Aylesbury Vale Area

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3662

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Jackson Planning Ltd ( Lisa Jackson)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

It is premature to be seeking to create a defensible Boundary on the western edge of Milton Keynes until the full scope of the growth arc is known. As the Council have failed to identify the broad locations for growth in the longer time frame of the plan this new policy restriction is inconsistent with national policy assumptions that are seeking the major expansion of this area through the growth arc vision. Creating a long-term boundary to the west of Milton Keynes at this stage is entirely inconsistent with the proposed strategic growth of Cam-MK-Ox arc.

Change suggested by respondent:

The section entitled landscape should be modified as follows: Strikethrough text removed, blue is additional text
"Site proposals will be required to respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings.
and to acknowledge physically that this as part of early delivery of development that supports the Oxford-Milton Keynes
- Cambridge Arc emerging from the revised strategic growth strategy including the implementation of a defensible boundary along the western edge of Milton Keynes. Proposals will be required to identify the building tradition of the locality, scale and context of setting, the natural qualities and features of the area and the effect of the development on important public views and skylines including the protection of Newton Longville and Whaddon Villages. The proposal must not prejudice or jeopardise the longer-term objectives of the Oxford-Milton Keynes - Cambridge Arc. "

Full text:

Please see attached report on the main modifications representations by Chase Consortium.
The modification to add to the text of the policy " Including the implementation of a defensible Boundary along the western
edge of Milton Keynes"is entirely inconsistent with the proposed strategic growth of Cam-MK-Ox arc's. This is not
effective and not justified by evidence.
It is premature to be seeking to create a defensible Boundary on the western edge of Milton Keynes until the full scope
of the growth arc is known. As the Council have failed to identify the broad locations for growth in the longer time
frame of the plan this new policy restriction is inconsistent with national policy assumptions that are seeking the major
expansion of this area through the growth arc vision.
In terms of NPPF 47 the Council could:
"where possible, identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10"
The Council have simply failed to provide a proper contingency plan for the Cam-MK-Ox growth arc during the life of
the plan to 2033. The opportunity to show the wider area of growth that supports AVDC's aspirations has been lost and with it the opportunity to influence the growth arc in a positive way. The plan is therefore not positively
prepared. The new policy says that that the appraisal process has been followed to select the sites and consideration has also been given to Milton Keynes' capacity to accommodate further growth. There is no evidence to support this contention that
the site selection has been considered in a strategic way looking at long-term solutions for Milton Keynes. This is yet again an example of piecemeal planning
that has dogged the proper planning of the area for the past decade
since the demise of the South East Plan.