We asked, you said, we did

We asked for your views on the statutory notice to open a Cognition and Learning Unit at The Buckingham School. 

The representation period ran from 20 May to 16 June 2026.  

This followed an initial consultation on the proposal from 16 March to 26 April 2026.  

We received 3 responses to the statutory notice. 

All were in agreement with the proposal.  

View more information on the representations received.  

Together with the governing board of The Buckingham School, we have considered the representations received.  

On 27 July 2026, the Leader of the council together with the Cabinet member for Education and Children’s Services, approved the proposal to open a Cognition and Learning Unit at The Buckingham School in January 2027. 

We asked for your views on a statutory notice to open a Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) Unit at Broughton Community Schools. 

The representation period ran from 20 May to 16 June 2026. 

This followed the initial consultation on the proposal from 16 March to 26 April 2026.  

We received 75 responses to the statutory notice: 

• all were received through the online survey 
• 51 (68%) were in agreement, 17 (23%) did not agree and 7 (9%) didn’t know 

View more information on the representations received.  

Together with the governing board of Broughton Community Schools, we have considered the representations we received.  

On 27 July 2026, the Leader of the council together with the Cabinet member for Education and Children’s Services, approved the proposal to open a Social Emotional and Mental Health Unit at Broughton Community Schools in September 2027.  

We asked for your views on the draft Buckinghamshire Design Code. The draft Design Code set out requirements for seven key design topic areas:

• context
• identity
• built form
• movement
• nature
• homes and buildings
• resources

The consultation ran from 14 April to 12 May 2026.

We received 101 responses to the consultation.

Online respondents shared the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the stated requirements for each of the seven design topic areas:

Context topic area

Well‑designed places are those that are grounded in a thorough understanding of their site, context, history and culture, ensuring new development integrates positively with its surroundings, strengthens local character, and fosters a strong sense of place, belonging and community cohesion.

• 85.2% agreed or strongly agreed
• 11.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 3.7% didn't know

Identity topic area

A place’s identity arises from the combined experience of its buildings, spaces, landscape and community, with well‑designed, sustainable and visually attractive environments that reflect local character fostering pride, well‑being, inclusivity and a strong sense of belonging.

• 84.9% agreed or strongly agreed
• 13.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 1.9% didn't know

Built form topic area

Built form is the three‑dimensional arrangement of buildings, streets and spaces that together shape a place’s character, supporting walkable, sustainable, recognisable and memorable environments where people can comfortably live, work and visit.

• 79.6% agreed or strongly agreed
• 11.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 9.3% didn't know

Movement topic area

A well‑designed movement network creates safe, accessible and sustainable connections that shape the character and quality of places by prioritising walking, cycling and public transport, supporting social interaction and well-being, and integrating green infrastructure while efficiently linking people to destinations within and beyond a site.

• 75.5% agreed or strongly agreed
• 17.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 7.5% didn't know

Nature topic area

Well‑designed places integrate existing and new natural features into accessible, multifunctional green networks that enhance quality of place, support biodiversity and climate resilience, and promote health, well‑being, and social inclusion.

• 88.9% agreed or strongly agreed
• 9.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 1.9% didn't know

Homes and buildings topic area

Well‑designed homes and buildings create healthy, inclusive, adaptable and attractive environments that meet diverse user needs, support wellbeing and social interaction, and integrate unobtrusively into their surrounding spaces.

• 77.8% agreed or strongly agreed
• 11.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 11.1% didn't know

Resources topic area

Well-designed places use land and resources efficiently, minimise carbon emissions, and enhance climate mitigation and adaptation by creating compact, walkable, adaptable environments that reduce energy demand, support ecosystems, and lessen risks such as flooding, overheating, and pollution.

• 83.0% agreed or strongly agreed
• 15.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• 1.9% didn't know

 Respondents also raised the following:

• some businesses, developers and consultants thought that:
  • a code for the whole county doesn’t reflect local character and distinctiveness
  • the prescriptive elements of the code restrict flexibility in design
  • the code isn’t clear on what is mandatory and what is guidance
  • some aspects of the Code reduce the viability of development
• local interest groups and societies emphasised the need to protect the environment, natural landscapes and built heritage
• town and parish councils and councillors raised:
  • issues of the relationship between the Design Code and local guidelines such as neighbourhood plans, and the importance of preserving the character and distinctiveness of local settlements
  • the importance of landscape and context
  • the Code was too complex and lacked clarity
• sustainability, the environment, biodiversity and green infrastructure were widely seen as key issues by residents and members of the public. These respondents also raised:
  • the importance local identity and sense of place
  • mixed views on the requirements for built form and layout
  • that aspirations for alternative travel are unrealistic without supporting infrastructure
  • questions as to the clarity and usability of the Code, including how the mandatory and guidance elements are differentiated
  • concerns as the enforcement and monitoring of the Code

View the full consultation statement.

