Part A Spatial Strategy - Draft Local Plan for Buckinghamshire (Reg 18)
6. Local Plan Spatial Strategy
Housing
National policy requires that we meet objectively assessed housing needs, including any unmet needs from neighbouring authorities, where it is practical to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development. The latest Government's standard method was used to calculate Buckinghamshire's objectively assessed housing need which identified a requirement of 4,332 new homes a year and just under 91,000 new homes for the plan period. This is around 95,000 homes when including a 5% buffer. We already have just over 22,000 homes committed for development from existing local plans, neighbourhood plans and planning permissions[2]. This leaves an outstanding figure of just under 69,000 new homes needed to meet our future housing needs for Buckinghamshire. National policy requires that we are able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply with an appropriate buffer from the date of Local Plan adoption.
This draft Local Plan is underpinned by seven different strategic approaches for development in certain locations, which is informed by different sources of land supply including four call for sites exercises. These approaches are informed by a Sustainability Appraisal Report which has appraised each strategic approach against a series of sustainability objectives. It shows which approaches perform better and their significance.
The seven approaches for housing growth areas are set out below. It is likely all these strategic approaches will be required to meet our housing need.
The potential housing supply for each approach is based on our initial sites assessment which is still ongoing, over 1600 sites have been promoted to the council for consideration in the Local Plan. In the last call for sites over 500 were received, these are currently being assessed and do not make up this potential housing supply. Homes which have been identified as potentially suitable are based on an initial assessment, further technical studies need to be completed before being taking forward for an allocation.
The assessments of capacity for each approach have been presented as a range. This reflects the uncertainty at this stage and that further work is needed to better understand capacity and delivery rates. There is no double counting of sites between the seven strategic approaches
Approach 1: Brownfield Sites within Existing Towns and Villages
Description
This approach focuses on brownfield development and regeneration. This will provide more homes and jobs on underused land in town centres and in existing settlements. This could be by building taller buildings and / or redeveloping underused sites at higher densities.
This approach considers brownfield sites in our towns and villages. This approach has the potential to deliver 1,500-2,500 potential homes. This provides for a variety of small to medium sized sites which take less time to deliver than when compared to large strategic extension or new settlement.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Reduces the need to allocate greenfield sites. |
Care will have to be taken to ensure development enhances the quality of place, respects the character and identity, and does not result in the loss of valued open spaces. |
| Reduces the need to travel by car and makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change while planning for growth. | Access to natural areas and large green spaces may be more difficult. |
|
Allows people to live close to a good range of local shops, services, and entertainment as well as employment opportunities. |
Finding suitable sites within existing urban areas for new facilities and infrastructure may be difficult and expensive to acquire and develop. |
|
Development in centres can provide a range of tenure choice. |
Some infrastructure is likely to require major upgrades, e.g. water and wastewater. |
|
This approach can support regeneration in our towns, with the creation of healthy neighbourhoods where public spaces and community assets are enhanced, creating a sense of place and making sustainable travel options easier to access and more enjoyable. |
May have to deal with constraints from established development, especially in built-up areas, when providing new infrastructure. |
|
Increasing the people living in urban areas will support more viable and active high streets, and more walkable, green, and interesting streets and public places to improve physical and mental health. |
Land assembly and delivery can be more challenging in existing urban areas. |
|
Makes better use of existing infrastructure and facilities. |
Lower value employment sites tend to be lost because of redevelopment but there is still a need for these types of local facilities, e.g. car repairs, etc. Replacement provision may not be as affordable. |
| Upgrading infrastructure to meet increased demand may be easier and less expensive in this approach. |
Potential for creation of 'bad neighbour' employment uses near to housing if not carefully controlled. |
| Could assist with the re-provision of older and poorer quality offices to meet future demand. | This approach alone will not meet our housing needs in full. |
| The viability of existing services within towns and villages improves when more people are using them. |
Approach 2: Growth on the Edges of Existing Main Towns
Description
This approach focuses on the expansion of larger settlements within Buckinghamshire through large scale urban extensions. This focuses on our most sustainable locations for Tier's 1 and 2 settlements. This will provide more homes and jobs in the countryside surrounding existing settlements. They would be integrated into existing settlements and provide new schools, roads and shops.
