We asked, you said, we did

We asked for views on whether you agreed with opening a Cognition and Learning Unit at The Buckingham School.  

The consultation ran from 16 March to 26 April 2026.  

We received 29 responses to the consultation: 

• 28 online survey responses 
• 1 email response 

On the proposal to open a new Cognition and Learning Unit, of the 29 who responded: 

• 24 were in agreement with the proposal; 4 did not agree; 1 didn’t know 
• 29 said that they understood why the proposal had been made 

View more information on the representations received.  

Together with the Governing Board of The Buckingham School, we have considered the responses to the consultation.  

In view of the need for Cognition and Learning provision and having taken into account all responses received, on 20 May 2026 we published a statutory proposal to open a Cognition and Learning Unit at The Buckingham School.

We asked for views on whether you agreed with opening a Social Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) Unit at Broughton Community Schools. 

The consultation ran from 16 March to 26 April 2026.  

We received 64 responses to the consultation: 

• 48 online survey responses 
• 5 email and postal responses 
• 11 responses handed in at the school 

On the proposal to open a new SEMH Unit, of the 64 who responded: 

• 41 were in agreement with the proposal; 17 did not agree; 6 didn’t know 
• 62 said that they understood why the proposal had been made 

View more information on the representations received. 

Together with the Governing Board of Broughton Community Schools, we have considered the responses to the consultation.  

In view of the need for Social Emotional and Mental Health provision and having taken into account all responses received, on 20 May 2026 we published a statutory proposal to open a SEMH Unit at Broughton Community Schools. 

We asked for views on a statutory notice for the proposed closure of Little Marlow Church of England School. 

The representation period ran from 27 February to 26 March 2026. 

This followed an initial consultation undertaken by the school on the proposed closure, which ran from 27 November 2025 to 22 January 2026. 

We received one representation.  

The response was from the online survey and was not in support of the proposal.

On 7 May 2026, the Leader of Buckinghamshire Council approved the closure of Little Marlow Church of England School with effect from 31 August 2026. 

Buckinghamshire Council introduced the Chesham Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) in late 2024 to trial a series of changes in Chesham Town Centre aimed at improving access, safety, and town‑centre operations.

During the initial 6-month consultation period, 128 comments were received.

During the 3-week additional period in 2026, over 1,300 comments were made.

Buckinghamshire Council has decided to let the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) expire, which expired on 17th April 2026, and revert to the original restrictions.

We wanted to hear your views on proposed changes to the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, which exists to support the lowest income households by reducing the amount of Council Tax they must pay. Further details can be found in the overview section at the bottom of this page. 

The consultation ran from 17 December 2025 to 2 February 2026.

• 518 responses were received to the consultation.  

• Of the 365 respondents that chose to say where they lived, 357 (97.8%) were Buckinghamshire residents. 

• Of the 363 respondents that chose to say, 115 (31.7%) were currently in receipt of Council Tax reduction. 

The headline survey results were as follows. Please note that some percentages do not add up exactly to 100 due to rounding. 

Do you agree with the proposal to introduce an income banded scheme for all working age applicants? 

• Yes – 214 (41.2%) 

• No – 224 (43.3%) 

• Don’t know – 79 (15.3%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to create a standard Non Dependant Deduction of £5 per week? 

• Yes – 237 (49.0%) 

• No – 131 (27.1%) 

• Don’t know – 116 (24.0%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to disregard certain elements of Universal Credit? 

• Yes – 254 (55.6%) 

• No – 139 (30.4%) 

• Don’t know – 65 (14%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to replace the current earnings disregards with a standard £25 per week? 

• Yes – 224 (51.4%) 

• No – 124 (28.4%) 

• Don’t know – 88 (20.2%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to continue to protect families by disregarding Child Benefit and Child Maintenance? 

• Yes – 265 (62.1%) 

• No – 120 (28.1%) 

• Don’t know – 42 (9.8%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to continue to disregard Personal Independence Payments, Armed Forces Independence Payments and Disability Living Allowance and providing a disregard of £50 where the applicant, partner or dependant is in receipt of one of those benefits? 

• Yes – 261 (63.2%) 

• No – 87 (21.1%) 

• Don’t know – 65 (15.7%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a new disregard for the support component of Employment and Support Allowance and Carer's Allowance? 