The strong support for the Design Code was noted and the issues raised by respondents were considered in detail.

To increase clarity and usability, we:

• reviewed the wording of the Code to make the distinction between mandatory requirements and guidance clearer
• reformatted the Code so that it is better structured and supported by diagrams

The amended Design Code was subject to scrutiny by the Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee at a meeting on 10 July 2026

The amended Design Code was approved for consultation, as part of the Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation, at a meeting of Cabinet on 22 July 2026. The Local Plan for Buckinghamshire Regulation 19 consultation launched on 23 July 2026

We asked for your feedback on our draft Parking Standards for New Developments in Buckinghamshire.

The consultation ran from 14 April to 12 May 2026.

We received 104 responses to the consultation:

• 67 individuals
• 37 organisations or bodies responding in a formal capacity including:
  • parish/town councils, developers/planners, local authority/public bodies, businesses, local interest groups

The following themes were supported by respondents:

• evidence requirements – evidence-led parking provision requires developers to demonstrate appropriate parking levels through robust evidence
• disabled parking – updated standards for disabled parking, including alignment with current blue badge guidance and building regulations
• design and layouts – wider bay dimensions and higher-quality design with a focus on the relationship between parking layout and local context
• cycle parking – adoption of nationally recognised standards

Respondents raised some opposition and concern around following themes:

• town centre zone – appropriateness of reduced parking standards in town centres
• car clubs – viability of car clubs outside of large urban areas

Some gaps in the draft standards on parking management, residential standards and governance and monitoring were also raised.

View the full consultation statement

We reviewed all the responses we received. The following updates to the standards were made as a result:

• clearer definitions to prevent avoidance of standards
• improved guidance on residential and house in multiple occupation (HMO) provision
• strengthened evidence requirements
• additional safeguards within the Town Centre Zone framework to prevent worsening parking conditions while reinforcing its alignment with the Local Plan
• clear distinction between minimum provision requirements and supporting management measures
• improvements to parking design, enforcement, management arrangements and monitoring including alignment with travel plan processes and Local Transport Plan monitoring
• clarifying car clubs and mobility hubs are not mandatory but context-dependent

The Parking Standards for New Developments was subject to scrutiny by the Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee at a meeting on 10 July.

The amended Parking Standards for New Developments was approved for consultation, as part of the Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation, at a meeting of Cabinet on 22 July 2026. The Local Plan for Buckinghamshire Regulation 19 consultation launched on 23 July 2026.

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. 

We asked to what degree you agreed or disagreed with each of nine proposed additions and two proposed exclusions to the Aylesbury Conservation Area. Full details can be found in the Aylesbury Conservation Area appraisal document. We also asked for general comments on the proposed revision to the Aylesbury Conservation Area appraisal and management plan.    

The consultation ran from 17 September to 29 October 2025. 

55 people responded to the consultation on Your Voice Bucks. 

People’s opinions on the proposed changes were as follows: 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add Highbridge Walk, Albion Street and Coronation Villas to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 23 (41.8%) 
• Agreed - 13 (23.6%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 0 
• Disagreed - 0 
• Strongly disagreed – 2 (3.6%) 
• Didn’t t know - 0 
• Didn’t answer – 17 (30.9%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add the Canal Basin and Waterside Theatre to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 22 (40.0%) 
• Agreed - 11 (20.0%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 3 (5.5%) 
• Disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn't know - 0 
• Didn’t answer - 17 (30.9%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add the Blue Leanie and grounds to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 12 (21.8%) 
• Agreed – 12 - (21.8%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 7 (12.7%) 
• Disagreed - 4 (7.3%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 3 (5.5%) 
• Didn't know - 0 
• Didn’t answer - 17 (30.9%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add Walton Parish Hall to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 16 (29.1%) 
• Agreed - 13 (23.6%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 6 (10.9%) 
• Disagreed - 0 
• Strongly disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn't know - 0 
• Didn’t answer - 19 (34.6%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add the Malt House and Granary, Walton, to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 19 (34.6%) 
• Agreed - 10 (18.2%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 3 (5.5%) 
• Disagreed - 2 (3.6%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn't know - 0 
• Didn’t answer - 20 (36.4%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add some areas of Buckingham Street to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 12 (21.8%) 
• Agreed - 15 (27.3%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 5 (9.1%) 
• Disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn't know - 0 
• Didn’t answer - 21 (38.2%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add Cambridge Street to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 15 (27.3%) 
• Agreed - 12 (21.8%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 6 (10.9%) 
• Disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn't know - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn’t answer - 19 (34.6%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add the southern and northern ends of the High Street to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 15 (27.3%) 
• Agreed - 9 (16.4%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 8 (14.6%) 
• Disagreed - 0 
• Strongly disagreed - 2 (3.6%) 
• Didn't know - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn’t answer - 20 (36.4%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to add Friars Square steps from Market Square to the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 6 (10.9%) 
• Agreed - 6 (10.9%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 10 (18.2%) 
• Disagreed - 8 (14.6%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 3 (5.5%) 
• Didn't know - 2 (3.6%) 
• Didn’t answer - 20 (36.4%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to exclude Chadbone Close from the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 9 (16.4%) 
• Agreed - 10 (18.2%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 7 (12.7%) 
• Disagreed - 3 (5.5%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 13 (23.6%) 
• Didn't know - 2 (3.6%) 
• Didn’t answer - 11 (20.0%) 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to exclude Green End and the bottom of Rickford’s Hill from the Aylesbury Conservation Area? 