This approach provides 23,000-28,000 potential homes.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Sustainable urban extensions can provide opportunities to enhance the setting of existing settlements. | Would require the allocation of greenfield sites. |
| Reduces the need to travel by car and makes a positive contribution to addressing climate change. | Could result in coalescence with nearby settlements. |
| Could provide a mix of homes to meet differing needs. | There may be barriers to knitting the new place with the existing town and community so that they have a shared sense of identity and belonging. |
| Large expansions can create opportunities for shaping new neighbourhoods following principles of good design and place-making. | The range of existing sport, recreation, leisure, cultural, community and religious services and facilities may be limited in the adjacent established settlement. |
| Makes more efficient use of existing sport, recreation, leisure, cultural, health, community and religious facilities in the adjacent established settlement. | Development areas on the fringe of larger settlements can be car-oriented and contain predominantly low-density housing with minimal shops, services, or facilities, which can be isolating for some people, especially for people who do not drive. |
| Supports the provision of new facilities, which will benefit new residents and existing residents. | Some infrastructure is likely to require major upgrades, e.g. water and wastewater. |
| There may be good access to large high-quality natural areas. | Retrofitting transport links to accommodate new development may require significant investment and may be technically challenging and disruptive. |
| Upgrading of infrastructure to meet increased demand may be easier and less expensive in this approach. | This approach alone is unlikely to meet our housing needs in full. |
|
This could link new employment allocations to areas where there is an available labour supply and a major road network/motorway junction suited to businesses' locational needs. |
|
| Provides new employment opportunities across Buckinghamshire, helping to meet local economic needs and addresses the over-concentration of current provision to a few sites in the northern/central part of Buckinghamshire. |
Approach 3: New Towns
Description
New towns are standalone settlements outside of existing urban areas. These will provide more homes and jobs in the countryside separate from existing settlements. They would provide their own new schools (primary and secondary), roads and shops. As they would require almost entirely new infrastructure, this would take a number of years to provide and so development from this approach would be slower to commence.
The preliminary work on capacity suggests that new settlements are likely to be needed to meet housing needs. Based on past delivery rates and average lead in times for sites of this size in Buckinghamshire, it is considered a maximum of 3,000 homes per new settlement could be achieved in the plan period (2045).
This is an indicative figure, further work will refine delivery and phasing time to implement new towns, which will need to be supported by new infrastructure. We are aware that three new towns have been promoted to the New Towns Taskforce at Beachampton, Calvert and Cheddington. It has not been concluded whether these will make the New Towns short listing or whether they could be delivered through the Local Plan. If they do make the short listing, each New Town will contain at least 10,000 homes and is a requirement in addition to the 95,500 set out in the standard method for calculating housing need (with a 5% buffer). Taking into account indicative capacities for delivering new settlements within the plan period, we may need four new settlements to meet our housing need. On these assumptions this approach has the potential to deliver 11,000-13,000 homes within the plan period to 2045.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Development of a large new settlement allows, in the long-term, for the delivery of a self-sufficient new community with significant services and facilities. This can allow new residents to meet a significant proportion of their needs within the town. | Would result in the allocation of large greenfield sites. |
| Could provide a mix of homes to meet differing needs. | Early in the new settlement’s development it will not be self-sufficient, and residents will have to use some services and facilities elsewhere. |
| Provides the opportunity to create distinctive, inclusive sustainable, high quality, successful new communities which support and enhance existing communities within neighbouring towns and villages with the highest quality, planning, design and management of the built and public realm. | New settlements take a number of years to begin development, so this approach would not deliver new homes quickly. |
| Developers will be required to provide new infrastructure, sport, recreation, leisure, cultural, community and health care facilities as part of large developments. These can be planned for and delivered in a vision-led way. | This approach alone is unlikely to meet our housing needs in full. |
| There may be good access to large high-quality natural areas. | A new settlement will change the rural nature of the area and could impact on the identity of existing surrounding towns and villages. |
| There will not be the constraint of established development when providing new infrastructure. | A new settlement could create competition with existing surrounding towns and villages in terms of sustaining and attracting investment for local services. |
| Could lessen impacts on existing communities in the long term. | The level of certainty over delivery and timing of infrastructure can be problematic. |
| Could provide entirely new industrial estates and offices of high quality, helping to update the employment stock in Buckinghamshire and helping to keep Buckinghamshire attractive to business. | Does not assist with rural diversification and rural employment. |
| Provides a new labour force and employment in close proximity to new employment uses. | A new settlement will require significant investment in new infrastructure. |
| Could help re-balance provision away from the few current employment allocations. The extent of this impact depends on where the new settlements are located. | Without good transport infrastructure there is a risk of providing a poorly connected, car dependent and isolated settlement. |
| Could link new homes with current employment areas. | New settlements would need to be of a large enough scale to support itself and justify the spend needed to connect to existing infrastructure. |
Approach 4: Development at Transport Hubs
Description
This approach focuses development in close proximity to a high-quality public transport as identified in the Baseline Transport Assessment. This will allow people to make some of their journeys using the train or bus, reducing the impact of new development on the existing road network and helping reduce emissions from vehicles and so address climate change.
