Thank you if you came to the meeting yesterday evening, and thank you, too, if you sent your apologies. Around 70 people were there to hear the background to the recent Judicial Review and talk about future options.

First things first. The case has had a significant impact on our finances, because of the extra costs that the elaborate defence by the Council and the developer Taylor Wimpey UK piled on our small legal team .

We are currently £5,800 in the red. We would really appreciate it if you could help us clear that debt by a donation of whatever size. The easiest way is to give via our JustGiving page here. Or if you want to give via bank transfer, it’s HFAG Ltd, Barclays, sort code 20-03-18 and account 13528065. Cheques are fine, too, of course — please make it payable to HFAG Ltd and give it to any committee member.

Thank you in advance. We will update this posting with changes to the financial position to keep you informed.

It was a good meeting. Thank you for your support.

What does the Judicial Review decision mean? And what are your views about possible future options?

Please come to Weston Turville Village Hall at 6.30 on Thursday 7 April to hear more and share your views.

The meeting will close by 8.00.

Please be there!

It was off to London for the HFAG committee, supporters and our small legal team on Wednesday and Thursday this week.  

On Wednesday our barrister Jack Parker set out our claim for judicial review to the judge, Dame Justice Lang at the Royal Courts of Justice.  He was followed by the QC for the Council, who finished her defence statement the following morning.  Next up was the QC for the developer Taylor Wimpey UK.  The proceedings ended on Thursday afternoon with a substantial response from Jack.

So, how did it go?  And what happens next? 

We’re glad to say we were very happy with our barrister’s performance. Both opening and closing our case, he showed a real command of the brief and an ability to challenge statements made by the other side. Not so easy, when you’re up against two hotshot QCs and a supporting barrister — the other side are really throwing a LOT of resource into this, which is a tribute to how seriously they view our case.  And we thought Dame Justice Lang gave a fair hearing to both sides, including extending the second day so as to give our barrister enough time to complete his submission. 

But of course, a case is not just about the performances on the day.  It will be for the judge to decide on the merits of our case taking account of what she heard but also of what she will have read from us and from the Council and developer.  Our solicitor advises that we can expect her judgment some weeks from now.  As soon as we hear, we will naturally let you know.

Excellent, close collaboration between all committee members and our legal team has been a feature throughout, from preparing the claim in great detail to its final delivery on the day. Another especially pleasing aspect this week was the company of HFAG supporters Pete Shaw and David Harrington.  

The local community was right there in Court Room 18.   

Tomorrow (23 Feb) HFAG brings its claim for Judicial Review to the High Court. Our barrister will be making the case that Buckinghamshire Council acting unlawfully when its Strategic Sites Committee decided to give outline planning permission to the Hampden Fields development last year.

The specific area of concern is the vital one of healthcare provision. The Hampden Fields estate would be so large (3,300 dwellings) that it would generate some 7,000 extra people needing GP and hospital care. The Council and developer Taylor Wimpey have been strongly criticised by the two NHS bodies who are responsible for ensuring that adequate facilities are available to cope with that extra demand.

The case will be heard before Dame Justice Beverley Lang DBE at at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. HFAG committee members John Benjamin, Peter Chilman, Chris Webbley, Glynn White and Phil Yerby will be there, together with HFAG supporters David Harrington and Peter Shaw.

Dame Justice Lang’s judgement will be made some time after the hearing. We will of course let you know as soon as we receive it.

On February 23^rd and 24^th we go into court with our Judicial Review claim against the Council – the culmination of ten years of hard work on your behalf.     

We do not yet know whether the case will be heard in open court or by internet link. But please hold the date.  As soon as we hear, we will let you know. 

We were also very pleased recently to receive a generous additional donation towards any extra legal costs that may arise.  We are grateful for this and also for the confidence in our cause that it shows.

The campaign continues!    

As well as issues over transport and flooding, HFAG are very concerned about inadequate local plans for healthcare.  At Hampden Fields, it’s a “take it or leave it” offer of a small GP surgery that the NHS have been saying for years is not what is needed. At the neighbouring Woodlands, it’s not even that — just a piece of land. Remember that this is for a population increase on the scale of a small town. 

