The consultation on Buckinghamshire Council’s draft Local Plan closes Sunday 6th September at 11.59pm. Whaddon Parish Council is submitting objections, and your voice matters too. Please take this chance to have your say.
How to respond:
👉 https://buckinghamshire.oc2.uk Click on ‘Draft Local Plan Regulation 19 Document.’
Or, email planningpolicyteam.bc@buckinghamshire.gov.uk. Make sure you include your name and address in this email submission.
The tests the Inspector judges the Plan against will be:
- Positively prepared – does the Plan provide enough homes?
- Justified – is the strategy based on proper evidence?
- Effective – is it deliverable?
- Consistent with national policy – does it follow the NPPF?
What WPC is objecting to;
🔴 Policy NESS015: Beachampton new settlement (8,230 homes)
The Council’s own evidence says Beachampton is one of two sites that “stand out as questionable” in transport terms. It is a Tier 6 hamlet of 160 people with no meaningful public transport. It requires delivery of a Whaddon Bypass – between Coddimoor Lane and Nash Road – that would cost £30.36m, hasn’t started, and for which no funding is secured beyond developer contributions. The Government itself rejected Beachampton under its New Towns Programme, citing “insufficient evidence to overcome identified significant infrastructure constraints.”
What you could say: “I object to Policy NESS015. It is not justified. The Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal identifies Beachampton as questionable in transport terms, and ruled out comparable sites for the same reason. It is not effective: the essential infrastructure, including the £30.36m Whaddon Bypass, is unstarted and dependent on developer contributions, with no secured delivery date.”
🔴 Policy WHA02: Land West of Shenley Park (1,240 homes)
At the last consultation stage this site was 745 homes. It’s now 1,240 but on exactly the same land, meaning the density has jumped from 24 to 40 homes per hectare. The site next door (Shenley Park) is 12.8. The Plan requires comparable sites to have a defensible boundary and separation from existing villages. However, WHA02, the site closest to Whaddon, has neither.
What you could say: “I object to Policy WHA02. It is not justified. The capacity increased by two thirds, and the Council’s viability assessment was done on the smaller figure. It contains no requirement to maintain separation from Whaddon village.”
🔴 Policy SP2: Housing strategy
The former Aylesbury Vale area is taking most of the new allocations. The Council’s own Sustainability Appraisal showed alternatives that performed better. But the Plan doesn’t explain why they were rejected.
What you could say: “Policy SP2 is not justified. It concentrates growth in the former Aylesbury Vale area at roughly double the county-wide rate, without explaining why alternatives that the Council’s own appraisal rated more highly were rejected.”
Tips for your response:
✅ Be specific – name the policy (e.g. NESS015) and the test (e.g. justified)
✅ Keep it in your own words
✅ Submit before Sunday 11.59pm
Kind Regards
WPC Clerk & RFO,