Aylesbury Vale Area

BE4 Density of new development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1185

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Lands Improvement Holdings Plc

Agent: Indigo Planning Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 8.48 is the supporting text to policy BE4 and confirms that government policy is to
make best use of what land is available, and central to Policy BE4 is the need to use land
efficiently. This is not reflected in the policy as drafted. This central objective should be
reflected in the drafting of the policy.

Full text:

See attachment for full representation


S2, AGT1, S2, S9, D1, H1, H6, H7, BE4

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1340

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Gleeson Strategic Land

Agent: Nexus Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object, BE4:

That higher density on the edge of the South West Aylesbury site is acceptable and that the policy should be amended to reflect that.

Full text:

Representations to Policy BE4 'Density of New Development'

1. We welcome acknowledgement within Policy BE4 that the density of developments will be determined on a site-by-site basis. However, we object to the generic requirement that higher density development should be situated towards the centre of sites with lower density towards the rural edge.

2. The above approach may be generally accepted design good practice but the Council's proposed allocation on land at South West Aylesbury is unusual in this regard as, rather than having a countryside edge, its edge will in fact be created by theHS2 railway line (when constructed). This means that the site has a hard urban edge both to the east (the existing urban edge of Aylesbury) and to the west (HS2). As a consequence this means that the approach to design and density throughout the site is different to the norm - with a higher density of development appropriate towards the western edge of the allocation (adjacent to HS2). This is a principle that is agreed with the Council but which, as drafted, would conflict with Policy BE4.

3. As a consequence, this policy should be amended to overtly allow for exceptions to the general principle identified.

Changes Sought

4. Amend Policy BE4 to state that higher density areas should "...in normal circumstances" be located towards the centre of the site.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1373

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Weedon Parish Council

Representation Summary:

BE4. Density of new development
We support the proposed policy on the density of new developments. It makes absolute sense to have
higher density areas in the centres of sites, particularly as this can help to prevent the worst of "urban
sprawl".

Full text:


At various meetings of Weedon Parish Council, councillors resolved to submit the following positive comments on the Draft Submission of VALP.

The Parish Council is very pleased to see significant amendments in this draft submission from the previous
draft in 2015, and supports the current plan.
Section 4.29
Policy D1. Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
We support the Aylesbury Garden Town housing allocations, particularly the locations of the Major
Development Areas D‐AGT1 to D‐AGT6. The locations seem to have the best potential for meeting
transport strategy objectives, and avoid the Areas of Attractive Landscape, flood plains and other
unsuitable high‐visual‐impact landscape areas to the north and west of the town.
Section 4.169
Policy D3. Housing development at smaller villages
We support the policy of making no specific housing allocations at smaller villages and allowing villages to
make their own allocations through neighbourhood plans, or assessing sites coming forward as part of the
development management process against the strict criteria given.
Section 5.50
Policy H4. Replacement dwellings in the countryside
We welcome the policy on replacement dwellings in the countryside on a one‐for‐one basis on the basis of
no significant increase in size, no harm to the site, and according to the design principles in BE2.
Sections 8.1 to 8.39
BE1. Heritage assets
We strongly support and welcome the strict policy of protecting and conserving heritage assets.

Sections 8.40 to 8.45
BE2. Design of new development
We support the proposed policy on the design of new developments.
Sections 8.46 to 8.47
BE3. Protection of the amenity of residents
We support the proposed policy on the protection of the amenity of existing and future residents.


32 Campbell Close, Linden Village Tel 01280 814739
Buckingham MK18 7HP ‐ 2 - weedonparishclerk@talktalk.net
Section 8.48
BE4. Density of new development
We support the proposed policy on the density of new developments. It makes absolute sense to have
higher density areas in the centres of sites, particularly as this can help to prevent the worst of "urban
sprawl".
Sections 9.26 to 9.32
NE5. Landscape character and locally important landscape
We strongly support and welcome the strict policy of protecting landscape assets, particularly the
designated AALs and LLAs.
Sections 9.51 to 9.52
NE8. Best and most versatile agricultural land
We support the continued policy of protecting the best and most versatile agricultural land in the district.
Sections 9.53 to 9.59
NE9. Trees, hedgerows and woodlands
We strongly support the continued policy of enhancing and expanding the district's tree and woodland
resources, particularly native trees including black poplars.
Sections 10.1 to 10.26

C1. Conversion of rural buildings
We support the policy and strict criteria for the conversion of rural buildings.
Sections 10.27 to 10.50

C2. Equestrian development
We support the policy and criteria for equestrian development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1816

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Wates Developments Ltd.

Agent: Boyer Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Although we support the fact that the Policy is not prescriptive , the requirement for the density to reflect those of the surrounding is overly restrictive. We recommend that the wording should be changed to 'consider' their surroundings.

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Proposed Submission consultation, which are submitted by Boyer on behalf of Wates Developments Ltd.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1842

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Rectory Homes Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

he policy lacks any specific detail and contains little for decision makers to assess a proposal against. The NPPF (Paragraph 47) is clear that local planning authorities should set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances which this policy does not achieve. This policy therefore either needs amending to include more specific guidance or should be deleted as it is not currently in an effective form.