To anyone thinking, ‘Oh, I’m sure they will sort something out — healthcare is so important’, just look at this recent posting from Kingsbrook Parish Council:  

“Current healthcare provisions are struggling to cope with existing patient numbers. With the growth of Kingsbrook and lack of healthcare provision being added, despite S106 obligations, the Parish Council feels that another development without healthcare provisions will make the situation untenable.” (Emphasis added) 

Section 106 is the law that obliges a developer to provide infrastructure such as schools, roads, and healthcare facilities to offset the impact of their development. It is a legal contract, a firm promise that must be kept. 

So, what was the clear promise in the Kingsbrook prospectus? “You’ll feel better in no time thanks to the on-site doctor’s surgery, with 3 full-time doctors on-hand, ready and waiting to help. Kingsbrook also has a pharmacy conveniently located right next to the doctor’s surgery, meaning that you can take care of all your medical needs in the comfort and convenience of your own community.”

There are Section 106 plans for Hampden Fields and Woodlands. Might residents there find themselves in the same position as people at Kingsbrook?  Not if HFAG can help it.

The campaign continues!   

We have now heard that our claim for judicial review of the Hampden Fields decision is to come before the court on 23  and 24 February.  Work to prepare for this is continuing. We will keep you informed

On the proposed ‘Woodlands’ development that adjoins Hampden Fields, we are not alone in having concerns about the risk of flooding.

The site lies on the north side of the A41 and includes an estate of 1,100 houses.  The area is on a flood plain, with the Bear Brook, Burcott Brook and Drayton Mead Ditch all flowing through or round it.  The developer (basically Buckinghamshire Council itself) therefore has to conduct a detailed and thorough Flood Risk Assessment to test the risks and make sure that houses, roads, and other public areas are safe.

Well, they are now on the fourth go at this piece of vital work.  Having worked on it since 2016, they have still not been able to satisfy the Environment Agency that the Assessment is sound.  In a recent letter, the EA stated,  “In the absence of an acceptable Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) we maintain our objection to this application and recommend that planning permission is refused.”

They went on to say that the FRA did not “adequately assess the flood risks posed by the development.”  This, after years to get it right.  

Even if the developers find a way to convince the EA and get the assessment approved, the fact that it has taken so long and so much effort to work this out leaves us with a worry about their competence. Flooding is not 100% predictable, as we have seen many times, not least in Weston Turville last year.  How safe will Woodlands be?  What difficulties might the owners of the 1,100 new properties face in getting their new homes insured?  What will be the impact of Woodlands on neighbouring areas including ‘Hampden Fields’ and downstream towards Aylesbury and beyond? 

We are, of course, raising this with the planning authority and the Environment Agency.  

At a recent public inquiry, the safety of the planned Southeast Aylesbury Link Road (SEALR) was again called into question.  

HFAG made strong representations to the Buckinghamshire Council planning committee in January 2021 on this very topic. Quoting the council’s own Road Safety Audit, we pointed out our concern that on the SEALR – a one-mile straight stretch of dual carriageway — vehicles would be very likely to travel at excessive speed.  The same point was made by Thames Valley Police, who expect some drivers to go at “much higher speeds” than intended by the designers. 

Those designers and the wider council ignored these warnings and concerns.  They have refused to alter the straightness of the road, arguing that ‘constraints of the scheme’ justify their decision.  

Just as bad is that the SEALR is not even going to have laybys for speed enforcement vehicles. These had been requested by the police as a second best to provide at least “some deterrent strategy”. Talk about planning to fail!

These points and others were strongly made by Phil Yerby supporting local residents at the public enquiry into a compulsory purchase order required for the SEALR scheme.  Whether the planning Inspector accepts these arguments or not, they have at least been made in public.  

There must be a concern that the Council could be building a new ‘Mad Mile’ at Aylesbury.