Buckingham

1
Buckingham

• BENTHILL
• A 700 house development
• Planning Debacle
• Ed Grimsdale informed by Carolyn Cumming

2
The situation
3
Planning History
Not determined
Committee minded to reject it on 22.07.09

• Application 08/02379/AOP
• was identical to
• Application 09/01035/AOP

Public Inquiry set for October 2009
STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
To be determined on 03.09.2009
4
The essence of both proposals
Sic!
5
Key Issues for Strategic Development Control
Committee Meeting
6
The Vale of Aylesbury a.k.a. The Vale of
Tears
7
The Current A.V. Development Plan
16,800 dwellings in Aylesbury 5390 dwellings SE
of MK (AV SDA) 4,700 dwellings in rural area

• South East Plan
• May 2009 2006-2026

Milton Keynes South Midlands Regional
Strategy Plan A
Sets out the growth at Aylesbury and Milton
Keynes proposal not at variance with this part
of D.P.
RA14 relates to growth at the edge of
communities proposals are at variance but
Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan Saved
Policies
8
From Hansard 13th January 2009
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con) Powers
were removed from local authorities by the
Government and given either to the Secretary of
State or to unaccountable and remote regional
agencies. Even when we get down to the process of
public consultation on individual sites, which is
happening in Aylesbury at the moment, we find
that the rules that the local authority are
obliged to follow in carrying out that public
consultationthe timetable, the sort of questions
that may be asked, the considerations that will
be regarded as relevant and legitimate when a
decision is takenare determined by central
Government and not by the representatives of the
local communities themselves. Hanging over all
that has been the threat, made clear in
conversations between Government officials and
local authority representatives, that if local
authorities do not toe the line, the Government
will step in, as they have done in Milton Keynes,
and remove altogether the planning powers of the
local authority in respect of growth and hand
them over to a panel appointed by the Secretary
of State.
9
What about the Emerging LDF ?

• AV LDF Core Strategy published for consultation
  in June 2009
• Consultation has not occurred
• Core Strategy contemplates Buckinghams
  contribution as 1,200 extra dwellings before 2026
• Only sites of over 2,000 homes are classified as
  strategic
• Thus, a 700 home site would be determined under
  Allocated Sites and Development Management (DPD)
• The Allocated Sites document has not been
  published.

Aylesbury Vale Officers Conclusion Providing
it can be demonstrated that the site is suitable
for development, the proposal would accord with
the core strategy.
10
The Buckingham Society view

• Aylesbury Vale has published a number of
  documents under the umbrella of the LDF (Local
  Development Framework).
• Key to a properly planned strategy are those
  documents that set out the principles for
  development and allocate suitable locations that
  meet those principles. Public consultation is -
  we were informed - a necessary process before the
  documents can be formally adopted.
• Clearly all areas of Aylesbury Vale District will
  be affected by the increased growth but the
  decision to place Buckingham as the only second
  tier settlement was taken without a second round
  of consultation with either the citizens of
  Buckingham, or the 'Rest of the District'. It
  placed Buckingham in an invidious position,
  allocating the town a figure of 1200 additional
  dwellings without a proper assessment of the
  impact on a small town and its likely
  infrastructure requirements. Development on this
  scale (asking the town to take a 25 percent
  increase in its housing stock) will have a
  place-changing effect and a significant,
  far-reaching impact on the historic character of
  what was a traditional market town. And all of
  this without the promised Allocated Sites
  document, which would have allowed the community
  some say in where this development might best be
  accommodated.

11
Aylesbury Vale knew that it was putting its
communities at risk!

• This, in itself, is a scandalously high-handed
  way in which to conduct policy and it was
  recognised as such by some of the Vale's elected
  Members at a meeting last February when a motion
  was put forward urging the Cabinet
• "to re-examine its resources and find a means to
  consult on the principles of the lower tier
  allocations in the LDF, while simultaneously
  working on options on the detailed allocations
  for consultation".
• (contd on the next slide)

12
More from Aylesbury Vale

• The reasoning behind this motion was succinctly
  phrased by Cllr. Mrs Davies, who was concerned
  that
• "the LDF process, as currently being taken by
  AVDC, will leave rural areas of Aylesbury Vale
  vulnerable to speculative large scale
  development, supported by opportunistic
  government intervention"
• a position given added weight by the first
  application for the Benthill London Road site,
  which had been submitted in the Autumn of 2008.

13

• Learning Points for other Amenity Societies
• Has your LDF been completed?
• Have its strands and documents undergone proper
  consultation?
• Beware of the emerging LDF, it can form
  evidence to permit development before its content
  has undergone consultation.

