Authority Monitoring Report 2020 to 2021

The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) was created by the Localism Act 2011. It means that Buckinghamshire Council (BC) must engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with other councils and agencies on strategic cross-boundary matters. The aim is to make sure that planning is joined up across the wider area and make local plans work well together.

In its Planning White Paper, the Government signalled its intention to abolish the Duty to Cooperate. Until there is more clarity on the future of the Duty, the Council continues to act to sustain good conversations with other councils and agencies.

In April 2021, the Council drafted a scoping statement for the DtC. It listed the other councils and agencies we believe to be relevant to the Council’s plans and what subjects we might need to discuss.

We sent this draft statement to the other councils and agencies for their comment. We received a good range of responses and have updated our list to take account of their feedback. Our next steps will be to see if there is any missing that is important, then work out our priorities for having more detailed conversations with others.

A very significant issue for the DtC is how the need for housing is spread across different areas. At present it is too early to say whether the Council will need to ask other areas to meet Buckinghamshire’s need for housing; nor whether the Council has capacity to meet the need for housing from other areas.

The Council has provided comments to a number of other councils’ plans and programmes. More significant consultations and meetings are highlighted below.

In May 2020, BC responded to MKC’s consultation on their next Local Plan. At that time, MKC anticipated that their plan period would run to 2050. We objected to MKC’s proposals for growth within Buckinghamshire.

The councils met in November 2020 and the MK strategy for 2050 was subsequently revised so that all housing development is now expected to take place within MKC’s boundary.

The councils met again in November 2021 with a view to establishing more regular contact and sharing of technical information. MKC have revised their plan period to 2040, though their evidence studies will look forward to 2050.

In September 2021, we also provided input to MKC’s evidence gathering for the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment.

In December 2021, BC provided comments to SBC’s consultation on Proposed Release for Green Belt Sites for Family Housing. BC welcomed SBC’s position in trying to meet local housing need within their own boundaries but advised that SBC’s evidence base would need to demonstrate that they had fully explored all other sources of housing supply before releasing Green Belt land. BC’s comments at this time were similar to those submitted to SBC’s consultation on their proposed spatial strategy in November 2020 and January 2021.

Officers from BC and SBC met in March 2022 to discuss their respective plan-making processes and agreed to continue to meet regularly.

In April 2021, the two councils met to exchange updates on their respective plans. They agreed to continue to meet and to exchange Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) in due course.

In October 2021 we provided comments on the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Regulation 18 Part 2 consultation. We welcomed that the Oxfordshire Plan intends to meet Oxfordshire's development needs within the Oxfordshire boundary.

The common boundary between Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire means it is likely that growth at key transport locations and strategic settlements such as Thame and Bicester, or a new settlement could lead to adverse impacts for Buckinghamshire. This would depend on the size, location and proposed use of sites.

Mitigation, infrastructure improvements and impact assessments can offset potential harmful impacts. The Council will be keen to see those as evidence base for any sites at the next formal iteration of the plan in vicinity of Buckinghamshire. Around the border there are strategic environmental assets such as the Chilterns AONB, the Aston Rowant Special Area of Conservation and traffic impacts from roads that link to the M40 motorway.

In November 2021, the Council responded to the Cherwell Local Plan Review - Community Involvement Paper 2: Developing our Options Consultation.

We welcomed that CDC is covered under the Oxfordshire authorities’ agreement to meet all development needs within Oxfordshire, so we will not be asked to accommodate any unmet development needs from Cherwell.

We noted that the option to expand Bicester could have impacts on transport networks, particularly the A41, and the need to consider the issue of landscape impact from development beyond the CDC boundaries.

We agreed that meeting with officers at certain stages in the plan process will be welcome, to include discussions on any SoCG.

Officers of TDRC and BC met in June 2020 to review the evidence base that TDRC had completed at that time.

In June 2021, TDRC wrote to BC to request a discussion on whether BC would be able to meet any of the shortfall in TDRC’s housing supply.

In August 2021, BC responded to TDRC’s consultation on their Local Plan. BC was clear in the response to confirm that the Local Plan for Buckinghamshire was at a very early stage of preparation. Consequently, BC is not in a position yet to say what level of needs that it will have to accommodate. In addition, the Council does not yet have the evidence to establish if it can accommodate its own housing needs from Buckinghamshire. BC will want to understand how the mitigation of proposed site allocations at Maple Cross will be dealt with and other strategic cross boundary issues.

In December 2021, the Council responded to WNC’s Strategic Plan – Spatial Options Consultation. We noted that some options had the potential to have cross-boundary impacts, particularly traffic, and that WNC may include options for new settlements in a future consultation.

The Council looks forward to having DtC discussions with WNC to inform the next stage of their plan preparation.

BC is actively engaging with Dacorum BC and Natural England to monitor and manage potential impacts of development on the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), specifically at the Ashridge Estate.

We have engaged actively with National Highways (formerly Highways England) on the development of a new transport model for the Council. The Council has exchanged technical information about the model with National Highways and responded to any issues raised. Conversation with National Highways will be ongoing as we develop our approach to testing growth and mitigation scenarios for the Local Plan for Buckinghamshire.

We have met with the Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust to discuss the scope of the Local Plan and to understand their priorities for the future of hospital infrastructure.

Discussions with the Central and Eastern Berkshire Authorities continued regarding their sharp sand and gravel and soft sand provision. The authorities currently import some of their aggregate supply from its neighbouring authorities and the evidence for their need shows they will rely on imports in the future to meet their supply. This has resulted in Buckinghamshire signing their sharp sand and gravel SoCG and their soft sand SoCG in February 2022. These SoCGs agreed that Central and Eastern Berkshire Authorities will continue to monitor their supply with continued discussion and data being updated regularly. Buckinghamshire agreed to take Central and Eastern Berkshire’s supply needs into consideration when reviewing and updating our Local Plan.

A letter was received in February 2022 regarding mineral movements. The letter sought confirmation on the imports and exports of aggregate between the authorities during 2019 and asked if there were any planning reason why movements couldn’t continue. We confirmed that we agreed with amount of imported and exported aggregate and saw no planning reason why movements could not continue, but identified that a site on the Hertfordshire border had planning conditions to restore by 2031.

A letter was received in May 2021 seeking information on the permitted non-hazardous landfill capacity within Buckinghamshire and their expected fill rates. Letters were also received from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Surrey County Council, in February, and Hertfordshire County Council in March regarding the import and export of waste. Letters were received because Buckinghamshire accepts waste movements above the agreed thresholds for strategic movements.