The approach has the potential to deliver 16,000-19,000 homes within the plan period.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Supports regeneration in and near our towns and allows for improvements to the built environment. | Would result in the allocation of greenfield sites. |
| Planning for development near strategic public transport hubs provides people with the choice to make some journeys by public transport. | Cannot meet our housing needs in full. |
| Could provide a mix of homes to meet differing needs. | Could result in coalescence with nearby settlements. |
| Residents will likely have good access to transport options to access a wider range of sport, recreation, leisure, cultural, community and health facilities. | Development at some of these settlements is likely to result in increased recreational pressures for Special Areas of Conservation. |
| There may be good access to large high-quality natural areas, especially in the south of Buckinghamshire. | In some of these settlements, infrastructure is likely to require major upgrades for water and wastewater. |
| Provides an opportunity for significant new/enhanced infrastructure to be delivered. | |
| Accessibility to public transport is important in planning for new offices and so helps meet part of the future employment needs. | |
| Could help rebalance the existing skewed supply of employment sites, by providing sites in new locations along sustainable transport corridors and near strategic transport hubs. | |
| Increased density in strategic locations or transport corridors encourages greater public transport use. | |
| Supports economic development by attracting skilled workers, businesses and services to the area and offers opportunities to enhance existing transport links. | |
| Transport hubs can offer a focal point for development as they offer accessibility and connectivity opportunities for different land uses. |
Approach 5: Expansion near key employment areas
Description
This approach identified broad development areas which are near to strategic employment sites and Enterprise Zones (areas where businesses receive incentives to establish or expand operations, aiming to promote economic growth). The Employment Land Review provides details on these locations. Providing more housing in these locations could benefit new and existing businesses by providing labour supply in close proximity to businesses.
The approach has the potential to deliver 5,000-6,000 homes within the plan period.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Likely to support businesses through new employment allocations and the intensification of existing employment sites. | Would require the allocation of greenfield sites. |
| Siting new housing near employment sites means that people are able to live and work locally. | Cannot meet our housing needs in full. |
| It can provide collocation benefits, such as allowing for natural active surveillance at different times of day. | Existing business locations may already experience significant congestion in peak periods; adding housing to these locations is likely to worsen congestion. |
| Residents and employees of local businesses may use existing or newly provided sport, recreation, leisure, cultural, health and community facilities in the established settlement, leading to more efficient use of facilities throughout the day. | Existing business locations may not be the best sites for new homes due to unneighbourly and unsightly uses. |
| Gives the opportunity to improve infrastructure for existing businesses. | |
| Could allow existing outwards commuting patterns to be addressed. |
Approach 6: Limited Expansion of Villages
Description
This approach focuses on development in our more sustainable rural villages both within and outside the Green Belt. This will support the vitality and services within these villages as more residents will be able to use the local pub, school and shops. The scale of growth in these locations is more limited to that compared to the other approaches to retain the village character and not overload services.
The approach has the potential to deliver 13,000-15,000 homes within the plan period.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Helps sustain existing facilities and infrastructure in the village. | Would require the allocation of greenfield sites. |
| Helps to meet local housing needs for the village community. | Cannot meet our housing needs in full. |
| Provides good access to high-quality natural areas. | Could adversely impact on high quality landscape. |
| May provide small scale new and upgraded sport, recreation, health and community facilities. | May have adverse recreation impacts on our protected environmental areas and will therefore require mitigation which may be harder to deliver through small scale sites. |
| Has scope for limited small-scale employment development e.g. small-scale offices or other ‘neighbourly’ employment uses. | Services and facilities may be limited in the established settlement, development is unlikely to provide significant improvements. |
| This approach could avoid overloading one settlement or part of the road network. | Unlikely to have access to existing frequent public transport, development will be of a scale which is unlikely to provide significant public transport improvements. |
| Could assist with rural diversification and rural employment. | Small sites are unlikely to significantly contribute to infrastructure improvements. |
| Unlikely to benefit Buckinghamshire’s key growth sectors. | |
| This approach can be viewed as ‘pepper potting’ and not strategic. | |
| Likely to encourage continued car use and increase commuting by car and travel to access services and facilities, particularly if the village is away from main transport corridors. | |
| Potential impact on village character needs to be carefully managed. |
Approach 7: Expanding Urban Areas on the Edge of Buckinghamshire
Description
This approach focuses on the expansion of sustainable settlements on the edge outside of Buckinghamshire through large-scale urban extensions into Buckinghamshire.
The approach has the potential to deliver 6,000-7,000 within the plan period.
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Existing nearby jobs, infrastructure, services and facilities. | Would require the allocation of greenfield sites. |
| A development of this size will require new infrastructure, such as schools, local centres and green spaces can bring benefits to existing and new communities. | Cannot meet our housing needs in full. |
| Could be more attractive to the employment market and to nearby strategic employment locations as it’s building on large existing urban areas with existing employment areas. | Some infrastructure is likely to require major upgrades, e.g. water and wastewater. |
| Transport interventions could improve a set of corridors feeding into nearby settlements. | Could divert growth away from current main employment centres in Buckinghamshire and would not help meet their local needs. |
| Will require joint working with neighbouring authorities which could make the implementation of sites more difficult, e.g. compelling them to enhance transport infrastructure. |
Comment on Part A – Local Plan Spatial Strategy for housing Comment
Summary of Approaches to Potential Housing Supply
It is likely all of these approaches are required to meet the housing needs for Buckinghamshire. The proposed housing numbers are indicative, providing a snapshot of where we have got to developing the plan so far. This will change once the technical studies have been completed. The indicative numbers are provided to show the direction of travel.
| Potential housing supply | |
|
Approach 1: Brownfield sites within existing towns and villages |
1,500-2,500 |
|
Approach 2: Growth on the edges of existing main towns |
23,000-28,000 |
|
Approach 3: New towns |
11,000-13,000 |
|
Approach 4: Development at transport hubs |
16,000-19,000 |
|
Approach 5: Expansion near key employment areas |
5,000-6,000 |
|
Approach 6: Limited expansion of villages |
13,000-15,000 |
|
Approach 7: Expanding urban areas on the edge of Buckinghamshire |
6,000-7,000 |
|
Total |
75,000-91,000 |
|
Windfall |
7,400 |
|
Total housing supply + commitments |
82,000-99,000 |
|
Housing requirement |
91,000 |
|
with 5% buffer |
95,550 |
N.b. the numbers in the above table do not sum due to rounding.
Approach to Meeting Travelling Communities Accommodation
The Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment (2025) (GTAA) assessed the needs for travellers during the plan period. It sets out that during the plan period, there is a need for 681 pitches and 38 plots.
The PPTS sets out that local planning authorities should set pitch and plot targets for those who meet the Annex 1 definition for planning purposes. It further states that Local Plans should identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to meet 5 years supply and identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for six to 10 years and, where possible, for 11 to 15 years. The local plan therefore should, at the least, allocate sites to accommodate 516 pitches and 30 plots which would meet the needs for the first 10 years of the plan period, as required by the PPTS.
To meet the high level of identified needs for at least the first 10 years, which will be a challenge, we will assess the following approaches:
- Approach 1 – Intensify and expand existing sites
- Approach 2 –Consider temporary sites and unauthorised sites for allocation of permanent pitches
- Approach 3 – Use vacant pitches
- Approach 4 – Reclaim pitches used by non-travellers
- Approach 5 –Call for sites for gypsy and traveller use
- Approach 6 – Consider past refusals for allocation
- Approach 7 – Review outstanding allocations
- Approach 8 – Additional supply from pending planning applications
