Aylesbury Vale Area

S1 Sustainable development for Aylesbury Vale

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 62

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 141

Received: 06/11/2017

Respondent: Ms Patience Skillings

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Not sure what this means: 'minimising impacts on local communities' and 'minimising impacts on heritage assets, sensitive landscapes and biodiversity' . If it means minimising 'negative' impacts then perhaps its not strong enough. Is it possible that some impacts could be positive - in which case should they be minimised?

Planning officer note: originally supported but the above change was suggested therefore amended to object in order to be considered by Planning Inspector.

Full text:

Not sure what this means: 'minimising impacts on local communities' and 'minimising impacts on heritage assets, sensitive landscapes and biodiversity' . If it means minimising 'negative' impacts then perhaps its not strong enough. Is it possible that some impacts could be positive - in which case should they be minimised?

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 253

Received: 28/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Terry Benwell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

AVDC has misrepresented the Aylesbury Golf Centre site at Bierton/Hulcott in the HELAA wrongly determined the site is unsuitable for redevelopment. The site should be reconsidered for a Continuing Care Retirement Community.

Full text:

. Sustainable development as set out in the NPPF is not observed at all sites. It also does not work proactively with applicants to find solutions so that proposals can be approved wherever possible and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. In addition there is a failure to observe sub section d. ´ GIVING PRIORITY TO THE REUSE OF VACANT OR UNDERUSED BROWNFIELD LAND'. Aylesbury Golf Centre is a sustainable business founded in 1991 comprising a Floodlit Driving Range, Bar/Restaurant. Rejected by AVDC and misrepresented in HELLA Version 4.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 281

Received: 29/11/2017

Respondent: Garden Cities LLP

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

Representation:

The following representations are submitted on behalf of Garden Cities LLP in response to consultation on Vale of Aylesbury District Council's Proposed Submission of the Local Plan 2011-2033.

Garden Cities LLP welcomes the publication of the Proposed Submission Plan and is pleased that Aylesbury Vale District Council is seeking to positively plan for the long-term future growth of the District.

Garden Cities LLP also welcomes the Council's intention to review the Plan soon after adoption which will be essential if the District is meet its long-term growth aspirations up to 2033, and beyond.

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,
RESPONSE TO VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN (2013 - 2033) PROPOSED SUBMISSION ON
BEHALF OF GARDEN CITIES LLP
The following representations are submitted on behalf of Garden Cities LLP in response to consultation on
Vale of Aylesbury District Council's Proposed Submission of the Local Plan 2011-2033.
Garden Cities LLP welcomes the publication of the Proposed Submission Plan and is pleased that Aylesbury
Vale District Council is seeking to positively plan for the long-term future growth of the District.
Garden Cities LLP also welcomes the Council's intention to review the Plan soon after adoption which will be
essential if the District is meet its long-term growth aspirations up to 2033, and beyond.
Garden Cities LLP controls land at Verney Junction, as shown on the plan contained at Appendix 1 (herein
referred to as 'the Site').
The Site offers an opportunity to create a new Garden Village development, with high quality housing in a
landscaped setting; offering local services and community facilities; providing opportunities for employment
and local schools; encouraging healthy living through provision of a sustainable transport system; and creating
significant areas of open spaces.
Furthermore, significant development at Verney Junction provides an opportunity for Aylesbury Vale District
Council to allocate a larger number of houses through the review of the Local Plan, which would have the
benefit of new planned infrastructure such as East West Rail and Oxford - Cambridge Expressway.
In its latest report published on 17th November 2017, the National Infrastructure Commission highlights the
opportunities to "create well-designed and "well-connected new communities". The report recommends the
delivery of one million new homes and jobs in the area by 2050. It states that:
"The move, equivalent to a doubling of the current rate of housebuilding would be supported by
improved road and rail links between the major cities, helping to create vibrant new towns - the first
new towns in this country for 50 years."
Garden Cities LLP welcomes the National Infrastructures Commission's recommendations and agrees that
"East West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unlock land for new settlements." Albeit we understand that the function as well as route of the 'Expressway' will need
clarifying.
Importantly, development at Verney Junction has the potential to leverage the provision of sustainable new
housing and employment, for the benefit of new regional rail and road infrastructure and the wider Aylesbury
Vale District, in a way that simply cannot be achieved by piecemeal development on the edges of existing
communities - through land value capture.
Pressure for continued new housing delivery will not abate, particularly in the context of Government initiatives
such as East-West Rail and the Oxford- Cambridge Expressway. The area between Oxford and Cambridge
(which includes the north part of the District) is considered by Government as a growth area with infrastructure
investment likely to be a significant spur for future housing growth. Aylesbury District is likely to be at the heart
of this debate as it is relatively unconstrained in terms of environmental designations such as AONB, and has
limited areas of Green Belt.
Garden Cities LLP is actively engaged with senior management of East West Rail (EWR) and understands it
to be supportive in principle of our proposals. The National Infrastructure Commission sees EWR as being
both enabled by and enabling the development of significant communities and we are encouraged by our
discussions with them to date.
Garden Cities LLP will be seeking to engage fully in future reviews of the Local Plan over the coming years.
However, we would like to work with Aylesbury Vale District Council now to ensure that you play a substantial
role in developing the proposals for the site and so that the District is best placed to benefit from them.
On behalf of Garden Cities LLP and its team, we look forward to working with Aylesbury Vale District Council
in the coming months and years. In the meantime, please do let me know if you require any further
information or clarification.