• Yes – 275 (68.3%) 

• No – 72 (17.9%) 

• Don’t know (13.9%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to protect War Pensioners by continuing to disregard War Pensions or War Disablement pensions in full? 

• Yes – 319 (80.0%) 

• No – 49 (12.3%) 

• Don’t know – 31 (7.8%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to reduce the capital limit to £6,000? 

• Yes – 171 (42.9%) 

• No – 196 (49.1%) 

• Don’t know – (8.0%) 

Do you agree with the proposal to remove the Extended Payment provision? 

• Yes – 236 (60.1%) 

• No – 88 (22.4%) 

• Don’t know – 69 (17.6%) 

Do you agree that Transitional Relief should only apply to households receiving CTR on the scheme change date? 

• Yes – 194 (50.8%) 

• No – 96 (25.1%) 

• Not sure – 92 (24.1%) 

Do you agree that households losing £10 or less per week should not receive Transitional Relief? 

• Yes – 166 (44.2%) 

• No – 121 (32.2%) 

• Not sure – 89 (23.7%) 

Do you agree with the way Transitional Relief is calculated (tiered approach and cap)? 

• Yes – 148 (39.0%) 

• No – 113 (29.8%) 

• Not sure – 119 (31.3%) 

You can find an in-depth report on the survey responses in the document Council Tax Reduction Scheme Proposals for 2026/27  

As the consultation responses expressed a broad level of support for the proposals, it was decided that the proposed level of funding would deliver a fair balance between maintaining support for lower income households and providing income to deliver wider Council services. 

The new Council Tax Reduction Scheme was adopted as part of setting the overall budget for 2026/27 at a full meeting of Buckinghamshire Council on 25 February 2026. 

We asked for your views on the proposal to introduce a PSPO to prohibit the use of any equine animals and associated carriages along two designated stretches of carriageway.  

The consultation ran from 20 November 2025 to 4 January 2026. 

We received 1,532 online responses to the consultation.  

A413, both sides of the carriageway from Joiners Lane at the A413 roundabout, Chalfont St Peter, travelling south to the junction of the A413 (Oxford Road and Amersham Road) Denham. 

On whether it was felt there was a problem with pony and trap racing on this section of the A413: 

• 1,501 respondents believed there was a problem  
• 23 respondents did not  
• 7 respondents didn’t know 
• 1 didn’t answer 

On the introduction of a PSPO: 

• 1,448 respondents supported the introduction 
• 72 of respondents did not  
• 9 respondents didn’t know  
• 3 didn’t answer 

A40, both sides of the carriageway from Pyebush roundabout, Beaconsfield, travelling southeast to the junction of the A413 (Oxford Road and Amersham Road) Denham. 

On whether it was felt there was a problem with pony and trap racing on this section of the A40: 

• 1,193 respondents believed there was a problem  
• 25 respondents did not  
• 309 respondents didn’t know  
• 5 didn’t answer 

On the introduction of a PSPO: 

• 1,276 respondents supported the introduction 
• 77 of respondents did not  
• 173 respondents didn’t know  
• 6 didn’t answer 

Road safety and animal welfare concerns were the leading sentiments that supported introducing the PSPO.  

Culture and tradition was the largest theme against introduction. 

More information about the consultation responses. 

On 5 May 2026, the Leader of Buckinghamshire Council agreed to introduce the Pony and Trap PSPO.  

The Buckinghamshire Council A40 and A413 PSPO will be introduced from 9 May 2026. 

We asked for your views on proposed changes to our Home to School Transport Policy (0 to 25 year olds) and our Post-16 Transport Policy Statement for 2026 to 2027.

The consultation ran from 26 September to 16 November 2025.

We received 20 responses to the consultation:

• 18 online responses
• 2 email responses

Key themes raised included:

• concerns about walking distances and safety for children, especially in areas without nearby schools
• affordability and fairness of transport fees, with several respondents describing costs as unaffordable
• requests for clearer, more accessible policy documents and simplified summaries for parents
• suggestions to improve transport arrangements for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)
• calls for more sustainable and cost-effective transport solutions

View the analysis report (PDF 0.38MB).

We reviewed the responses to the consultation and made changes to the policies to provide additional clarification as a result. View the post-consultation summary (PDF 0.27MB).

