Agenda item

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

 

As you are aware a number of bodies were uncovered during excavations ahead of work at West End Farm, on Brackley Road in Buckingham for a planned care home. This included skeletons of 80 bodies with hands tied behind their backs. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration could provide an interim report of the basic analysis of this major historic site to provide clarification of what took place and in what date period for local residents. I understand that some of the investigations have been halted due to financial issues between the developer and Network Archaeology, which have been ongoing for some considerable time, and if this is the case what action can be taken by the Councilto bring this to a quick resolution ?

 

Question from Councillor Alison Wheelhouse to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

 

“Given recent multiple Permitted Development “prior notification” applications for 15m high mobile phone masts across the county, and in view of the recently completed Government consultation on this topic, please will the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Leader ensure that: 1. a new Electronic Communications Supplementary Planning Document be implemented as soon as possible; and 2. that an Article 4 Direction be made without delay in relation to permitted development rights for electronic communications masts and cabinets, so that these will require planning consent and can be called-in to planning committee. The SPD and Art.4 Directions are needed for the following reasons:

 

•       To avoid piecemeal applications for masts and associated cabinets from multiple carriers and to implement a strategic overview.

•       The need for a clear policy on mast sharing, site sharing and a requirement for submission of data on existing availability and sharing facilities in any given area.

•       To maximise the use of existing sites and masts.

•       Much distress is being caused to communities by carriers making unsuitable prior notification applications under the current permitted development rules, leaving communities with limited voice on the matter. This issue will be further aggravated if proposals are implemented as set out in the Government’s recently completed technical consultation, which would allow masts up to 15m as permitted development without need for prior approval.

 

In summary, could the Cabinet Member please confirm what steps the Council intends to take to address the points raised above at 1. and 2.?”

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

 

“As you are aware a number of bodies were uncovered during excavations ahead of work at West End Farm, on Brackley Road in Buckingham for a planned care home. This included skeletons of 80 bodies with hands tied behind their backs. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration could provide an interim report of the basic analysis of this major historic site to provide clarification of what took place and in what date period for local residents. I understand that some of the investigations have been halted due to financial issues between the developer and Network Archaeology, which have been ongoing for some considerable time, and if this is the case what action can be taken by officers to bring this to a quick resolution?”

 

Response

 

“We are aware of the issues surrounding this archaeological excavation, which took place in 2018-19, in accordance with a condition attached to planning consent 16/00847/APP granted to Brio Homes through appeal.  Between 70 and 80 irregular burials were excavated, some singular and others multiple, with some of the skeletons appearing to be face down with their hands behind their backs. There was limited artefactual evidence recovered but two medieval buckles suggested a long-lived medieval burial ground.  The excavation was carried out by Network Archaeology in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation approved by the Council’s archaeology service.

Following the completion of the excavation, it was agreed that the development could commence, with an archaeological watching brief to be carried out on any groundworks.  This was to ensure any further burials be identified and appropriately excavated.  It was agreed that the reporting could be postponed until all archaeological works had finished.  However, in 2019 all works ceased on site whilst Brio Homes awaited the result of a Variation of Permission application.

 

After raising our concerns about storage and conservation of the skeletons, Brio Homes agreed in February 2020 to pay for the initial stabilisation of the human remains.  This work was completed in August 2020, but is only the first stage in the post-excavation process, and to date no further works have been undertaken.  In April 2021 it became apparent that Brio Homes had failed to settle the outstanding balance on works already completed, and as such Network Archaeology were no longer prepared to undertake any further works, including producing a written report on the skeletons.

 

It is unfortunate that the planning permission Brio Homes won under appeal has lapsed, and there has been no approach for a renewal.  Brio Homes have also withdrawn their application for a variation of permission. It appears that they have decided against developing the site and therefore have no intention of funding the post-excavation works.  Brio Homes do not appear to be in breach of any condition due to the final phase of works having not taken place, nor will they need the archaeological condition discharged if they do not progress with the development.  It therefore seems that Buckinghamshire Council cannot insist that they fund the post excavation works and Network Archaeology cannot undertake the works without payment.

 

Since April 2021 Buckinghamshire Council archaeology service have made repeated requests for updates from Network Archaeology.  There is an outstanding contractual issue between Brio Homes and Network Archaeology that needs to be resolved in order for this project to progress.  We have repeatedly requested the following information:

• Contact details for relevant persons at Brio Homes to discuss the outstanding works directly;
• Costs for the production of an initial site report summarising works undertaken to date;
• Costs for full analysis and publication of the site.

