Winslow Conservation Area appraisal consultation

We asked for your views on four proposed boundary changes to the Winslow Conservation Area. Two of these were additions, and the other two were reductions. Full details can be found in the Winslow Conservation Area appraisal document. We also asked for general comments on the proposed revision to the Winslow Conservation Area appraisal and management plan.

The consultation ran from 17 September to 29 October 2025. 

There were eight responses to the consultation, with overall support for three of the proposed boundary changes, and equally for and against on the fourth. 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove Claremont Close from the Winslow Conservation Area? 

• 4 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• 2 people neither agreed nor disagreed 
• No-one disagreed 
• 2 people didn’t answer 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the redeveloped Old Vicarage and Old Rectory Close areas from the Winslow Conservation Area? 

• 3 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• 1 person neither agreed nor disagreed 
• 3 people disagreed or strongly disagreed 
• 1 person didn’t answer 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Winslow Conservation Area to include parts of Park Road and Avenue Road? 

• 5 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• 1 person neither agreed nor disagreed 
• 1 person strongly disagreed 
• 1 person didn’t answer 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add number 34 Station Road to Winslow Conservation Area? 

• 5 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• 1 person neither agreed nor disagreed 
• No-one disagreed 
• 2 people didn’t answer 

Key themes in the text responses were: 

• Controversy over inclusions and exclusions: The inclusion of Park Road in the conservation area was viewed with suspicion by some, who saw it as politically motivated. Mixed views were recorded over the proposed exclusions.  
• Support for heritage features: There was support for preserving historic walls, trees, and the character of older areas, but also concern about the burden of conservation rules on homeowners.  
• Environmental and quality of life issues: Respondents wanted more attention given to wildlife corridors, pollution, and the impact of traffic, as well as improvements to public spaces and lighting.  
• General sentiment: There was a desire for more community involvement and clarity on how residents can contribute to conservation efforts. 

Concerns regarding political motivation were proved to be unfounded, therefore it was deemed unnecessary to amend the proposed boundary. The environmental and quality of life issues that respondents raised were beyond the scope of the management plan. 

The proposed conservation boundary changes and the appraisal and management plan were therefore adopted unchanged by Buckinghamshire Council’s Cabinet at a meeting on 21 April 2026.