On 24 April 2026, the Leader agreed to adopt the Home to School Transport Policy (0 to 25 year olds) and Post-16 Transport Policy Statement for 2026 to 2027.

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. 

We asked to what degree respondents agreed or disagreed with each of four proposed extensions and two proposed reductions to Haddenham Conservation Area. Full details can be found in the Haddenham Conservation Area appraisal document. We also asked for general comments on the proposed revision to the Haddenham Conservation Area appraisal and management plan. 

The consultation ran from 17 September to 29 October 2025. 

There were 16 responses to the consultation, with overall support for the proposed boundary changes. 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Haddenham Conservation Area to include the green spaces on Rudd's Lane and Rosemary Lane that make up the 'Northern Green Gateway'? 

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

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Haddenham Conservation Area to include number 18 Townside? 

• 15 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• No-one disagreed 
• 1 person didn’t answer 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Haddenham Conservation Area to include Windmill Road Terrace? 

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

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Haddenham Conservation Area to include the wide verges along Churchway? 

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

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to exclude Stokes Croft from the Haddenham Conservation Area? 

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

Do you agree with the proposal to adjust the boundary of the Haddenham Conservation Area so that the gardens of these properties are entirely outside of it? 

• 11 people said yes 
• 2 people said no 
• 2 people didn’t know 
• 1 person didn’t answer 

Key themes in the text responses were: 

• Heritage and accuracy: respondents pointed out inaccuracies in the appraisal, such as mislabelled buildings and missing features (e.g., witchert walls and privies).  
• Development concerns: there was frustration over recent developments, loss of amenities, and the impact on village character. Some felt the conservation area review is out of touch with local needs.  
• Support for conservation area extensions: There was support for extending the conservation area to protect rural settings and historic views, but also concern about the effectiveness of such measures given ongoing development pressures.  
• General sentiment: many felt the village’s character is being eroded by new housing and insufficient infrastructure, and want more protection for green spaces and historic features. 

We are grateful to those respondents who found errors in the document which were corrected. The management plan was also updated to address other concerns that were expressed. 

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

The reason for this proposal is that the development has been designed to have minimal street lighting (a policy known as 'dark sky''). However, this would create a situation where the speed limit would default to National Speed (i.e., 60mph for single - carriageways). As set in the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA) 1984, a restricted road is defined as follows:

"[...] there is provided on it a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards [183 metres] apart;"

- Section 82(1a) of the RTRA 1984

In addition to the above, Section 81 of the aforementioned Act refers to the following:

"It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding than 30 miles per hour."

-Section 81(1) of the RTRA 1984

As the road, which will be within the development, will not satisfy the provisions set out in Section 82(1a), and would therefore be unrestricted, the solution is to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), thereby restricting the road to 30mph.

In total, 27 responses were received during the consultation:

• 15 (55.56%) in support
• 11 (40.74%) objecting
• 1 (3.70%) was unsure

The objections received were mainly focused on further reducing the proposal to 20mph. Residents felt that with the development housing families with children with nearby playgrounds, the speed limit should not be 30mph.

Other issues outside of this consultation were raised. Improvements suggested by residents included crossings, extending the existing 20mph speed limit zone and reducing the existing speed limit on the B4009 Lower Icknield Way from 40mph to 30mph.

Following the consultation, a decision report was produced and submitted to the Council for a decision.

On 6th January 2026, a decision was made to proceed with implementing the TRO as advertised.

You can find the decision here: Decision - Arabella Park, Little Kimble - Proposed 30mph Speed Limit - Modern Council.

Currently, we are awaiting confirmation from the developer before proceeding to make the TRO enforceable.

We asked to what degree respondents agreed or disagreed with each of four proposed extensions to Buckingham Conservation Area. Full details can be found in the Buckingham Conservation Area appraisal document. We also asked for general comments on the proposed revision to the Buckingham Conservation Area appraisal and management plan. 

The consultation ran from 17 September to 29 October 2025. 

There were 20 responses to the consultation, with overall support for the proposed boundary changes. 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Buckingham Conservation Area along Moreton Road? 