• Strongly agreed - 12 (21.8%) 
• Agreed - 13 (23.6%) 
• Neither agreed nor disagreed - 9 (16.4%) 
• Disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Strongly disagreed - 1 (1.8%) 
• Didn't know - 0 
• Didn’t answer - 19 (34.6%) 

Key views expressed in the text responses to the survey were: 

• there is overwhelming support for including the New County Offices (a 1960s brutalist building) in the conservation area. Respondents argue it is architecturally and historically significant, and its omission leaves it vulnerable to demolition or unsympathetic development. 

• residents want earlier and more direct communication about proposed changes, especially those affecting their properties or neighbourhoods. 

• calls for clearer, more consistent criteria for what is included or excluded from the conservation area, especially when other modern buildings (like the Blue Leanie and Waterside Theatre) are included. 

• many recommend retaining Chadbone Close within the conservation area due to its historical connections, landscape, and wildlife value. 

• respondents suggest more funding and stricter enforcement of conservation standards, including traditional shopfronts, street furniture, and public spaces. 

The public consultation led to some changes to the proposed boundary.  Chadbone Close, which had been proposed to be removed, was retained within the Conservation Area.  There were many requests for Walton Street Offices/New County Offices to be included in the Conservation Area, including strong representation on this matter from Aylesbury Town Council. 

Having considered the site’s context and the wider objectives for the area, the Council has reviewed the potential inclusion of Walton Street Offices / the New County Offices within the Conservation Area. On balance, it has been decided not to extend the Conservation Area boundary to include this site, in order to retain flexibility to support appropriate regeneration and renewal in this part of the town centre, which is a Council priority. It is also noted that Walton Street Offices benefits from a Certificate of Immunity from Listing until 2028, which is a material consideration in this assessment. 

The amended Conservation Area Assessment for Aylesbury was adopted at a meeting of Buckinghamshire Council’s Cabinet on 1 July 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 consideration.

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.

Update: We are progressing to introduce the Traffic Regulation Order, which will come into effect on the 29th of July 2026. The Notice of Making (newspaper advert) will be published in the Bucks Herald.

As part of the ‘Regulation 18’ phase of Plan preparation, we asked for your views on parts of the emerging Local Plan and supporting evidence base documents. This included:

• Part A: spatial strategies for housing, employment, and provision for travelling communities,
• Part B: development management policies

The consultation ran from 17 September to 29 October 2025.

We received a total of 1,345 representations.

Key issues raised by respondents included:

Natural Environment

• Strong support for protecting the Green Belt, biodiversity and valued landscapes.
• Residents and town/parish councils raised concerns about loss of green space and settlement coalescence.
• Environmental groups sought stronger protections, while developers argued some requirements are too restrictive and affect viability.

Housing Spatial Strategy

• Debate focused on the scale and location of future growth.
• Residents and town/parish councils favoured a brownfield-first approach and were concerned about impacts on rural areas and the Green Belt.
• Developers supported a more flexible and ambitious strategy to meet housing needs and avoid under-delivery.

Transport

• Key concerns related to traffic congestion, road capacity and limited public transport, especially in rural areas.
• Stakeholders expressed differing views on how realistic a shift to sustainable travel modes would be.
• Developers sought greater flexibility, while transport bodies called for robust evidence and mitigation measures.

Infrastructure

• Responses highlighted pressure on water supply, healthcare, schools and other infrastructure.
• Many respondents called for infrastructure-led development to ensure services are delivered alongside growth.
• Developers raised concerns about viability and questioned who should be responsible for infrastructure delivery.

Climate Change

• There was broad support for taking action on climate change.
• Disagreement centred on how stringent policies should be, particularly regarding water efficiency standards.
• Town/parish councils and environmental bodies supported stronger measures, while developers raised viability concerns.

Built Environment

• Strong support was expressed for high-quality design, heritage protection and preserving local character.
• Residents and town/parish councils sought stronger safeguards to protect these assets.
• Developers emphasised the need for flexibility and deliverable policy requirements.