Yours sincerely,
Steven Sensecall
Partner

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 356

Received: 05/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Phil Yerby

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

See comments in relation to 3.3 above

Full text:

See comments in relation to 3.3 above

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 397

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: AD Fanthorpe

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The development cannot be regarded as sustainable if too many houses results in a huge increase in traffic which is already causing existing residents to travel elsewhere for shopping and entertainment, as the journey into Aylesbury become increasingly congested.,

Full text:

The development cannot be regarded as sustainable if too many houses results in a huge increase in traffic which is already causing existing residents to travel elsewhere for shopping and entertainment, as the journey into Aylesbury become increasingly congested.,

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 424

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

See comments in relation to 3.3 above

Full text:

See comments in relation to 3.3 above

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 551

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Sarah Way

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. The traffic situation in Aylesbury is dire at best. Every day there are queues of traffic to get into Aylesbury, both in the morning and the evening. It only takes one car to break down, anywhere within Aylesbury and it leads to complete gridlock, EVERYWHERE. Aylesbury Vale cannot even contemplate building more houses with building new roads FIRST. Some of the roads are aspirational, basically they will never happen! This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

Full text:


I wish to comment on the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan VALP, which cover the planning applications for Hampden Fields and Woodlands.


3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. The traffic situation in Aylesbury is dire at best. Every day there are queues of traffic to get into Aylesbury, both in the morning and the evening. It only takes one car to break down, anywhere within Aylesbury and it leads to complete gridlock, EVERYWHERE. Aylesbury Vale cannot even contemplate building more houses with building new roads FIRST. Some of the roads are aspirational, basically they will never happen! This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. These villages are vital to the character of Aylesbury Vale and by enveloping these villages with new houses, completely spoils the living environment of the people already living within these villages and Aylesbury Vale as a whole. I understand that new housing is needed, but it needs to be done in a thoughtful/considered way. By tacking on huge estates to small villages it is completely ruinng the environment for those living within the village. This is not an Effective approach

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. Again they need to deal with the traffic issue BEFORE building further housing. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

Policy D1: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Aylesbury Vale need to look after its existing residents first and improve Aylesbury town centre and the road system before even considering building new houses.Not Justified.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Every morning and evening there is already a queue of traffic to get into Aylesbury, that goes from the traffic lights at Bedgrove right back to the start of the duel carriageway (approx. a mile) how on earth can they consider building more houses without building a by-pass of Aylesbury FIRST. Not Justified or Effective.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Please see my earlier notes. Not Effective.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 558

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Steven Hyams

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development

This is too many houses in a very small area. It will cause traffic chaos amongst an already fragile traffic situation. It is not Justified or Effective.

Full text:


3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development

This is too many houses in a very small area. It will cause traffic chaos amongst an already fragile traffic situation. It is not Justified or Effective.

3.15 New settlement

This is too short term and does not consider the potential of creating a new town from the outset. It is not the best strategy and therefore not Justified.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements

Saying that you "will seek to preserve" is too open and too easy to back out of subsequently. This needs to be guaranteed, otherwise everything will surely end up amalgamating into one amorphous lump. It is not an Effective approach.

3.36 and 3.38 Infrastructure

Saying the VALP "aims to ensure...sufficient and appropriate infrastructure" is a commendable ambition, but unlikely to result in real outcomes. For example, with so many new houses I would expect to see the need for significantly increased provision for A & E and other healthcare services. Where is the money from that going to magically appear from?

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre

The town centre cannot absorb all the extra traffic that will be generated. It is already becoming extremely difficult to park at peak times.It is not Justified nor Effective.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS

ATS is not credible, based on flawed modelling, criiticised by AECOM (working for BCC). The orbital strategy has no concrete and immediate action. By the time it is fully implemented (if ever) it will have already failed the population for decades.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads

The orbital roads will, at best, partially mitigate the massively increased local traffic caused by the population explosion. 2017 witnessed gridlock on more than one occasion from one key road being obstructed.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

Aylesbury cannot absorb this level of growth without huge, guaranteed infrastructure expansion. Not intentions, guarantees.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

4.125 RAF Halton

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

7.16 East-West Rail

How are we taking advantage of this? We seem to be largely ignoring the opportunity and operating in isolation.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

How are we taking advantage of this? We seem to be largely ignoring the opportunity and operating in isolation.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers

Can we ever rely on Developers? They are pursuing their own objectives (as anyone who has ever bought a new house will know) so what is the inescapable obligation on them?