• 13 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• 1 person neither agreed nor disagreed 
• 1 person disagreed 
• 1 person didn’t know 
• 4 people didn’t answer 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Buckingham Conservation Area along Stowe Avenue and including Stowe Rise? 

• 15 people agreed or strongly agreed 
• 2 people strongly disagreed 
• 1 person didn’t know 
• 2 people didn’t answer 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Buckingham Conservation Area along the North-west end of Mitre Street and part of Gawcott Road, including Buckingham Railway Walk west? 

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

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to extend Buckingham Conservation Area along Station Road and to include the Royal Latin School and Buckingham Railway Walk east? 

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

Key themes in the text responses were:  

• Support for conservation area extensions: many supported extending the conservation area to include places like Stowe Avenue, Stowe Rise, and the Railway Walk, citing the importance of protecting green spaces, historic buildings, and the town’s character.  
• Concerns about consistency: some respondents highlighted inconsistencies in what is included or excluded, questioning the rationale for certain boundaries and the omission of notable sites.  
• Practical concerns: there were worries about the cost and practicality of maintaining properties under conservation rules, and calls for clear guidance and support for residents.  
• General feedback: respondents emphasised the need for better enforcement, statutory consultation with heritage officers, and more attention to the town’s evolving history. 

Visits were made to sites that respondents said should have been included within the new boundary. The sites were evaluated and deemed as not meeting the criteria for inclusion. The management plan was updated to reflect practical concerns that were expressed. 

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

We asked you to help us shape our corporate priorities and tell us which services you think should be prioritised in our budget next year.

Each year we must prepare a budget. All councils have a legal duty to limit their spending to the income they receive each year - our budget must balance.

Most of our annual budget needs to be spent on the services we are required by law to provide, such as social care for adults and children.

We consulted on the proposed corporate priorities, budget allocation and service priorities from 28 August to 9 October 2025.

We received 1160 responses to the consultation:

• 1156 online responses
• 1 postal responses
• 3 email responses

Over 200 residents also provided feedback at Bucks County Show on 28 August 2025.

Views on the draft corporate priorities:

• Opportunity and aspiration for all:
  • 75.1% agreed; 9.2% disagreed; 14.5% neither agreed nor disagreed
• Shaping great places:
  • 74.1% agreed; 11.9% disagreed; 13.2% neither agreed nor disagreed
• Thriving communities:
  • 62.3% agreed; 15.3% disagreed; 20.8% neither agreed nor disagreed
• Supporting the most vulnerable:
  • 75.9% agreed; 9.5% disagreed; 13.2% neither agreed nor disagreed

Views on proposed allocation of annual budget for 2026 to 2027:

• 34.3% of respondents agreed with the proposed allocation of Buckinghamshire Council’s annual budget for 2025 to 2026
• 26.8% of respondents disagreed with the proposal
• 36.6% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal

The top 10 services where respondents felt we should prioritise funding:

1. Care and support for older people and vulnerable adults (53.7%)
2. Road maintenance (43.3%)
3. Community safety (41.4%)
4. Educational services (38.6%)
5. Maintaining parks, open spaces, playing fields and the countryside (30.3%)
6. Protecting the environment (26.7%)
7. Housing (24.3%)
8. Services and support for children and young people (22.6%)
9. Pavement maintenance including footpaths (22.4%)
10. Public transport (20.5%)

The top 10 services where respondents felt we should not prioritise funding:

1. Public Health services (46.2%)
2. Culture and tourism (37.5%)
3. Car parking (35.0%)
4. Library services (30.5%)
5. Planning services (24.0%)
6. Services to attract and support local businesses (23.9%)
7. Sport and leisure services (22.2%)
8. Housing (21.6%)
9. Town centre regeneration (20.0%)
10. Environmental health (18.8%)

More information about the budget consultation results (PDF 1.0MB).

Budget

The consultation responses were considered by Cabinet, alongside the final budget report, at its meeting on 8 January 2026.

During the week of 12 January 2026, the Budget Scrutiny Inquiry Task and Finish Group reviewed and challenged the budget proposals.

They made recommendations on potential change to the budget which were presented to Cabinet on 10 February 2026.

At its meeting on 25 February 2026, Buckinghamshire Council approved the proposed budget allocation for 2026 to 2027.

Corporate Plan priorities

The Corporate Plan will be presented to Council on 15 April 2026 for adoption.

