The Growth, Infrastructure & Housing Select Committee of Buckinghamshire Council met on Wednesday 23 September 2026 to discuss the proposed North and Central Area Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) report and receive an update on the Local Plan for Buckinghamshire. The committee also reviewed the work and resources of the Planning Team and received an update on the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy.

Proposed North and Central Area CIL Report

The committee considered the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule and Instalment Policy for the North and Central (N&C) areas of Buckinghamshire. CIL is a charge levied on new development to fund infrastructure, with a portion passed to local parish councils. The proposed rates vary by development type, size, and location, reflecting differences in development costs and values.

During the discussion, several key themes emerged:

• Alignment with the Local Plan: Concerns were raised that the CIL evidence base, based on the adopted Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP), might be outdated given the emerging Local Plan. Officers explained that while the VALP is the current adopted plan, the viability assessments for both the CIL and the Local Plan were conducted by the same consultants within a similar timeframe, ensuring compatibility.
• Charging Zones and Complexity: The complexity of different charging rates across various zones was questioned, with a suggestion for simplification. Officers defended the tiered approach, stating it reflects property prices and development viability across different areas, and that a simpler schedule would raise less income.
• Strategic Site Exemptions: The exemption of strategic sites (400+ dwellings) from CIL, with reliance on Section 106 agreements, was debated. While developers supported this, others questioned the fairness, given the infrastructure impacts of large developments. Officers acknowledged the concern and are reviewing alternative thresholds with consultants.
• Agricultural Exemptions: A request was made for agricultural buildings to be exempt from CIL due to low profit margins and minimal infrastructure impact. Officers noted that these would currently fall under the general All other forms of development rate, and that a specific exemption would require careful consideration.
• Data Centres: The charging of CIL on data centres was discussed, with officers clarifying that the levy is based on floor space and not specifically on the type of development, unless it falls under specific categories like large convenience stores.
• Parish Council Contributions: The mechanism for passing CIL income to parish councils was clarified, with 15% of income going to parishes, rising to 25% if a neighbourhood plan is in place. Training for parish councils on how to use their portion of CIL was also highlighted as a need.
• Comparisons with Other Authorities: Councillor Alex Collingwood requested a comparison of CIL rates with neighbouring authorities like Reading, Oxford, and Slough to understand Buckinghamshire's position. Officers agreed to provide this information.
• Infrastructure Funding Gap: The significant infrastructure funding gap was acknowledged, with CIL intended to help bridge this. The estimated income from CIL was projected to be around £2.165 million per annum from 2029-30 onwards.

The committee made recommendations to Cabinet regarding the proposed CIL charging schedule and instalment policy, with a view to submission for public examination by an independent inspector.

Local Plan for Buckinghamshire Update

Councillor Michael Bracken, Deputy Cabinet Member for Planning, provided a verbal update on the key themes arising from the public consultation on the Local Plan for Buckinghamshire. The consultation had closed on 6 September 2026, and over 8,500 representations had been received.

Key points from the update included:

• Infrastructure: A consistent theme from the consultation was the need for growth to be accompanied by infrastructure delivered alongside development, rather than following it. While engagement with infrastructure providers had been positive, no new central government funding commitments had been secured.
• Spatial Strategy: There were mixed comments on the spatial strategy, with significant discussion around new and expanded settlements (NESS). Officers acknowledged the concerns of residents regarding the scale of proposed changes but reiterated that new and expanded settlements are necessary to meet the government's housing target of 91,000 homes.
• Consultation Process: Concerns were raised about the online system (OPUS) for submitting comments and the late uploading of further material evidence. Officers explained that the extended consultation period related to specific technical documents and that substantive consultation had closed.
• Green Belt Assessment: The consultation on the Green Belt Assessment's Appendix 7 had been extended to 20 October due to issues with its availability.
• Princes Risborough NESS Bypass: Questions were raised about the soundness of the proposed relief road, its funding, and delivery strategy, particularly given its highly challenging description in the sustainability appraisal and its significant cost.
• Aylesbury NESS: Concerns were raised about the expansion of the NESS 003 allocation and its cumulative relationship with AYL 06, including whether further sustainability appraisal or consultation was required.
• Data Centres: The lack of specific allocation for data centres in the Local Plan was discussed, with a criteria-based policy approach being adopted. Concerns were raised about the potential impacts of data centres and whether the council had sufficient influence over nationally significant infrastructure projects.
• Examination Process: The committee discussed the risks to the soundness of the plan during the examination process, particularly concerning the Green Belt, and the potential for the examination timetable to extend beyond the anticipated seven months, leaving the council exposed to speculative development.
• Planning Team Resources: The report highlighted the significant workload of the planning team, with approximately 12,500 applications received annually. While validation times had improved, determination times for some application types remained a challenge. The committee expressed concern about the pressure on the planning team and the need for adequate resources to manage the increasing workload, especially in light of the Local Plan and potential speculative applications.

Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy Update

Councillor Mark Winn, Cabinet Member for Housing, presented the draft Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2027-2032. The strategy aims to prevent homelessness, resolve crises quickly, and ensure individuals and families can thrive in safe and secure homes.

The strategy is built around three key priorities:

1. Early and Targeted Prevention: Identifying and supporting households at risk of homelessness before a crisis occurs.
2. Management of Temporary and Supported Accommodation Pathways: Providing safe and suitable accommodation while assisting people to move into settled housing as quickly as possible.
3. Long-Term Housing Sustainment: Helping individuals and families maintain their accommodation and build stable futures.

The public consultation on the draft strategy was open from 14 September to 25 October 2026. A working group was appointed to provide a formal response from the committee to the consultation.

Key discussion points included:

• Affordable Housing Shortfall: Concerns were raised that the Local Plan would not deliver sufficient affordable housing to meet the identified need, particularly in the south of the county. Officers explained the balance between delivering affordable housing and ensuring development viability, and the importance of prevention alongside provision.
• Social Housing Funding: The potential to access national funding for social housing was discussed, with a commitment to explore opportunities and work with housing associations. The report on delivering social housing commissioned by the council was to be made public.
• Temporary Accommodation: The high cost and pressure on temporary accommodation were acknowledged, with a focus on reducing stays and improving move-on pathways.
• Employer Engagement: The potential for developers to offer employment opportunities to those experiencing homelessness was raised, and the council expressed keenness to explore such schemes.
• Drop-in Centres: The need for drop-in centres in the North and South of Buckinghamshire for the homelessness strategy consultation was discussed, with a commitment to arrange additional sessions if demand exists.

Planning Team Update

Darran Eggleton, Head of Development Management, Building Control and Enforcement, provided an update on the work and resources of the Planning Team. The report highlighted the significant workload of the planning service, receiving approximately 12,500 applications annually.

Key points from the update included:

• Validation Backlog: The validation process had experienced significant delays due to increased application fees and staff vacancies. However, targeted recruitment and process improvements had led to a substantial reduction in the backlog, with validation times now averaging 11 working days, aiming for 3-5 working days by December 2026.
• Decision Making Performance: In 2025/26, 77% of all planning applications were determined on time, with a particular challenge in determining other application types (e.g., certificates of lawfulness, variations of conditions). Steps were being taken to address this, including additional resources and targeted measures.
• Extensions of Time: The use of extensions of time for determining applications was discussed, with a current figure of 31% of applications being determined with an extension. Concerns were raised about this figure being too high and the need for a clear target, potentially around 20%.
• Planning Appeals: The council had a strong success rate in defending enforcement notice appeals (84% in 2025/26).
• Planning Service Resources: The service had undergone a review, resulting in a revised structure and savings. While staffing levels were now close to full establishment, the committee expressed concern about the ongoing pressure on the team and the need for sufficient resources to manage the workload, particularly with the Local Plan and potential speculative applications.
• Scheme of Delegation: The removal of call-in powers for a vast number of applications due to changes in national legislation was noted as a significant concern, requiring changes to the council's constitution.

The committee acknowledged the pressures on the planning service and agreed to write to Cabinet to ensure the team has the necessary support.

Work Programme

The committee discussed and noted the Work Programme for future meetings, with the next meeting scheduled for Tuesday 17 November 2026.