Read the full consultation statement and appendices on out Local Plan evidence pages.

In updating the draft Local Plan for the pre-submission consultation (Regulation 19), the following steps were taken in response to this consultation:

Natural Environment

We reviewed policies to ensure they are evidence-based and proportionate while still delivering effective environmental protection and enhancement.

Housing Spatial Strategy

We continued to prioritise brownfield development, refining the spatial approach through further evidence, and balancing housing delivery with environmental and infrastructure constraints.

Transport

We strengthened the evidence base, aligned transport with the spatial strategy, and ensured policies support sustainable travel while remaining proportionate and realistic.

Infrastructure

We prepared an Infrastructure Delivery Plan requiring development to mitigate impacts where appropriate, while working with providers to align growth with infrastructure provision.

Climate Change

We reviewed policies against updated evidence to ensure they are justified, deliverable and effective in addressing climate resilience and mitigation.

Built Environment

We refined policies to balance robust design standards with practical implementation, ensuring development is both high-quality and achievable.

The amended Local Plan was subject to scrutiny by the Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee at a meeting on 10 July.

The amended draft Local Plan was approved for Regulation 19 consultation at a meeting of Cabinet on 22 July 2026. The Local Plan for Buckinghamshire Regulation 19 consultation launched on 23 July 2026.

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. 

To introduce on-street paid parking bays and implement various parking restrictions to address congestion issues in Taplow, following the commencement of Elizabeth Line services at Taplow Railway Station in May 2022.

We proposed the following amendments in Taplow (Table 1):

Table 1- Road Extents and Proposed restrictions in Taplow

[Note 1]: Properties proposed to have Resident Permit Holders Only bays will be added to Schedule 5 of the Traffic Regulation Order. These will include the following properties:

• Boundary Road - All properties extending from 'The Lodge' to 'Baggotts Cottage'.

Charges relating to the Residents Permit Parking can be found in Schedule 4 (Permit and Ticket Parking Charges).

[Note 2]: The proposed pay-by-phone restrictions will have the following tariffs applied:

In total, 147 responses were received during the consultation as summarised in the below table:

Boundary Road

Double Yellow Lines:

• Support: Prevent commuter parking and improve road safety.
• Objection: Concerns about parking displacement and calls for improved station parking first.

Resident Permit Parking:

• Support: Protect resident parking from commuter use.
• Objection: Residents object to paying to park outside their own homes.

Limited Waiting 2hrs no return within 4hrs:

• Support: Discourage all-day commuter parking.
• Objection: Reduces parking availability for residents, visitors and allotment users.

Station Road

Double Yellow Lines:

• Support: Improve safety and traffic flow on a congested road.
• Objection: Inadequate station parking and risk of parking displacement.

Pay-by-Phone Parking:

• Support: Manage parking demand and reduce congestion.
• Objection: Seen as an unfair additional cost for commuters.

Approach Road

Double Yellow Lines:

• Support: Improve safety and prevent obstruction.
• Objection: Greater flexibility needed for passenger drop-offs and collections.

Revocation of Keep Clear Marking:

• Support: Improve access and drop-off arrangements.
• Objection: Station parking issues should be addressed first.

Pay-by-Phone Parking:

• Support: Reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.
• Objection: Opposition to parking charges and loss of resident convenience.

Limited waiting 10mins no return within 1hr:

• Support: Enable short-stay parking and improve safety.
• Objection: Time limit is impractical for residents and visitors.

No Stopping Except Taxis:

• Support: Reduce congestion and improve station access.
• Objection: Private drop-offs should have the same rights as taxis

Bath Road

Double Yellow Lines:

• Support: Keep a key route clear and prevent future parking issues.
• Objection: Little evidence of an existing parking problem.

Marsh Lane

Double Yellow Lines:

• Support: Improve safety at junctions and narrow sections.
• Objection: Retain some on-street parking for residents.

No waiting (9am-11am) (Single Yellow line):

• Support: Control commuter parking and improve traffic flow
• Objection: Inconveniences residents and may displace parking elsewhere.

Overall

• Support: Improved safety, reduced congestion and prevention of commuter parking.
• Objection: Parking charges, insufficient station parking and displacement of vehicles into nearby residential roads.

 

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

On 24th April 2026, a decision was made to proceed with implementing the TRO as advertised, subject to the following amendments:

•  Withdrawal of Double Yellow Lines on Boundary Road between property ‘The Lodge’ to ‘Baggotts Cottage’ on the south side of Boundary Road, supported by 66.66% of properties.

APPROVED the daily charges and season ticket prices as follows:

• For 1 Hour - £1.20
• For 2 Hours - £1.80
• Daily - £5.50
• Season Ticket - £995

You can find the decision here: Decision - Taplow Parking Schemes 25-26 - Modern Council

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.