Signed:

Mr Steven Hyams

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 565

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Marcus Joy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Far too many houses are being built in an area that will not be able to accommodate the traffic. Non effective strategy.

Full text:

My objection is submitted on the basis of the below concerns:
3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Far too many houses are being built in an area that will not be able to accommodate the traffic. Non effective strategy.
3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is very ambiguous and does not provide any assurance on preserving the countryside.

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. The desire for people to use the town centre is already low due to congestion and poor shopping, so this element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. How can you use an industry accredited consultancy to advise you and then ignore what they say? This particular point is of grave concern as it infers incompetence.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the already crowded road network. This basically puts a conservative estimate of 16,000 extra cars into the road network and because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. How can the village of Wendover and the National Trust woodlands possibly accommodate this sharp rise in traffic? Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.

7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. The Chiltern Line is already running at high capacity during peak hours and rail strategy is vital to future development. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Regards,
Marcus Joy.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 581

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Michelle Hughes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

Full text:

Dear Sir, Madame.

Please find below comments I wish to make regarding the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP)

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 587

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: The Buckingham Society

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

We object to the fact that the implication in S1 is that Council will seek involvement with the applicant before parish councils are allowed to comment.

Full text:

SI states "the Council will work proactively with applicants to find solutions so that proposals can be approved." This is arrogant talk from the Council. The council MUST seek to ensure proactive involvement with the NEIGHBOURHOOD when assessing an applicant's proposals.
In assessing criteria, bullet point i) states: "providing access to facilities..............". How is "access" to be defined. ? Detailed proposals as to what measure of access can be provided must be included in all proposals. E.g. Primary Schools must be within walking distance and Secondary Schools must as a minimum have transport facilities within walking distance.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 595

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs B Daniel

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

3.3 and Policy S1 places too many houses in small area. Will lead to traffic problems and economic stagnation. Not justified nor effective.

Full text:

SHORTLIST OF MOST RELEVANT SECTIONS, WITH COMMENTS
3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.

7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Brenda Daniel/Colin Doman

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 599

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Keith Waterman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Placing too many houses within this small area will compound the current traffic problems and will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

Full text:

In response to the Draft Aylesbury Local Plan VALP, I set out my comments below.

Comments / Response

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses within this small area will compound the current traffic problems and will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should be thinking much longer term and more strategically and should include a full details for a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is meaningless and too easy to circumvent early on, with a weak excuse on "economic or practicability" grounds. A firm commitment linked to action is required to avoid an unacceptable fudge later on. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, which is in itself will be a monumental task, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will probably not happen and certainly not before the next plan in 2034. This issue needs to be addressed now before more development is planned or sanctioned. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system and congestion around the town centre. While the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth proposed cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Therefore Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy. Where next, absorb Weston Turville and Wendover into the same conurbation?
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning. The proposed Stoke Mandeville bypass as part of HS2 will do nothing to alleviate congestion problems except in the immediate area near the church and school. This new development will quickly negate any benefits gained therefrom.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe/catastrophic. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed and integrated using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Aylesbury town centre must be one of the least attractive county towns with nothing to attract shoppers. If you need to go shopping it is necessary to travel to Milton Keynes, High Wycombe or Oxford. The town looks like it is dying on its feet and all that is proposed is to increase housing density and encroach onto valuable green space around the town.

There appear to be many empty office buildings that have been unoccupied for a long time with little prospect that they will attract new tenants. The trend nowadays seems to encourage working from home to reduce the need for expensive office space and AVDC needs to acknowledge this trend. Restrictions on areas reserved for commercial premises should be revisited to put the land or buildings back to full use. This would help to regenerate Aylesbury as a vibrant town that people want to visit before taking more and more green land around the edges.

Notwithstanding the above, traffic congestion gets progressively worse year on year. There needs to be a much greater vision for the town and the area first before expanding housing provision on green land to satisfy aggressive housing developers (land bank managers).


Regards
Keith Waterman

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 673

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Whaddon Parish Council

Representation:

S1 Whaddon PC Support.

Full text:

S1 Whaddon PC Support.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 713

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Rockspring Hanover Property Unit Trust

Agent: Castle Planning

Representation:

Support flexible employment provision and the delivery of associated ancillary facilities, particularly where these improve the sustainability of that employment function.

Full text:

In terms of Sustainable Growth, the Submission Draft Plan supports a mix of employment uses and employment facilities to enable flexible working. The owners of the Westcott Venture Park support this approach and the encouragement of sustainable and flexible employment space.

The growth of Westcott Venture Park will be extensive and diverse as a result of the Enterprise Zone designation and therefore planning policy which supports and will enable this is encouraged.

The ongoing and future growth and expansion of Westcott Venture Park may result in the opportunity for the development of not only a mix of employment types, but also a range of development to support the employment function of the Park. The encouragement of creation of a mix of employment and supporting facilities is therefore supported, as it is considered that this could and should enable more sustainable employment provision, where the use of an employment site is directly supported by associated facilities.

Westcott Venture Park has a very specific and unique employment focus, in space propulsion, environmental engineering and associated businesses and, although there are other, more 'mainstream' employers on the site, there is the requirement for employees with very specific, specialist skills. This does result in local employment, with the Park having been established in the area for many years, encouraging people with these specific skills to move locally, but there is inevitably employment of people who travel some distance to work at the site for specific roles and projects, due to the nature of the type of employment use. There are therefore people commuting both short and long distances and potentially people working at the site for specific (non-permanent) periods of time.

In sustainability terms, there are therefore some challenges of this, both on a daily basis, in terms of local commuter patterns, and more broadly in terms of employees and visitor/ short term employee requirements. These matters can be addressed more easily in terms of the 'day to day' more local commuter patterns, where sustainable Green Travel Plans and associated measures can be implemented to assist in reducing journeys. In terms of short term employees for training or project based roles, there may be more which can be done in terms of short-term accommodation etc. which could be considered as part of a sustainable employment approach and in the context of a flexible policy approach to employment and employment-related development, which would be supported.

Furthermore, due to the location of the site, it is relatively limited in its accessibility to local shops and services.
Westcott Venture Park has some on site ancillary facilities, but it is likely to be beneficial to increase these in the future, as part of the wider expansion of the Park. This will make for a more sustainable employment function, where people are not reliant on leaving the Park, thereby creating more traffic and journeys in order to meet their everyday working requirements. It will also have the benefit of creating more and broader employment opportunities at the Park.

The sustainability of any employment provision should also consider its relationship with the surrounding community. Although the Westcott Venture Park has a good relationship with the neighbouring Westcott village, there may be more which can be achieved in terms of the sharing of services and facilities. This should be considered in the context of employment growth, for example, where development can better meet social sustainability aspirations at the boundaries of the employment site, consideration should be given to the development of facilities which would have a wider social and community benefit in proximity to, but outside of, the boundaries of that employment designation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 729

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Cerda Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Particular objection is made to Paragraph A which sets out the tilted balance. Whilst the way in which the tilted balance is to be applied reflects the NPPF, the trigger mechanism does not; Paragraph A states that the only circumstances by which the tilted balance will engage is where there are no policies relevant to a planning application.
This does not reflect the provisions of the NPPF which sets out that the tilted balance should apply where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date

Full text:

16.112 Reps_November 2017
VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN 2013-2033
PROPOSED SUBMISSION REPRESENTATIONS
Policy S1
In general, there is no objection to a sustainable development policy being introduced into
the Local Plan. However, where this is to be introduced, it should fairly reflect the provisions
of Paragraph 14 of the NPPF other than where there are specific circumstances which apply
to Aylesbury Vale.
Particular objection is made to Paragraph A which sets out the tilted balance. Whilst the
way in which the tilted balance is to be applied reflects the NPPF, the trigger mechanism
does not; Paragraph A states that the only circumstances by which the tilted balance will
engage is where there are no policies relevant to a planning application.
This does not reflect the provisions of the NPPF which sets out that the tilted balance should
apply where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date.
Policy S1 should be amended to reflect these provisions.
Policy S2
It is appropriate for the Local Plan to identify the housing requirements over the plan period.
This should be expressed as a minima if it is to be consistent with the NPPF; as drafted Policy
S2 suggests that the housing requirements has a cap or limit.
In any event, objections are lodged to the total 27,400 houses to be delivered in the period
to 2033. This figure does not accurately reflect the full objectively assessed housing needs. It
is to be noted that the previous Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan had to be withdrawn, in part, as
a result of not meeting Objectively Assessed Housing Needs. Consequently, the Council must
do all it can to deliver housing and to boost significantly the supply in accordance with the
provisions of the NPPF.
The Council should also be aware that as drafted, Policy S2 is clearly a housing land supply
policy the purposes of Paragraph 49 of the NPPF in terms of the scale and distribution
requirements of the policy.
Policy S3
Our representations relate primarily to Aston Clinton, which is fairly identified as a larger
village given the significant range of shops, services and facilities contained within Aston
Clinton as well as the sustainability advantages given that Aston Clinton is only a short
distance from the main town within the administrative boundary of Aylesbury Vale.
In this context, it is unacceptable and the subject of objection that there are no allocated
sites identified for Aston Clinton. It is acknowledged that Aston Clinton has had a series of
completions in the recent past, however the approach taken in the emerging Local Plan
effectively turns its back on Aston Clinton for much of the plan period, extending to 2033,
once the existing commitments are brought forward and completed.
16.112 Reps_November 2017
This approach will undermine the economic, social and environmental sustainability
credentials of Aston Clinton and runs-counter to the overarching strategy which seeks to
deliver significant quantities of development at the larger villages given the important role
that they play in Aylesbury Vale. It is also a blanket policy of the type clearly resisted by the
PPG.
Policy S7
No specific objections are lodged to the provisions of Policy S7, however, it is important that
as applied it should not be read as providing some sort of sequential approach seeking to
utilise previously developed land in favour of greenfield land. If the policy were to be
applied in that manner, it would be inconsistent with the NPPF which does not contain any
such sequential approach.
Policy H5
As drafted, the policy is unnecessarily vague and does not set out what percentage of
serviced plots for sale to sell/custom builders will be required. It is also not clear why the
threshold of 100 dwellings was identified, nor whether a sliding scale of provision has been
considered.
Whilst it is important that a site by site assessment is undertaken, as set out in the policy,
broad parameters should be identified at this stage to provide certainty both to developers
and landowners, as well as those involved in the delivery of self/custom plots.
Policy T7
It is not clear why the threshold of 10 dwellings has been identified for the provision of electric
vehicle infrastructure. It is also unclear why a floorspace threshold of 760 sq.m has been
identified; in other policies setting a threshold the floorspace is typically 1,000 sq.m where it
relates to 10 or more dwellings.
In any event, electric vehicle infrastructure is expensive and weighs heavily on a cost plan. It
is also the case that there is different infrastructure requirements for different manufactures;
for example BMW charge infrastructure varies significantly from Tesla.
In the circumstances, the policy should identify that passive electric infrastructure should be
provided which can then converted to active electric vehicle infrastructure dependant on
the owners requirements.
Policy NE8
The provisions of Policy NE8 are inconsistent with the NPPF. Whereas the local plan policy
seeks to protect best and most versatile farmland for the longer term, the NPPF requirement is
to taken into account the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile
agricultural land.
As drafted therefore, Policy NE8 goes beyond the requirements of the NPPF and as a
consequence is unacceptable and the subject of objections.
It is also the case that the NPPF does not require that the benefits of the proposed
development outweigh the harm resulting from the significant loss of agricultural land. Where best and most versatile land is to be lost, this is to be weighed in the balance but it is 16.112 Reps_November 2017 not necessary for the benefits of housing to outweigh the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land as a simple two sides of the equation approach.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 746

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr R Horton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The Road Infrastructure cannot cope with anymore traffic. New business's will not come to the area because they are unable transport their goods to and from Aylesbury. This will not create economic growth. This is not an effective strategy.

Full text:

The Road Infrastructure cannot cope with anymore traffic. New business's will not come to the area because they are unable transport their goods to and from Aylesbury. This will not create economic growth. This is not an effective strategy.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 754

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Peter Brett Associates LLP

Representation:

BA supports Policies S1 and S2 in respect of sustainable development and the spatial strategy for growth, especially now the earlier draft VALP's reference in S2 to no more than 27ha of new employment land being required has been tempered with "and additional provision of employment land to contribute to the employment needs of the wider economic market area". This is particularly relevant to the employment provision envisaged within the Woodlands development.

Full text:

BA supports Policies S1 and S2 in respect of sustainable development and the spatial strategy for growth, especially now the earlier draft VALP's reference in S2 to no more than 27ha of new employment land being required has been tempered with "and additional provision of employment land to contribute to the employment needs of the wider economic market area". This is particularly relevant to the employment provision envisaged within the Woodlands development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 785

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes)

Agent: Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Bovis Homes object to Policy S1, which is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- is inconsistent with national policy in that it does not fully reflect the Government's priorities and policies in terms of enabling sustainable development and boosting the supply of housing to meet identified needs.

Full text:

The overarching principle of Policy S1 which seeks to deliver sustainable development in the District to meet identified development needs is supported.

However, the policy sets out the terms for the assessment of a development proposals, and it is crucial that the socio-economic objectives and direct and indirect benefits that would result from the development are considered along with the (primarily) environmental considerations already set out in the last part of the policy. They too are critical elements of sustainable development as defined by the NPPF. Notably there is no reference to the imperative to meet the need for market and affordable housing in the District and wider Housing Market Areas. The policy should, therefore, be amended to explicitly refer to the relevant socio-economic objectives.

Furthermore, item (d) of the policy inappropriately seeks to give priority to the use of brownfield land. That does not reflect NPPF's focus on housing delivery, where the use of previously developed land is encouraged, but is no longer prioritised (NPPF paragraph 17 and 111). Indeed, Policy S1 is inconsistent with the Local Plan's own Policy S7 in that regard.

Soundness
For the reasons set out above, Bovis Homes object to Policy S1, which is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- is inconsistent with national policy in that it does not fully reflect the Government's priorities and policies in terms of enabling sustainable development and boosting the supply of housing to meet identified needs.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 821

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Mark Winn

Representation:

The Government needs to support this plan by ensuring the area gets the necessary infrastrucrute the link roads, east west rail rail east west expressway. Also hospital provision is missing from the plan. Without it the plan could not be considered sustainable.

Full text:

To achieve sustainable development the plan is dependent on many things some of which are outside its control. We require the building of east west rail with stations in the Vale, the plan for an Aylesbury Spur and the dialling of track on the Aylesbury Wycombe line all need to be carried out.

So County can get on with the job of putting in the necessary infrastructure their £250m bid to the government needs to be paid in full. Otherwise the link roads that need to be built get built on time. We also reunite that the east west expressway goes through Aylesbury Vale.

Our local hospital trust does not appear to have commented at all on the plan, there will be grave doubts if the one hospital in the area and others that support Vales residents could continue to cope without investment.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 834

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: AB Planning & Development Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The reference to "approved without delay" is welcomed, as it is consistent with national guidance. In practice however, AVDC hardly determines any application without significant delay and it appears from regular use of the service that rarely does the Council meet the Government's 8 and 13-week determination targets.

Full text:

The reference to "approved without delay" is welcomed, as it is consistent with national guidance. In practice however, AVDC hardly determines any application without significant delay and it appears from regular use of the service that rarely does the Council meet the Government's 8 and 13-week determination targets.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 855

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Wise

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development
How can such a building plan in any way support Biodiversity? The traffic issues cause by this plan will in fact have the opposite effect.
A strong and vibrant community can only be built if surrounding villages are allowed to remain their individuality and building on this scale can in no way produce this 'community'.
This is neither justified nor an effective strategy.

Full text:

Sirs,

I would like to make the following comments on the VALP:

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development
How can such a building plan in any way support Biodiversity? The traffic issues cause by this plan will in fact have the opposite effect.
A strong and vibrant community can only be built if surrounding villages are allowed to remain their individuality and building on this scale can in no way produce this 'community'.
This is neither justified nor an effective strategy.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The planned Hampden Fields development will not only coalesce the villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with Aylesbury but will also swamp all surrounding areas in unacceptable extra traffic.
This is not an effective approach.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy
This ATS is based on flawed modelling.
The current traffic levels and congestion in and around Aylesbury and not only unacceptable but are also unsustainable. The orbital strategy plan will probably not happen for at least another 17 years during which time the surrounding villages will be swamped with increased traffic levels.
The plan is therefore neither positively prepared nor effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
An extra 16,000 houses around Aylesbury will have a huge impact on the local transport system - a system that is currently in gridlock at peak periods.
Considering Aylesbury is supposedly a 'cycling demonstration town' the current cycleway system is nothing but disgraceful and a simply 'completing the gaps' approach to cycling will in no way improve links for cyclists.
The planned interventions are neither objectively assessed nor effective.

Policy DI: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
This amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way.
Not justified.

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury
This creates coalescence between Aylesbury and surrounding villages and the traffic produced from an extra (minimum) of 1000 houses will cause unimaginable congestion to these villages.
This is not an effective infrastructure plan.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41
The volume of development here will have a severe impact on the transport system, particularly the A41 and A413, so traffic will seek alternative routes through already traffic-swamped villages.
This is not justified nor effective.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41
This will have a severe impact on the transport system, particularly the A41 and A413, so traffic will seek alternative routes through already traffic-swamped villages - particularly Weston Turville.
This creates coalescence between Aylesbury and the villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville.
This is not justifiable under any circumstances.

I hope these comments will be used as a signal that the local residents of Aylesbury and the surrounding villages have no faith in the VALP and most of the contents therein are not justifiable or deliverable.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 936

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Stuart Twigg

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Collusion and risk of allowing ill conceived applications with much left to reserved matters.

If the planning department allows and assists applications, there is a risk of conflict of interest and corruption allegations.

Full text:

Collusion and risk of allowing ill conceived applications with much left to reserved matters.

If the planning department allows and assists applications, there is a risk of conflict of interest and corruption allegations.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 979

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The increase is housing in the area is currently not sustainable as there has been no improvement in the road network there is increasing congestion in Aylesbury. I've been living in the area for 25 years and other than minor changes to road junctions there have been no major improvements to reduce congestion. Reading the proposals there is no sign of a comprehensive by-pass within a reasonable timescale. The by-pass needs to be in place before all the proposed development.

Full text:

Policy S1
Sustainable Development.
The increase is housing in the area is currently not sustainable as there has been no improvement in the road network there is increasing congestion in Aylesbury. I've been living in the area for 25 years and other than minor changes to road junctions there have been no major improvements to reduce congestion. Reading the proposals there is no sign of a comprehensive by-pass within a reasonable timescale. The by-pass needs to be in place before all the proposed development.

3.22
The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities.
This is not strong enough; you are already trying to coalesce Aylesbury with Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with the Hampden Fields development.

4.14
Aylesbury Town centre
There needs to be more thought on the impact of traffic on the town centre with the extra housing around the town

4.16
Aylesbury Transport Strategy
The "orbital strategy" is only aspirational, it needs to be an actual positive plan and be implemented

Policy D1 Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The amount of planed growth is not sustainable and cannot be accommodated

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury
This creates coalescence between Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall; this is not a reasonable strategy.
Placing 1000+ houses, schools etc. along the south east link road will give a severe impact on the gyratory and surrounding roads.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury North of A41 (Woodlands)
The effect on the A41 for the amount of development in this location will be catastrophic, and is not justified

D-AGT4 Aylesbury South of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The traffic impact at the gyratory and the A41 and A413 will be severe.
See also comments above on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
Putting 1000+ houses on RAF Halton will have a grave potential impact on the surrounding road network. Has the necessary traffic modelling been assessed?

Policy H1 Affordable Housing
All large developments should have 35% affordable housing; the development at Woodlands has only 20% this will let other developers to follow suite. This is not justifiable and not consistent will national policy

7.16 East-West Rail
Is a key infrastructure project and should be fully embraced, the current VALP does not put forward the appropriate strategy as a comprehensive plan would.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
The government supports this scheme so AVDC need to actively plan to capitalise on the housing and transport opportunities this will bring forward

9.39 Air Quality requirement on Developers
Air quality is vital to heath, the council should commit in the plan to improve the air quality within the area. The council has confirmed the major source of pollution is from road transport. This needs to be tacked as a first when development is taking place. The road infrastructure needs to be implemented before the increase in road traffic, Aylesbury need a proper comprehensive dual carriageway with bridges and underpasses at its junctions to keep the majority of the traffic flowing freely keeping the pollution to a minimum within the town as through traffic will by-pass the town centre and on the by-pass itself as there will be minimal stop start at junctions.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 981

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Thornborough Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

* The overall numbers of new houses for the Vale is unsustainable without major infrastructure changes and not enough thought has been taken for major infrastructure changes. Thornborough Parish Council are not confident that what has been proposed will cope with the extra people, traffic, demand on services etc.

Full text:

Thornborough Parish Council response to the VALP

* The overall numbers of new houses for the Vale is unsustainable without major infrastructure changes and not enough thought has been taken for major infrastructure changes. Thornborough Parish Council are not confident that what has been proposed will cope with the extra people, traffic, demand on services etc.

* Thornborough Parish Council supports allocating development to settlements on a "case by case basis", rather than as generic percentages based on hierarchy classification, but thinks that not enough evidence is presented in the Plan to explain how the actual numbers have been derived.

* Thornborough Parish Council are concerned about current plans that will have an impact on sustainability. There are currently several developments in the north of Buckinghamshire that will not count towards the Aylesbury Vale Housing numbers but will have an impact on local roads leading to more congestion and a worsening living environment. New housing estates should be environmentally sustainable and ecologically rich, for example hard surfacing should be permeable to allow water to permeate to the water-table and not be lost as run-off with the consequent effect of flooding. This needs strong and robust policies to force developers to design well.

* The Government emphasis on denser housing stock will inevitably lead to smaller and smaller amenity space which will impact on health and well-being, this should be addressed. It will also put pressure on smaller sites to take houses in backyards and gardens. This could have an adverse impact on the nature of the historic environment, the local ecology (gardens are often refuges for wildlife and their loss would be detrimental, and the loss of hedgerows which are ecologically significant as highways, a food source and protection. The natural and historic environment also need protection with robust policies.

* Neighbourhood Plans need to be given due weight in Policy. Thornborough Parish Council believes that the Plan lacks clarity on the status of Neighbourhood Plans made already within the District. Section 8 deals only with new NDPs coming forward. There also appears to be a lack of consistency in approach to NDPs throughout. The relationship between the VALP and existing NDPs is not clear and therefore not robust.

* Co-operation between neighbouring districts - There appears to be an assumption that unmet needs identified from other neighbouring districts to the south can be met by housing allocations in the north of the district,, while there also appears to have been little consultation or co-operation with neighbouring district councils to the north - South Oxfordshire District Council; Cherwell District Council; South Northants District Council and Milton Keynes Council.

* Housing - Thornborough Parish Council believe that the figure of 25% Affordable Housing is not enough has not taken into account other evidence such as rising figures in Housing Register. There is also not enough consideration given to housing mix.

* Enforcement Issues. Throughout the VALP there is no mention of enforcement as a topic; the word appears twice, once in relation to listed building, the other relating to work/living spaces. The whole planning policy is merely an ambition unless there is some form of effective enforcement so it is surprising that there is no policy at all relating to it. This has been a continuing issue in Thornborough for many years with notable lack of enforcement at sites with un-approved building.
* In section 11.34 it states that Aylesbury Vale is in a state of Water stress, meaning it has poor overall water quality and quantity of water resources hindering the achievement of the Good status under the Water Framework Directive. This is a major issue that must be addressed and the VALP needs a more definitive plan regarding water stress. There is a considerable concern that even limited development in many older settlements will put strain on drainage and water services, which latter is not fully addressed.

* Employment Opportunities - the lack of new employment opportunities for the increased number of people in the planned dwellings will increase commuting and this congestion and air pollution throughout the Vale. More thought needs to be given to this issue.