14
Material Considerations
15
The Officers Recommendation
16
The Five-Year Itch
PPS3 advises that where Local Planning
Authorities cannot demonstrate an
up-to-date, five-year supply of deliverable
sites, for example, where Local Development
Documents have not been reviewed to take into
account policies in PPS3 or there is less than
five years supply of deliverable sites, they
should consider favourably planning applications
for housing.
17
H.L.M.s Appeal
Housing Land Supply   The Aylesbury Vale Annual
Monitoring Report 2007-2008 (AMR) demonstrates
that the Council cannot demonstrate an up-to-date
five year supply of deliverable housing sites.
They have just 3.9 years supply based on regional
targets. DLP Planning considers that 2.8 years
supply is a more realistic figure based upon a
review of allocated and deliverable sites. We do
not believe that the housing supply situation has
been improved upon since the publication of AMR
2008 and we also anticipate that it will worsen
over time. What is certain is that Aylesbury
Vale cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year
supply of deliverable sites in accordance with
PPS3.  
18
AV Officers Reply
19
Learning Point for Amenity Societies

• Examine your planning authoritys
• 5-year supply figures
• Accurate ?
• Up-to-date?
• Open to challenge ?

20
Briefings in the September Meeting

• District Councillors were told of the impending
  financial doom should they choose to refuse the
  Officers' recommendation. The message was
  underlined heavily in a fierce briefing by John
  Byrne, Head of Planning at Aylesbury Vale
  District Council .
• Note
• Neither application was not supported in any way
  by the community of Buckingham. Over 300
  individual objections were received and at the
  meeting substantially argued objections were
  submitted by the Town council, the Buckingham
  Society, the Buckingham Access for All Group and
  local residents.

21
The Verdict(taken from the Draft Minutes)

• (a) RESOLVED
• That the Head of Planning or Development Control
  Manager be authorised to determine the
  application indicated below subject to final
  resolution of health, recreation and transport
  contributions and the satisfactory completion of
  Planning Obligation Agreements with this Council
  and with Buckinghamshire County Council,any
  permission given to be subject to such conditions
  as he considers appropriate.
• 09/01035/AOP, comprehensive development of land
  comprising of 700 new dwellings, affordable
  housing, primary school, employment land,
  healthcare, outdoor playspace, changing pavilion,
  landscaping and creation of drainage detention
  basin and highway, cycle and pedestrian
  provision, land to south of the A421 and east of
  A413,London Road, Buckingham.
• Note. Councillor Cadd declared a personal
  interest in the above application as he was a
  Member of Buckingham Town Council which had
  commented on the application.

22
Learning Point for Amenity Societies

• and the satisfactory completion of Planning
  Obligation Agreements with this Council and with
  Buckinghamshire County Council,
• The so-called S.106 agreements.
• A member of dlp planning stated in the meeting
  that a majority of its work at present was in
  re-negotiating S. 106 agreements.
• Are Societies aware that is going on, sometimes
  for good reasons?
• When powers are delegated to officers is the
  public sufficiently in the know?

23
And the Inquiry

• (b) RESOLVED
• That Officers write to the Planning Inspectorate
  to explain the change in the
• Authoritys position and to seek the most
  appropriate course of action in respect of the
  public inquiry.
• 08/02379/AOP, comprehensive development of land
  comprising of 700 new
• dwellings, affordable housing, primary school,
  employment land, healthcare, outdoor playspace,
  changing pavilion, landscaping and creation of
  drainage detention basin and highway, cycle and
  pedestrian provision, land to the south of the
  A421 and east of
• A413, Buckingham.

24
Buckingham Advertiser 11.09.09
25
Quotes from that Advertiser
26
In Conclusion

• It is vital that local planning authorities get
  LDFs in place quickly but, given the avalanche of
  changes brought about to the planning system,
  this is proving difficult, impossible even,
  because of labour shortages and skills gaps in
  local authorities' planning departments many
  caused by experienced planners being "poached" by
  developers. Add in the pressures that the growth
  agenda has forced on District Councils, such
  delays are predictable - maybe inevitable. This
  gives the speculative developer both space and
  ammunition to pre-empt the legislation, avoiding
  all its safeguards regarding local community
  involvement.
• There are numerous clauses in the planning
  legislation that appear to require the need for
  local priorities and community involvement in
  development decisions. But they count for nought
  when the bulldozer of forced growth is thrust
  upon unprepared and under-resourced local
  authorities.