We asked for views on a statutory notice to open a Communication and Interaction (Autism) Unit for pupils in Years 3-6 (Key Stage 2) at Iver Village Junior School.

The representation period ran from 12 September to 9 October 2025. 

This followed an initial consultation on the proposal from 25 June to 5 August 2025. 

We received 4 responses to the statutory notice. 

All were received through the online survey and agreed with the proposal to open a Communication and Interaction Unit.

View more information on the representations received. 

Together with the Governing Body of Iver Village Junior School we have considered the representations we received. 

On 1 December 2025, the Leader of Buckinghamshire Council together with the Cabinet member for Education and Children’s Services, approved the proposal to open a Communication and Interaction (Autism) Unit at Iver Village Junior School opening in January 2026. 

We asked for views on the introduction and harmonisation of fees associated with mobile home site licensing.

The consultation ran from 30 June to 24 August 2025.

We received eight responses to the consultation:

• none of the respondents disagreed with the proposal to harmonise the approach to mobile home site fees across the whole council area
• none of the respondents disagreed with the methodology used when setting the proposed fees
• five out of the eight respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed level of fees, two either strongly disagreed or disagreed

View the consultation analysis report (PDF 0.16MB).

On Tuesday 23 September 2025, Licensing Committee agreed to adopt the Mobile Homes Site Licensing Fees Policy with effect from 1 October 2025.

We asked for views on whether you agreed with opening a Communication and Interaction (Autism) Unit at Iver Village Junior School. 

The consultation ran from 25 June to 5 August 2025.

We received 10 responses to the consultation: 

• 7 online survey responses 
• 3 email and postal responses 

On the proposal to open a new Communication and Interaction (Autism) Unit, of the 10 who responded: 

• 9 (90%) were in agreement with the proposal; 1 (10%) did not agree; 0 (0%) didn’t know 
• 10 (100%) said that they understood why the proposal had been made 

Together with the Governing Board of Iver Village Junior School, we have considered the responses to the consultation. 

In view of the need for SEND provision and having taken into account all responses received, on 12 September 2025 we published a statutory proposal to open a Communication and Interaction (Autism) Unit at Iver Village School. 

We asked for your views on the proposed installation of CCTV cameras to cover the town and other central areas of eight locations which do not currently have cameras and four locations where we proposed additional cameras. 

The consultation ran from 23 June to 3 August 2025.

We received 603 responses to the online survey. 

In each of the proposed locations over 50% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the installation of CCTV cameras:

• Amersham Old Town 56% 
• Chalfont St Giles 53% 
• Farnham Common 52% 
• Great Missenden 55% 
• Holmer Green 54% 
• Iver 61% 
• Wendover 54% 
• Winslow 58% 
• Amersham 62% 
• Buckingham 57% 
• Castlefield, High Wycombe 70% 
• Gerrards Cross 57% 

In response to the impact of CCTV cameras accompanied by monitoring notices:

• over 75% believed it reduced crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour 
• over 70% said it made them safer 
• 44% disagreed it impacted their privacy compared to 26% that said it did 

56% strongly agreed or agreed CCTV is used by the council and police in an appropriate manner. 

We also received emails voicing support or raising additional queries. The key themes were:

• feeling safer and visible deterrence 
  • reflecting the belief that CCTV makes people feel safer and is a visible deterrence 
• community safety versus privacy concerns 
  • residents weighing up the effective use of CCTV versus privacy concerns 
• police and local authority responsibility  
  • how CCTV works and supports the police and can support enforcement 
• crime awareness and public perception 
  • how CCTV influences behaviour and awareness of the public 
• anti-social behaviour and local issues  
  • concerns at anti-social behaviour and the desire for proactive solutions, including CCTV 

The consultation feedback has been considered by the CCTV Projects and Community Safety teams. 

In partnership with our key stakeholders including Thames Valley Police, town and parish councils, and local councillors we are investigating apporpriate installation sites for CCTV cameras. Town and parish councils affected will share the information in their newsletters when the cameras are in place. It is expected that new cameras will be installed later this year. 

It is a legal requirement for the Buckinghamshire Health and Wellbeing Board, in common with the other Health and Wellbeing Boards across the country, to draw up a new Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment (PNA) every three years to ensure that the pharmacy network in the area is meeting the needs of those that live and work there.  

