What’s Wrong With The Bucks Plan

The Local Plan sets out how and where an additional 95000 homes can be accommodated in Buckinghamshire in the period to 2045. In relation to Shabbington it proposes 50 additional houses provided on four sites:

Objections to the Plan are only invited in relation to:

1. Positively prepared i.e appropriate process has been followed which follows national guidelines
2. Justified i.e. has the right strategy been adopted in relation to the evidence
3. Effectiveness – Can the development and the associated infrastructure be delivered
4. Consistent with National Policy – The Govt has a National Planning Framework which steers the Local Plan process

We are concerned about the short period allowed for this Regulation 19 consultation, especially as it falls over the summer period when many people are on holiday. In consequence we do question whether the Local Plan has been “Positively Prepared”.

Justified – We also question whether the Council has chosen the right strategy in relation to small site developments. The Local Settlement Review rightly exempted small communities which are too small to deliver sustainable development, but the 500 population criteria chosen by the Council selected creates anomalies and we believe a more practical and equitable approach would be to exempt small communities with 3 or fewer facilities, rather than taking a broad-brush population cut-off.

In the case of Shabbington with a population of 528, the village is categorised as Tier 5 with four sites (50 houses) allocated for development, yet there are villages with very similar populations (just under 500 people) with more facilities and better public transport links and they are not allocated any development. This makes no sense in relation to the expectation of sustainable development.   To illustrate the point in relation to Shabbington:

• Shabbington is a small village (approx. 200 homes). Development here cannot be sustainable because the village:
• Has no shop, school, post office, GP, pharmacy, dentist, library or leisure facilities
• No employment opportunities
• Has serious flooding issues which are getting worse year on year. This reduces accessibility on occasion the main road in to Shabbington (Mill Road) from the A418 is closed because of flooding at the Fisherman this occurred 66 times in 2024. On other occasions the Ickford Road is closed because of flooding on Rally Corner and occasionally both Mill Road and the Ickford Road are shut recorded as 25 times in 2024
• Has virtually no public transport
• Has narrow already overcrowded roads
• Its pub is frequently inaccessible due to flooding.
• Fifty new houses would increase the size of the village by 25%. This would change the character of this rural community and add to already under strain infrastructure
• Currently village school children attend the local comprehensive school in Thame Oxfordshire. With significant additional development planned for Thame, the school catchment area is expected to exclude Shabbington pupils and in consequence even longer journeys will be required for schoolchildren. We can see no evidence that sensible cross boundary consultation has gone on with Oxfordshire about this major There are no other secondary schools nearby. We question whether the “Effectiveness” test has been met.
• The village sits in a very rural environment which is home to numerous endangered species g. curlews, great-crested newts. Development will endanger these important sites
• The village is already the main access road to industrial sites in Worminghall. Furthermore, large scale developments in nearby Ickford is adding hugely to traffic through Shabbington. The network is already under strain, and it is not physically possible to improve the road network except with a bypass which would not be financially viable.
• We do not believe the 4 sites in Shabbington have been properly assessed in the Planning process. There are significant practical problems with each of the sites e.g vehicular access. One of the sites has previously been the subject of a planning application which was rejected by the planners.