Bucks Council are looking to allocate land for c.90,000 homes across the county, including on Green Belt land. They are running a public consultation on where the homes and business development should go. Last time they did this, they allocated 1,700 homes, a travellers' site, and an office park on Beaconsfield's Green Belt and allocated Alton's and Warwick Road car parks for development too. That plan was thrown out by the Planning Inspector in 2020.
This is the last chance to comment before land is allocated for development in the new emerging Bucks Local Plan. Beaconsfield will be in their sights again, so we need everyone in your household to reply to the consultation by 29th October. Ignoring this will make Beaconsfield a soft target and we need to show Bucks Council that our town matters to us.
We have created a suggested template response, below, but please do use your own words and ideas. Please could everyone in your household reply to the consultation. You can read about the Local Plan here: https://yourvoicebucks.citizenspace.com/planning/local-plan/
Please share this far and wide so that everyone in the town knows about this and has the chance to reply to the consultation. If you can help us by delivering some leaflets in your area so we can make sure every home in Beaconsfield gets one, please get in touch at thebecsoc@gmail.com.
The easiest way to respond to the consultation is by email to: planningpolicyteam.bc@buckinghamshire.gov.uk. Some suggestions for your response are below.
REMEMBER to add your name and address
REMEMBER each member of your household can send in their own comments. Each one counts separately.
Thank you for helping to protect our town.
...................................
To Bucks Council Planning Policy Team,
Please take the following points into consideration in the emerging Local Plan consultation:
Part A - Spatial Strategies
• The withdrawn Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan placed an unacceptably large burden on Beaconsfield. This must not happen again. Development should be spread equitably across the towns and villages in the region.
• Wilton Park is an existing major development site close to, but separate from, Beaconsfield. This is being more densely developed than originally planned. Therefore, this should be taken into account and limit further new development in Beaconsfield.
• The area east of Beaconsfield is not the most sustainable, convenient or acceptable area for development due to its character, sensitivities and fulfilment of Green Belt purposes. It should remain as protected Green Belt land. The Council’s previous Green Belt assessment of this land was highly flawed.
Part B - Development Management Policies
• The Green Belt land east of Beaconsfield is the most widely enjoyed Green Belt area in the town and its protection is a priority. It frames our town; there are important views into and from it; it is a popular walking and running route; it enables access to open countryside; it lies within the setting of the AONB; it provides habitats and foraging grounds for protected species; it contains ancient and veteran trees and strongly performs the Green Belt purposes.
• Green belt is being threatened by a need which is not based on reality and its release does not solve the housing affordability problem - the green belt is potentially lost and housing remains unaffordable, a lose-lose outcome. The standard housing calculation method results in ever-greater targets, as more housing means even bigger future targets.
• So-called “affordable housing” is not affordable and would not result in truly affordable housing.
• New private housing estates have expensive service charges because roads, footpaths and open spaces are not adopted by the Council, again meaning that new housing is not affordable.
• Residents are frustrated that road congestion and lack of parking only get increasingly worse. Road improvements, additional doctors' appointments and hospital beds, the need for far shorter NHS waiting lists must all be addressed urgently.
• Our water supply and sewerage service are under stress and additional capacity must be provided urgently.
• To avoid unnecessary proliferation of telecoms masts, and to improve mobile coverage, the sharing (and disguising) of masts should be required.