The statutory consultation on the new PNA was preceded by a survey in which we asked residents and other individuals about their experience of using pharmacies in Buckinghamshire. 

Overall, the feedback to the survey was very positive. Of the 197 respondents, all but one reported a satisfactory or good experience with accessing pharmacy services. 

The information gained in the survey was used to inform the next stage of development of the PNA, which then went out to statutory consultation from 14 May to 13 July 2025. 

In total six people responded to the consultation via email or via our consultation survey, they represented:  

• four members of the public 

• Oxfordshire County Council 

• Boots UK limited 

The responses were positive, and are presented in the consultation report which is published as Appendix D of the adopted PNA. 

Responses to the consultation were considered by the PNA steering group before the PNA went forward to the Buckinghamshire Health and Wellbeing Board. It was adopted for publication at a meeting on 18 September 2025. 

View the adopted Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment 2025-2028. 

Buckinghamshire Council introduced the Chesham Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) in late 2024 to trial a series of changes in Chesham Town Centre aimed at improving access, safety, and town‑centre operations.

 

During the initial 6-month consultation period, 128 comments were received.

During the 3-week additional period in 2026, over 1,300 comments were made.

Buckinghamshire Council has decided to let the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) expire, which expired on 17th April 2026, and revert to the original restrictions.

 

We asked for your views on the draft Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) for Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes.

The consultation ran from 10 February to 24 March 2025.

We received 112 responses to the consultation:

• 70 individual responses
• 42 responses on behalf of organisations

Priorities with the highest levels of importance were:

• Priority 10: Improve river quality (89%)
• Priority 16: Create more space for nature when designing new development (79%)
• Priority 1: Conserve, create, enhance and restore trees and woodland habitats (78%)
• Priority 18: Connect habitats to make wildlife corridors and stepping stones at landscape scale (75%)
• Priority 9: Renaturalise river habitats using appropriate habitat restoration techniques and enhance the ecological value of river corridors and their floodplains (77%)
• Priority 2: Conserve, create enhance and restore hedgerows and field margins (76%)

View the detailed analysis report (PDF 2MB).

We considered all the responses we received and made changes to the strategy as a result:

• Description of nature:
  • minor changes to further emphasise importance to nature recovery of areas such as wetlands and importance of insects
  • addition of summary table of priorities and measures, and species shortlist

• Themes, priorities and measures:
  • minor amends to wording of specific priorities and measures, simplification of some language, merging of some measures and priorities
  • addition of some new species measures
• Species:
  • species shortlist amended to include some additional species e.g. ringed plover
  • amendments to habitat measures in the priorities and measures to include more information on how these measures can help specific species
  • addition of 10 mapped species measures e.g. water vole, otter and bittern
• Mapping:
  • several functionality improvements to aid users of the map
  • additions and removals of some sites

View an overview of the amendments made post consultation (PDF 2MB).

On 21 October 2025, Cabinet agreed to adopt the LNRS for Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes.

The Secretary of State will now be notified of our intention to publish the LNRS for Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes in accordance with the requirements of the LNRS Regulations 2023.

The driver suitability consultation took place separately from the previous consultation on taxi licensing best practice because we were awaiting publication of the Institute of Licensing’s updated Suitability Guidance.

The approval to delay consultation on suitability issues was granted at a meeting of the Licensing Committee met on 18 July 2024.

The driver suitability consultation took place between 27 January and 9 March 2025.

There were 191 responses to the online survey.

• See the full response results to the quantitative (number-based) survey questions.
• See the full response results to the qualitative (text-based) survey questions.

The detailed results of this consultation, together with those from the previous consultation on taxi licensing best practice were used to inform the policy change recommendations that were presented to a meeting of the Licensing (Public Protection) Committee on 19 January 2026.

• Report to committee with a comparative table of policy recommendations and consultation responses.
• Detailed commentary on policy recommendations.

The proposed policy changes were approved by the committee, and the updated hackney carriage and private hire licensing policy was adopted at a further meeting of the Licensing (Public Protection) Committee on 19 March 2026, with an agreed implementation date of 1 September 2026, subject to any specific phased timelines set out in the revised policy.