Aylesbury Vale Area

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2856

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Evison

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. No public consultation on the amendment of HELAA v4 which made the site suitable for development, and neither was there consultation with either Buckingham Town Council, nor with either the Maids Moreton Parish Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. I object to the increase in both size of plot and on increasing the number of houses beyond the discussed number of 170.

2. Inadequate consideration given to highways and public transport. The entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

1. In my view the Policy MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

1. There wasn't a public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which, surprisingly, designated this site to be "suitable" for development. Also, there was no consultation with Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. The consultation on HELAA v3 showed complete support for the site being classed as "unsuitable" for development. The only consultation afterwards was the public consultation on the submission VALP which concerned the allocation of the site in the submission VALP not the designation of the site 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 pars 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. In addition, it falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2. I am not in agreement with the modifications that include increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

2. More consideration should have been given to highways and public transport so the allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34, and is also in line with the assertion in the Inspectors Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I repeat my objections in "1" above regarding increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170.