 

Once Buckinghamshire Council has this information it will be possible to consider alternative funding and publication options and move this project forward.  The archaeology team are working hard to resolve the issues, but we need Brio Homes and Network Archaeology to take responsibility for the excavated remains from this site and to work with us on this matter.” 

 

Question from Councillor Alison Wheelhouse to Councillor Gareth Williams, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration

 

“Given recent multiple Permitted Development “prior notification” applications for 15m high mobile phone masts across the county, and in view of the recently completed Government consultation on this topic, please will the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Leader ensure that: 1. a new Electronic Communications Supplementary Planning Document be implemented as soon as possible; and 2. that an Article 4 Direction be made without delay in relation to permitted development rights for electronic communications masts and cabinets, so that these will require planning consent and can be called-in to planning committee. The SPD and Art.4 Directions are needed for the following reasons:

•          To avoid piecemeal applications for masts and associated cabinets from multiple carriers and to implement a strategic overview.

•          The need for a clear policy on mast sharing, site sharing and a requirement for submission of data on existing availability and sharing facilities in any given area.

•          To maximise the use of existing sites and masts.

•          Much distress is being caused to communities by carriers making unsuitable prior notification applications under the current permitted development rules, leaving communities with limited voice on the matter. This issue will be further aggravated if proposals are implemented as set out in the Government’s recently completed technical consultation, which would allow masts up to 15m as permitted development without need for prior approval.

 

In summary, could the Cabinet Member please confirm what steps the Council intends to take to address the points raised above at 1. and 2.?”

 

Response

 

1)a new Electronic Communications Supplementary Planning Document be implemented as soon as possible.

 

“Thank you for your question regarding an SPD for electronic communications.

I understand that these can have a blight on the landscape and localised visual amenity. This, as I understand it is why there are safeguards to protect the most sensitive landscapes and to ensure that there is local consultation on the siting of masts and equipment. The development management teams are in place to assess such applications and to refuse prior approval if the equipment does not meet the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Two such applications for prior approval have recently been refused. This rather indicates the system as set down by government is capable of working.

 

For example, the application to determine if prior approval is needed for a new mast and equipment at the Junction of Wooster Road and Owlsears Close failed to meet the frameworks tests of:

1) consultation;

2) siting and appearance; and

3) an effective statement that certifies that when operational International Commission guidelines will be met.

 

And was therefore refused. This as I consider it, is the correct process to assess such electronic communications.

 

But turning to the request for the creation of an SPD to provide guidelines, I refer again to the National Planning Policy Framework.   Paragraph 114 could not be clearer in that the framework makes it a policy requirement for Local Plans and decision making to support the expansion of electronic communications networks. To have an SPD that is capable of being taken account of in decision making would likely stray into specific policy areas that the framework disallows in paragraph 118. Such as seeking to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.

 

I can refer to the Bracknell Forest SPD which as long ago as the first introduction of the framework in 2012, revoked their Supplementary Planning Guidance on Telecommunications Development, as it would not be compatible with the framework. In addition, there is not a policy hook across all the development plans currently operating in Buckinghamshire, to hang an SPD off.  Turning to the future, Electronic Communications as they remain part the framework, will be a policy consideration for the Buckinghamshire Local Plan 2040.

 

 

Notes:

 

Piecemeal prior notifications and a strategic approach.

 

The National Planning Policy Framework provides a national policy framework for ‘supporting high quality communications’. The framework makes it a policy requirement for Local Plans and decision making to support the expansion of electronic communications networks [para. 114]. Para. 115 states that sites ‘should be kept to a minimum’ but only if consideration is given to ensure ‘the needs of consumers, the efficient operation of the network and providing reasonable capacity for future expansion’.

 

Para. 116 requires that local planning authorities ensure that:

a) they have evidence to demonstrate that electronic communications infrastructure is not expected to cause significant and irremediable interference with other electrical equipment, air traffic services or instrumentation operated in the national interest; and

b) they have considered the possibility of the construction of new buildings or other structures interfering with broadcast and electronic communications services.

 

This evidence can be provided as part of an application to seek the local planning authority’s opinion if a Prior Approval application is required for what otherwise would be permitted development.

 

Applications for electronic communications development (including applications for prior approval under the General Permitted Development Order) should be supported by the necessary evidence to justify the proposed development. This should include:

a) the outcome of consultations with organisations with an interest in the proposed development, in particular with the relevant body where a mast is to be installed near a school or college, or within a statutory safeguarding zone surrounding an aerodrome, technical site or military explosives storage area; and

b) for an addition to an existing mast or base station, a statement that self-certifies that the cumulative exposure, when operational, will not exceed International Commission guidelines on non-ionising radiation protection; or

c) for a new mast or base station, evidence that the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure and a statement that self-certifies that, when operational, International Commission guidelines will be met. [para. 117].

