

Response from Councillor Strachan

“This is an update in response to your question regarding the archaeological site at West End Farm, Brackley Road, Buckingham. Since you last raised this issue at Cabinet in September 2021 we have been working hard to get information from the archaeological contractor, Network Archaeology, regarding this site. Three letters have been issued from our Service Director, Steve Bambrick, to the Director of Network Archaeology, with further communication taking place between Network Archaeology and the Council’s Archaeology Officers. As a result we do now have a dialogue with them and we have managed to extract some information regarding the work outstanding, the costs involved and the reasons the project has stalled. This is progress compared to 2021, when we were not receiving any responses to our emails or letters.

The current situation is that Network Archaeology has put the West End Farm project on hold until the developer has paid them for the fieldwork undertaken. In May 2022 we were informed that Network Archaeology is in renewed discussions with the developer over the costs owed for fieldwork, and the costs of reporting and archiving. Network Archaeology have provided us with the detailed costs for assessment, analysis, publication, archiving and deposition, which amount to approximately £78k.

The Council’s archaeology team have held discussions with Historic England regarding the possibility of them funding the post-excavation work through a grant, but the responsibility for paying for this work does rest with the developer (Places for People, which owns Brio Homes), with grants only to be used as a last resort.

As things stand, Network Archaeology are continuing their dialogue with Places for People, keeping the Council appraised, with the option of seeking alternative funding as a last resort. We are endeavouring to keep this communication going, to ensure that the findings from this important site do reach publication.

It is disappointing that we have not yet been able to resolve the issues surrounding the post-excavation reporting, but we are doing all we can that is within our control. The archaeology team will update us as soon as they know more.”