VALP Main Modifications
Representation ID: 3121
Respondent: Mr Andrew Bennett
Legally compliant? No
Shenley Park Whaddon (SP) was not included in the November 2017 version of the VALP. SP
has been put into the plan late without proper consultation which is unfair and unjust which
could result in an unsound plan and possibly unlawful.
* There has been no Duty of Co-Operation with the adjoining authority.
* Inadequate thought has been giver to traffic congestion within the local area.
* Little prevision for education of upper school student or doctor's surgery.
* Why build on Shenley park when Eaton Leys is ready to go
The Shenley Park Whaddon (SP) was not included in the November 2017 version of the Vale of
Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) and as such this has denied us the opportunity to properly debate and
cross examine the decision of AVDC's to choose SP over the other two competing sites of Eaton
Leys (EL) and Salden Chase (SC). This is in breach of NPPF paras 158, 182 and 155.
The SP is a late introduction to the AVLP and as such I strongly encourage that you reopen a further
hearing session at the end of the consultation period so that this crucial omission can be rectified.
This is not only unfair but unjust that we have not been allowed to have a proper comparison testing
between the three sites.
To accept AVDC's preferred choice of Shenley Park without proper justification would render the final
plan unsound and possibly unlawful.
As a resident of Whaddon I should have the opportunity to inform the inspector as to the impact of
such a large development would have on our environment, lives and health, road safety and
wellbeing. This site was in the original plan but was the removed and this consultation is too little, too
* Before such development can occur, the Government requires that the adjoining authorities have a
"Duty of Co-Operation" when considering significant cross boundary housing allocations. At a Milton
Keynes full council meeting on the 23 October members across all parties agreed that a failure of cooperation
has occurred, and that community engagement had been minimal. Non-compliance with
such an important issue, especially when MKC have an adopted Local Plan with meaningful policies,
is very concerning. This lack of engagement renders this part of the plan 'unsound' hence further
reason to re-open the hearing sessions to ascertain exactly why AVDC chose not to cooperate and
engage more fully with MKC - and indeed Whaddon Parish Council, and residents.
* If houses were built an SP has there been sufficient consideration to how the extra traffic would affect
the surrounding area and how road safety would be affected. As I understand it the Bedfordshire
county council (BCC) and MKC traffic modelling methods only apply to main roads, and they have not tested
the impact of the traffic from such a large number of new houses on the rural road network such as the
traffic through Whaddon. The A421 into Milton Keynes is already over loaded at peak times and
making this road a dual carriage way would only move the bottle necks to the next roundabout so not
improving the traffic flow.
* What consideration have been made for education and doctor's surgery. This development may be
able to support a primary school as shown on initial plans by Crest but where do all the upper school
student go to. There are no provisions made for a doctor's surgery.
* In summary it is illogical and completely unnecessary to expand the Milton Keynes City boundary into
Shenley Park at the current time. Why cross a strong defensible bridleway boundary such as the
heavily wooded/hedged North Bucks Way into beautiful and much valued open unspoilt countryside -
when there are two more appropriate, and easier to develop alternative sites available at Salden
Chase and particularly Eaton Leys. The Eaton Leys has planning history and is almost ready to go
giving delivery certainly within this local plan period.