Jackson Ng at Strategic Sites Committee, 19 March 2026

Good morning everyone. My name is Councillor David Moore. I'm Chairman of the East and South Buckinghamshire Aeroplane Committee and represent the Farnhamshire Stoke Poges. Good morning everyone. Jackson Ng, Councillor for Beaconsfield. Subbing for Alex Collingwood. Good morning.

Thank you, Chairman. I listened to colleagues' contributions. I've taken the view, effectively, that I don't think that – well, I think that the officer's recommendation is sound. I think there are learnings to be taken from this, from the council, how we've ended up in this position. But I think we can look at this as it is at this application on its own, and I think I will be supporting the officer's recommendation. Thank you. But can I also add, I think maybe we should, as Chairman of this Committee or Deputy Chairman of this Committee, to write to the relevant Cabinet Member to ensure that this does not happen again. Thank you.

You've argued that the site is not practical to serve as a SANG. I think councils here take the argument quite seriously and want to test it properly. However, I know that the Hollands Farm allocation in the Wickham District Local Plan basically says that this is an adopted allocation. And my understanding is SANG mitigation needs to be within five kilometres of the site. My understanding again is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that this is the only site within that radius that has been assessed by Natural England as being suitable. So my question is, if you're saying that this site is not suitable, it's not practical, do you have any alternatives that meets Natural England's SANG requirement that's publicly accessible, of sufficient size? And, yeah, just looking forward to your thoughts on that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sorry, I think we're looking at the thing in front of us particularly rather than subjective.

Councillor Watters.

Thank you. It's a technical question. There is an MOU, as suggests, MU in place, but this is effectively council contracting with itself, I understand. Is that allowed? And secondly, so what is the legal status of this MOU then? Is it legally binding in court? And what happens if the council, as the land owner, fails to comply? What legal remedy would it be available to the council? That's the support. I'm trying to find out. I'm sure we've been here before. I just want to clarify that again, given where we are at. We certainly have been here before with council applications.

My full -off question would that be, this is what I thought it might be, MOUs are not enforceable, are they? They're not enforceable in the courts.

And outfall within the monitoring offices. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to go back to the funding question, if I may, Chairman. So my understanding is this is going to be funded and maintained by a potential section 106 on Hollands Park, Hollands Farm, which hasn't quite come through yet or might never come through. So, but the planning application permission, if granted today, can be implemented immediately, right? So, but the funding mechanism to maintain it for 80 years doesn't quite come through until Hollands Farm is approved. So what is the Council's contingency plan if Hollands Farm does not proceed? We might have answered that already, but my question really is towards, has the officers considered committing in writing that we would not implement this planning permission until the section 106 funding mechanism for 80 years is in place? Is that a consideration or has it been considered?

Yes, I mean, it's...

Is the MOU going to be explicit in saying that, you know, so what I'm trying to get is that because the applicant is the council, we want to be very careful how we deal with this. But if permission was to be granted and the MOU goes ahead, is the MOU going to explicitly say that if the council was to exercise the planning permission that he obtains, if he obtains it today, only for Hollands Park, SANG. What I'm trying to say is I'm trying to avoid the council going through the back door to redevelop this if SANG doesn't go ahead. So the...

That's one of the questions you were asking. Yeah, that's what I was trying to get clarification for. Thank you. Yes.

Chairman, I'm going to try some, I'm going down the same angle, but I'm going to try it from a different angle, basically. So I think I'm going to do this not just as a subject member of this committee, but as a chair of standards committee. I just want to be clear, and I want to put this question to the officers, because I raised this, the council is simultaneously the land owner, the applicant, and the planning authority determining this application. There's quite a lot of sentiments locally and from local ward members and parish that it's a bit of an unusual position. But for the benefit of my councillors, and I think there is some context behind this, I've done some research. So I think about a year and a half ago, 2nd January 2025, Cabinet passed a formal key decision approving in principle the creation of SANG at Spade Oak and directing the officers to proceed. That decision was then called in by the then Growth and Infrastructure Housing Committee, a select committee supported by 23 elected councillors. Now, ultimately, the cabinet decision stood. Good. So I just want to ask, really, the officers, and I want to get on public record, just so for councillors here, while we're doing this, and for the residents and everyone involved, that the recommendation before this committee has been reached independently on planning merits alone, and consistent with professional judgment of your department, not as a consequence of the cabinet decision that preceded it, in principle, to approve of SANG. That's all I wanted to hear. So thank you. Yes, I can confirm that.

Clarity, transparency. Thank you.

Chairman, I second Councillor Moore's motion and I support the officer's recommendation. What I would say to colleagues around the table is, you know, I really think we really ought to focus. What I want to do is concentrate on the most important issue raised by the, you know, in opposition by some of the war councillors today and some of the submissions that we've seen today as well, which is the ecology argument. Now, we've heard concerns about the impact of wildlife, you know, water quality at Spade Oak Lake. Councils will know that we'll set on planning applications with me is that I take those concerns quite seriously. But I think we need to be clear about what the evidence says in front of us today. Natural England, which is the Statute of the Body established by Parliament, has been consulted on this application and they've raised no objection. They've confirmed that, you know, essentially that the proposed development will have no significant adverse impact on the proposed site. The council's own ecologist has also been consulted. Rather than objecting, they've come up with recommended helpful conditions, which one day or what would be legally binding by MOU or Section 106, MOU, I think, to protect this habitat. So the ecology, from my perspective, is not being ignored. It's being actively managed and protected through the conditions attached to this very permission, if we were to vote for it today. And just earlier, I placed on public record, and I know this has sort of been raised by some of the speakers today, in my capacity as chair of the Standards Committee, the question of whether this recommendation has been reached independently and on planning merits alone. And the officers have given that on public record. And therefore, from my perspective, I think the process has been sound, the ecology is protected, and I'll be voting along with the officers' recommendation. Thank you.