 

The application should therefore be supported by relevant evidence to enable a planning application / prior approval to be determined.

 

The framework provides that local planning authorities must determine applications on planning grounds only. They should not seek to prevent competition between different operators, question the need for an electronic communications system, or set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure. [para. 118].

 

This means that the planning authority should not set out policies that would be refused planning permission on the basis of not site sharing, mast sharing, need or its own health safeguards.

 

A Supplementary Planning Document would therefore need to be silent on these issues and would therefore would not be fit for purpose to achieve a strategic or non-piecemeal approach.

 

The development plans covering the south, east, [central and north*] planning areas do have polices related to electronic communication. The western area is not covered. Countywide coverage is therefore not possible, and given that a SPD is not the right approach, should guidance be provided?

 

*Subject to Council Adoption

Plan	Policy
Wycombe	None (alluded to in PR7 as being in CP7)
Chiltern CS	CS15, 19 and 26
South Bucks CS	CP10
VALP	CP7
Minerals and Waste	None

 

‘Should we introduce an informal procedural/guidance note to guide Electronic Communications?’. This at first may seem to be an appropriate approach. But these are not ‘effective’. This is because a procedural/guidance note cannot be used in determining planning applications and could not be referred to in the reasons for approval or refusal of an application.

 

Such a note could:

·                     set out the different processes to be followed for different types of telecommunications development;

·                     point to the national and local policies that are relevant to the determination of telecommunications applications;

·                     contain a glossary of terms relating to telecommunication development; and

·                     not contain policy or additional detailed guidance for developers.

 

However, this would seem to have little real value as it should be noted that applications are submitted without reference to any local consideration; other than that required by the framework [at best]. Therefore, we need to consider if producing one would be an efficient and economic use of officers and members time. Officers consider, based on the weight of the current evidence in determining applications, that the current system in place is effective.

 

Councillor Wheelhouse is referring to a consultation that has ended but no response has been made by the government here.

 

The role of the Local Plan and pre-applications is set out by government here.

 

Article 4 Directions ‘that an Article 4 Direction be made without delay in relation to permitted development rights for electronic communications masts and cabinets, so that these will require planning consent and can be called-in to planning committee.’

 

“Thank you for the second part of your question on Electronic Communications.

 

As I stated in the first part of this question, the development management process is the right process to determine electronic communications development. Applicants can apply for a decision on whether or not a prior approval application is required. They can also apply directly for prior approval to confirm if it is permitted development. The local planning authority can consider paragraph 117 of the framework to determine if the application is ‘justified’. This justification requires the applicants evidence on consultation, radiation and that the applicants have explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure.

 

An Article 4 Direction in addition to the current development management tools and safeguards as set out in legislation is not likely to be effective for the whole of Buckinghamshire and may well be called in by the Secretary of State. Quite specifically the framework provides under paragraph 116 that:

 

Local planning authorities should not impose a ban on new electronic communications development in certain areas, impose blanket Article 4 directions over a wide area or a wide range of electronic communications development, or insist on minimum distances between new electronic communications development and existing development.

 

 

Notes:

 

There are two types of Article 4 direction – ‘immediate’ and ‘non-immediate’. An immediate Article 4 direction takes effect either immediately following its issue, or at a time within one year of being issued. A ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 direction takes effect at least one year after being issue, but no later than two years after issue. The main difference is that if the Article 4 takes effect less than one year from issue, compensation is payable to affected landowners. After one year, there is no compensation.

 

Para. 53 of the framework covers the removal of permitted development rights:

 

The use of Article 4 directions to remove national permitted development rights should:

•                    where they relate to change from non-residential use to residential use, be limited to situations where an Article 4 direction is necessary to avoid wholly unacceptable adverse impacts (this could include the loss of the essential core of a primary shopping area which would seriously undermine its vitality and viability, but would be very unlikely to extend to the whole of a town centre) [not relevant]

•                    in other cases, be limited to situations where an Article 4 direction is necessary to protect local amenity or the well-being of the area (this could include the use of Article 4 directions to require planning permission for the demolition of local facilities) [potentially relevant]

•                    in all cases, be based on robust evidence, and apply to the smallest geographical area possible [means that it will not be effective across the county]

 

The council already acts on the tools available.

 

The development management process is the right process to determine electronic communications development. Applicants can apply for a decision on whether or not a prior approval application is required. They can also apply directly for prior approval to confirm permitted development. Here the local planning authority can employ paragraph 117 of the framework.  It can determine if the application is ‘justified’. This justification requires the applicants evidence on consultation, radiation and that the applicants have explored possibility or erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure.