Reason:      I agree that Biodiversity Net Gain should be delivered within Buckinghamshire wherever possible, but the policy must emphasise that avoiding harm to existing habitats is the first priority under NPPF §§186–189. Off-site compensation cannot justify on-site habitat loss, especially where development fragments continuous green corridors or replaces natural ground with artificial surfaces. The 2022 Statement of Consultation (§2.2 Q12) confirmed that residents ranked environmental protection and biodiversity as their highest priorities, with 75 % calling for more tree planting and natural connectivity. Policy NE5 should therefore: • Require on-site avoidance and mitigation before off-site offsetting; • Mandate early publication of BNG assessments within planning applications; and • Safeguard habitat connectivity across the Green Belt. These clarifications would make NE5 more robust and ensure local biodiversity gains are genuine rather than compensatory.

Reason:      I strongly support this policy. Existing green spaces — whether public parks, recreation grounds, golf courses, or allotments — are essential for health, biodiversity, and community wellbeing. The policy should be strengthened to ensure that no green space is lost without true like-for-like replacement in size, quality, accessibility, and location. Where a space is currently free for public use, any replacement must also be free and publicly accessible. Where the existing use is fee-based (such as a golf course), replacement may likewise be fee-based only if it remains open to the public on the same terms and continues to deliver clear recreational and environmental benefits. Parking fees, where they exist, should be reasonable and consistent with current arrangements, ensuring that cost does not become a barrier to public access. Replacement space must be delivered and open before any loss takes place, with long-term management secured to guarantee continued community access and environmental quality. These refinements will make the policy fair, consistent, and effective in protecting valued community green spaces across Buckinghamshire. 

Reason:       The Green Belt must remain the foremost planning priority. Policy NE16 should fully reflect NPPF §§147–151, giving substantial weight to any harm to openness and allowing only development that clearly preserves that openness. Large-scale built or fenced compounds, such as private sports academies, are incompatible with “outdoor sport” in NPPF §150(b). Such schemes conflict with the purpose of the Green Belt to safeguard the countryside from encroachment (§138). The Council’s 2022 Attitudes Survey (Statement of Consultation, §2.2 Q1 & Q5) found that 67 % of residents valued countryside and wildlife above all else, confirming overwhelming support for Green Belt protection. The policy must therefore reinforce, not weaken, that priority.

Reason:       The priority should remain the protection of overall Green Belt openness rather than technical volume formulas for domestic extensions. Clear guidance is useful, but not at the expense of allowing large institutional or commercial buildings that far exceed typical household volumes.

Reason:       A concise technical guide could aid consistency for small-scale extensions, but it must explicitly distinguish between minor residential alterations and substantial non-residential developments. The latter should always require full assessment against Green Belt openness and “very special circumstances” under NPPF §148.

Reason:      I agree with the overall policy approach, but SE4 needs clarification to ensure that land and facilities held for public recreation under charitable or trust arrangements are explicitly protected. NPPF §93(a–d) requires local plans to guard against the unnecessary loss of valued community facilities, including those that provide opportunities for recreation. The South Buckinghamshire Golf Course is a prime example of such land — publicly accessible, charitable in origin, and used for community recreation. The policy should make clear that charitable recreation land cannot be repurposed or leased for private, exclusive use unless equivalent or better public provision is secured. Land held or managed in trust for public recreation shall be treated as a community facility for the purposes of this policy. Disposal, lease or change of use to exclusive private occupation will be resisted unless equivalent or better publicly accessible provision is secured. This modification would keep SE4 fully consistent with NPPF §93 and align with findings from the Council’s Statement of Consultation (Sept 2022), which showed strong public attachment to accessible local amenities and open recreation spaces.

Reason:       I strongly disagree with the current policy approach because it does not yet provide sufficient protection for existing publicly accessible sports and recreation facilities, nor does it ensure alignment with NPPF §§99–102. Redevelopment of active public recreation land, such as the South Buckinghamshire Golf Course, into private or fenced facilities would remove open access and fail the NPPF §100 test requiring equivalent or better provision in quality, quantity, and accessibility. The policy should therefore: • Require clear evidence that any facility proposed for redevelopment is genuinely surplus to community requirements; • Specify that replacement provision must be publicly accessible and of equal community value; and • State that private, enclosed or elite-only facilities cannot satisfy this policy. The Council’s Statement of Consultation (Sept 2022, §2.2 Q8 & Q12) showed that 86 % of respondents preferred brownfield-first development and placed environmental and countryside protection among their top priorities. Weakening SE5 to permit loss of open Green Belt recreation land would contradict both that evidence and the Plan’s own Spatial Strategy in Part A (Approach 1). Requested outcome: strengthen SE5 to ensure that publicly accessible sport and recreation land cannot be re-designated or leased for private use without equivalent open community replacement.