VALP Main Modifications
Representation ID: 2768
Respondent: Mr Keith Lewcock
Legally compliant? No
I object to the VALP Proposed Main Modifications because of Non-Compliance or Issues with the following (all references contained in my full representation):-
1. HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21, 2.15; Appendix 2.
2. PPG paras 3-008, 3-019.
3. Settlement Hierarchy (para 5.16).
4. Inspector's Interim Findings paras 36, 41.
5. NPPF paras 17, 34, 112, 129, 132, 141, 151, 155, 158, 165, 182.
6. VALP paras 4.120 (now para 4.1), 4.152 (now para 4.147), 4.153 (now para 4.148) 9.51.
I consider that the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.
Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to ensure that the VALP is sound and legally compliant.
I object to the VALP Proposed Main Modifications for the following reasons:-
1. The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not completely follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15. Furthermore, it does not meet the factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of a site for development (PPG para 3-019). The whole allocation is not legally compliant.
2. The v4 modification has added the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton is not a 'medium village' due to the incorrect assumption in the Settlement Hierarchy (para 5.16) that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria - it only has 4. Maids Moreton is, therefore, a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18: see ED228. The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not legally compliant, and is not compatible with the statement in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings that the Council's capacity-led approach to identify of allocations has received widespread support, because this has not been the case in Maids Moreton. In addition, a further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in MM283, which raises the total number of proposed dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. For a 'small' village the allocation of 182 houses is hugely disproportionate to the size of the settlement. The allocation in MM283 of 12 houses alone is adequate for a small settlement. I do not agree with the modifications in MM101 of increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170, and the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy renders the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.
3. The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 as inadequate consideration has been given to highways and public transport, which also concurs with the assertion in the Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. On the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.
4. There has been a complete lack of public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as 'suitable' for development, and neither was there any consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Buckingham Town Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. The consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as 'unsuitable' for development. The only consultation thereafter was the public consultation on the Submission VALP, which consulted on the allocation of the site in the Submission VALP not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA. Relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence would therefore be in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. It is also inconsistent with HELAA v4 appendix 2. I do not agree with increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 and the allocation itself is unsound and not legally compliant.
5. The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v 4 is not based on any evidence, and is therefore contrary to VALP para 4.120 (now para 4.1). If reliance on this source of evidence was used for the allocation of the site, it would be in breach of NPPF paras 158 and 182.
6. This Final Consultation includes consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. The allocation of site MMO006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 (now para 4.147), which claims the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. In fact, the Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows site MMO006 as being the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. Allocating site MMO006 in the VALP is in breach of NPPF paras 151 and 165, and makes para 4.152 (now para 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect.
7. The allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to the protection of heritage buildings specifically in Main Street, so is contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129 and 132. The allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.
8. Inadequate consideration has been given to the rural setting of site MMO006, which breaches NPPF (paras 17 and 112), and allocation of the site is inconsistent with VALP para 9.51. In particular, VALP para 9.51 has been informed by HELAA v3 (2016) whilst site allocations in the VALP have been informed by HELAA v4 (2017). Para 9.51 is therefore factually incorrect if site MMO006 remains as an allocated site in the VALP, and keeping site MMO006 in the VALP makes the VALP unsound.
9. There is no evidence that a Groundwater Run-Off Assessment has been undertaken. As our driveway and path have been inundated on a number of occasions, the most recent being 14th November, the lack of an Assessment of the impact of 170 houses demonstrates further that the whole process is unsound.
10. There has been unfairness during the Examination Stage whereby regulation 19 objectors were initially informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP, but were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position with regard to the allocation of this site prior to holding a hearing session. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized and remains procedurally unfair. On this basis, I do not agree with the modifications but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.