Full text:

Please find attached representations submitted by Rectory Homes in response to the consultation on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Proposed Submission, together with an appended report which forms part of the supporting evidence to these representations.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2009

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Adstock Parish Council

Representation Summary:

We support the proposed policy on the density of new developments. It makes absolute sense to have
higher density areas in the centres of sites, particularly as this can help to prevent the worst of "urban
sprawl".

Full text:

Further to our conversation this afternoon Lucy please note Adstock Parish Council response, kind regards Ruth
Adstock PC views are similar to Twyford. The number of new houses for a small village like Adstock would be acceptable. Although it does have major issues now with the sewerage at current property levels.
The bigger concerns are the developments of Buckingham & Winslow.
The overall numbers of new houses for Aylesbury Vale in our opinion is unsustainable without major infrastructure changes. We are not confident that what has been proposed will cope with the extra people, traffic, demand on services etc.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2447

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation Summary:

These policies are welcomed, but given that the RAF Halton site is the main housing
proposed the SG would expect that the Masterplan for the site would take account of
all the local views emerging through the WNP process, and appropriate professional
advice on the design standards, and densities, of the housing on the site whether
conversions or new build.

Full text:

Response to Proposed Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) - see attachment for detailed responses on specific parts of the plan.

Overview and Summary

1) The following comments are being made by the Wendover Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) Steering Group (SG) on the proposed submission Vale of
Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP). Please note that extracts from the Plan, or a summary of their contents, are in italics, and our response is in ordinary type.

2) The current position is that the SG is completing the work in researching the
factual data for the WNP and completing its engagement events to ensure all issues are covered. During the first part of 2018 a detailed Questionnaire will be sent to residents and the timetable for the project to produce the WNP has been drawn up with the aim of producing the WNP in late 2019. The SG is an independent group of residents who operate under the auspices of the Parish Council but may take different views on the VALP. The aim of this response is to reflect the views of the SG but also the opinions and priorities of the residents who have given feedback to date, on the issues that concern them. We have sought to include all the main items of feedback to date in our comments, but ongoing research, and our Questionnaire, will undoubtedly throw up other ideas to implement, and concerns to be addressed.

3) The key points we would wish to make are:-

* We welcome the recognition of Wendover's distinctive identity as a settlement in the south of Aylesbury Vale.
* We welcome the adjustment to the draft Green Belt proposals and the limitation of development within the Town which accords with the great majority of views expressed by the public.
* We understand the decision to allocate 1000 or so homes to the brownfield site at RAF Halton: however there is insufficient detail on either the numbers of homes (and the lack of definition is an issue), or their types and tenure and size. The public support a variety of types of affordable homes to meet local needs but have still to be consulted on the mix of provision.
* The public have made it clear that, whilst they support affordable housing of all types, in appropriate locations within the Town, and if necessary at RAF Halton, they have asked that appropriate and sufficient infrastructure is provided at RAF Halton to include new, or expanded, health, and schools provision, the maintenance and expansion of sports and leisure facilities, the appropriate retention and development of heritage assets, and the provision of a range of jobs closely connected to the new housing provision and appropriate to the labour market needs. The SG must reflect this in its development of the WNP.
* The proposed development at RAF Halton will have a close and intimate impact on Wendover and we have concerns about the policies which have yet to be developed for the provision of employment land, and the maintenance and enhancement of the shopping centre in Wendover
* Transport issues have been raised in many responses. Parking is considered a vital local issue for the Town centre businesses and we do not feel that this has been adequately addressed; in terms of the existing network, the impact of the new proposed homes will impose too great a strain, without a range of highway improvements and safety measures, as well as provision for enhanced public transport (range and availability of bus services) and trains (capacity).
* Details of the Garden Town and proposed expansion of Aylesbury has repercussions for the surrounding area but is insufficiently addressed - we had understood there would be a consultation on this issue in the Autumn of 2017 but this is awaited.
* The impacts of HS2 will be significant yet there are few details known at this stage of the mitigation impacts. Given its effects on residents business and workers in the Town we are anxious to know more given the longer term impact on the whole community.
* We welcome the principle of sustainability underlying the whole plan and feel all measures to meet the challenge of climate change should be taken.

4) The community of Wendover is faced with unique difficulties in addressing the VALP response. The impact of development proposed at RAF Halton will affect it significantly, yet no details of the proposed settlement plan (described as a Masterplan in some documents) are yet available. RAF Halton is not within the Parish of Wendover, nor does it appear to be covered in the Halton Neighbourhood Plan. We think it desirable that there are specific proposals in any VALP to ensure there is proper and meaningful debate on the future of the RAF Halton site, and surrounding heritage and green infrastructure, in Halton and Wendover Parishes, so that the public can work together with landowners and the Government to ensure that the ultimate development of the site is for the benefit of the whole community and reflects the contribution of those living and working in the areas.

5) In addition we think that there will be a need for revisions to the VALP as well as a joint Neighbourhood Plan (involving Wendover, Halton, and the MOD) at a later stage of the VALP process to ensure that proper planning principles are adhered to and the full consultation promised is in fact provided.

6) We now comment on specific provisions of the VALP by reference to page and paragraph numbers. We have made some separate comments on the documents included as supporting evidence.