Buckinghamshire Local Plan 2045 Consultation: Our Response
Buckinghamshire Council has completed a public consultation on its Draft Local Plan, setting out how the county could grow and develop up to 2045.
Residents, businesses and organisations were asked to comment before the Local Plan is submitted for independent examination. Wendover Parish Council has responded and the submitted information is available here:
All responses had to follow the same format which assessed if the plan was legal and if the plan was sound. The four tests of soundness are as follows:
1 – Is it positively prepared – based on a strategy that meets the targets set by government (and this includes unmet needs of neighbouring authorities).
2 – Justified – have alternatives been considered and is it the most appropriate strategy i.e. not “stick a load of tower blocks in Aylesbury”
3 – Effective – should be deliverable over the plan period
4 – Consistent with national policy – does it meet the National Planning Policy Framework
Official consultation website: Draft Local Plan for Buckinghamshire 2045 (Regulation 19 Consultation)
Closing date: Sunday 6 September 2026 at 11:59pm
Draft Local Plan Summary Leaflet:
Why Does This Matter to Wendover?
The Draft Local Plan proposes:
Around 91,000 new homes across Buckinghamshire
Approximately 270 hectares of employment land
More than 500 infrastructure projects requiring at least £6 billion of investment
While no significant new housing is currently proposed within Wendover itself, the Parish Council is concerned that development surrounding the parish could place increasing pressure on:
Roads and traffic
Parking
Healthcare services
Schools and education
Local infrastructure
The Parish Council is also believes that continued development around Wendover could reduce the village's distinct and historic identity by bringing it closer to the wider expansion of Aylesbury.
A Summary of Wendover Parish Council's Response
Wendover Parish Council has submitted a formal response to Buckinghamshire Council on behalf of the community.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Legal compliance — No. WPC raises a specific concern about whether the consultation complied with the applicable Regulations and the Statement of Community Involvement.
Soundness — No, unless modified. Deficiencies in the treatment of neighbourhood-plan evidence require a transparent audit trail and principally affect whether the Plan is justified and consistent with national policy.
Chapter 2 – National and Strategic Context
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection.
Soundness — No, unless modified. WPC questions whether the strategic approach is justified by proportionate evidence, consistent with national policy and capable of effective delivery.
Chapter 3 – Spatial Portrait and Key Issues
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection.
Soundness — No, unless modified. The Plan is not adequately justified or effective because cumulative landscape, visual and settlement-pattern effects have not been assessed together or translated into enforceable safeguards. Requested modifications include mapping, an anti-coalescence policy, assessment requirements, buffers and monitoring.
Chapter 4 – Vision and Strategic Objectives
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection.
Soundness — No, unless modified. The Plan’s objectives are not effective without place-specific delivery bodies, funding, phasing, occupation triggers, monitoring and contingency measures. WPC proposes an infrastructure-phasing framework.
Chapter 5 – Spatial Strategy and Strategic Policies
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection.
Soundness — No, unless modified. The Green Belt Review is not fully justified, and the absence of a mapped policy mechanism protecting strategic gaps makes the Plan ineffective. WPC requests amendments to Policies SP1, SP13 and NE19 and the Policies Map. The grey-belt point should be tied to the specific national policy wording and evidence relied upon before submission.
Chapter 6 – Site Allocations
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection.
Soundness — Partly addressed, but not fully supported. The RAF Halton allocation is not justified and/or effective unless modified to address cumulative impacts, infrastructure commitments, closure timing, the development programme and supplementary planning coverage, with clear phasing, infrastructure triggers, safeguards and evidence updates.
Chapter 7 – Development Management Policies
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection.
Soundness — No, unless modified. The policies do not provide sufficient evidence or enforceable mechanisms to address cumulative growth, infrastructure capacity, settlement identity and environmental impacts. WPC seeks cumulative assessments, mapped safeguards and binding delivery requirements.
Appendices and Supporting Evidence
Legal compliance — No specific legal-compliance objection, although updates to the Sustainability Appraisal and the treatment of neighbourhood-plan evidence may support legal-compliance concerns.
Soundness — No, unless modified. Deficiencies in healthcare, transport, water and wastewater, and protection of the Chilterns National Landscape affect justification and/or effectiveness. Supporting evidence should be updated to assess the area cumulatively and set out delivery bodies, funding, phasing and occupation triggers.
Overall Conclusion
Legal compliance — Potential concerns remain. WPC requests clear evidence that consultation, the Sustainability Appraisal, the duty to cooperate and the treatment of neighbourhood-plan evidence satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
Soundness — No, unless the identified evidence base and policies are modified. Required updates include the Sustainability Appraisal, New and Expanded Settlement Study, Green Belt Assessment, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, transport, healthcare, education, water and wastewater evidence, and the Policies Map so that the Plan is justified and effective.
Comments