Authority Monitoring Report 2021 to 2022

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. It proposes to replace this legal requirement with a soundness test of ‘alignment’. The Council continues to act to sustain good conversations with other councils and agencies. These can become more strongly focused when there is more clarity on what an alignment test entails, and as the evidence base for the Plan develops.

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 help 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.

Officers from the two councils met in July 2022 to exchange updates on the preparation of their respective plans. As both plans are at an early stage, there is no indication yet as to whether there will be any cross-boundary housing or employment needs, or other strategic issues to consider. Both councils are part of the joint effort to address recreational impacts on the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC, specifically the Ashridge Estate.

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.

In December 2022 Buckinghamshire and Cherwell exchanged a draft SoCG which agreed that Cherwell District does not require Buckinghamshire Council to meet any of Cherwell’s housing or employment needs. It also agreed that, being in its early stages, the LP4B does not result in any strategic cross-boundary matters at this time.

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.

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.

The Councils exchanged letters in September 2022 agreeing topics for cross-boundary strategic matters. Officers from the two councils met in October 2022 to exchange updates on their plan preparation.

In August 2022, the Oxfordshire Local Planning Authorities jointly announced that they were unable to reach agreement on the approach to planning for future housing needs within the framework of the Oxfordshire Plan.

The issues of housing needs in Oxfordshire will now be addressed through individual Local Plans for each of the City and Districts. They confirmed that will cooperate with each other and with other key bodies as they prepare their Local Plans.

Buckinghamshire Council will continue to engage with the individual Oxfordshire Local Planning Authorities and Oxfordshire County Council in the preparation of the Local Plan.

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 continue to meet regularly. In March 2023 their respective Cabinet Members met to reaffirm their commitment to continuing cooperation of Slough Borough Council with Buckinghamshire Council to on strategic cross-boundary matters.

In May 2022 South and Vale consulted on issues for their joint local plan, and published scoping documents for comment. Buckinghamshire provided comments on their scoping of the Duty to Cooperate and Habitats Regulations Assessment.

In September 2022 St Albans arranged a Duty to Cooperate workshop for neighbouring councils. Buckinghamshire attended this workshop. We agreed that there were no strategic cross-boundary issues between the two councils.

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.

From January to March 2023 TRDC consulted on Additional Sites for Potential Allocation, some of which are close to the boundary with Buckinghamshire and so have potential for cross-boundary effects. It was agreed that Buckinghamshire Council will continue to engage with TDRC on site updates and information on un-met development needs, how the sites 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.

During 2022 and 2023, Buckinghamshire corresponded with West Berkshire regarding a request to help meet their employment needs. The Council’s position is that at this point it is not known whether our current employment provision is sufficient to meet Buckinghamshire’s future employment needs to 2040. The Local Plan is at an early stage and the evidence base is not complete.

The West Berkshire Background Paper on Employment refers to the Berkshire Functional Economic Market area (FEMA). There is no connection between this FEMA and Buckinghamshire and no reasoning for a connection has been provided by West Berkshire Council apart from the comment in their Background Paper that Buckinghamshire is within a one-hour drive of West Berkshire. Buckinghamshire Council will participate in discussions with West Berkshire Council about the employment land position. However, this does not confirm agreement that this is a strategic issue shared by both authorities.

Buckinghamshire will continue to exchange information with West Berkshire, and share the results of studies here on employment and retail.

In June 2022, Buckinghamshire provided responses to Wokingham BC on a questionnaire regarding an update to their Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment.

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.

In September 2022 the Council provided comment to Thames Water on their draft Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan.

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.

We were invited to comment on the Hertfordshire Minerals and Waste Draft Plan consultation, with a response sent in September 2022.

A letter was received in February 2023 regarding mineral movements. A response confirming the movements and highlighting future issues with movements was sent in March 2023.