* Thornborough Parish Council wishes to see this Plan proceed and meet the deadline of submission to DCLG by 31 March, as failure would mean another 3 years and a new Plan would have to be based on a 55% uplift in housing need; in that time everywhere would continue to be vulnerable to speculative developers

* Thornborough Parish Council note that there is no plan for dealing with the possible impact of the Oxford- Cambridge expressway. We assume that this will necessitate a review of the VALP once the route is known.

* Thornborough Parish Council support Nash PC's concerns, given in detail in their submission, about the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1013

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

S1(d) seeks to prioritise use of brownfield land. This is not consistent with the Framework which outlined that development of PDL should be encouraged.

Full text:

Please see attached representation and appendices.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1045

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr William Spear

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The strategy presented will not work because the building of too many houses in an area that is clearly too small will lead to severe traffic problems. Consequently rather than attract new business the increased congestion will have the opposite effect and thus reduce the level of economic activity. This is not to mention the impact on existing businesses that may consider relocating because of the increased congestion.

Full text:

Comments on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
The strategy presented will not work because the building of too many houses in an area that is clearly too small will lead to severe traffic problems. Consequently rather than attract new business the increased congestion will have the opposite effect and thus reduce the level of economic activity. This is not to mention the impact on existing businesses that may consider relocating because of the increased congestion.

3.15 New settlement
A new town requires a long term vision and strategy and the current plan does not meet this requirement.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
'Seeking to preserve' is an aspiration rather than a specific strategy, and leaves little confidence that AVDC will effectively maintain the individual identity of the villages around Aylesbury. A more robust strategy is required.
4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre

The current plan to make the town centre more attractive, does not take seriously the impact on the town centre of the extra housing. With current traffic levels, the town is already seriously congested and with all the new planned housing it will be gridlocked.
4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
The evidence base for the Transport Strategy is very limited and has been seriously criticized by Bucks County Council's transport consultants. In addition, much of the plan is 'aspirational' which in reality means it will never happen.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads

The impact of 16,000 extra houses in reality means at least 30,000 extra vehicles which will have a catastrophic impact on the town's transport system. As mentioned in 4.14 the additional traffic will gridlock both the town centre and the main feeder roads (A41, A413, and A418) into and out of the town on a daily basis. This will lead to drivers seeking alternative routes and creating unsafe 'rat-runs' through residential housing areas. Likewise, there is little evidence to confirm the planned orbital routes will satisfactorily absorb the additional traffic and thus prevent the mayhem described above.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

The current plan does not demonstrate this can be effectively delivered because of the sheer volume of growth.
The planned growth
D-AGTl South Aylesbury

The plan demonstrates poor infrastructure development as it will merge Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall and as such is not an appropriate or acceptable strategy. In addition, the planned housing will generate at least 2,000+ extra vehicles which will regularly gridlock the gyratory system and the surrounding roads. This again will lead to the creation of unsafe 'rat-runs' through residential areas.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The A41 in particular will be adversely affected by the planned development,, therefore, is neither effective nor justified.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)

1. The planned housing will generate a very significant number of extra vehicles which will lead to regular gridlock at the gyratory system and the A41 and A413. Again, this will lead to the creation of unsafe 'rat-runs' through residential areas.
2. The strategy of local villages maintaining individual identities is severely comprised with this development as Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville will effectively become suburbs of Aylesbury.

4.125 RAF Halton

The closure of RAF Halton and the impact of 1,000+ new houses on the local infrastructure need to be properly evaluated, particularly in terms of the surrounding road network.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing

The Woodlands development only provides for 20% affordable housing which is not consistent with the national policy of 35%. Other developments may try to follow suit.
7.16 East-West Rail
The East-West rail link is major infrastructure project which is not exploited to the full by VALP. Opportunities such as this are rare and the local plan must take full advantage of the economic and social benefits it will bring to the area.
7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

See 7.16. Again, another major infrastructure project of which the plan fails to take full advantage.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
The plan does not commit to vital policies that will improve air quality

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1049

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, S1 + 3.3

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

Full text:

I object to this development as follows :

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1050

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr John Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, S1

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

Full text:

I object to this development as follows:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1063

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Philip & Tina Brown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, S1 + 3.3

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development:
building more homes in too small an area will increase the already severe traffic problems, I experience this every weekday and so speak from experience.

Full text:

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development:
building more homes in too small an area will increase the already severe traffic problems, I experience this every weekday and so speak from experience.

3.15 New settlement:
AVDC have an opportunity to create a new town instead of the current proposals, this could be served by a new infrastructure. Something the people of Aylesbury my actually thank the council for.

3.22:
The planned developments to the south and Stoke Mandeville are particularly worrying to me, the undertaking "will seek to preserve" is worthless.

4.16:
The latest ATS is way off of what's required, various council departments at odds with each other. The evidence of the last few years of "expert" advice is clear to see as one experiences long delays caused by this advice.

4.17:
The proposed orbital roads will not be effective in taking traffic away from the town centre, a major re think would be very welcome. The first priority should be a new ring road, before more housing.

D-AGT3:
The planned developments in this area will have a heavy impact on the area's transport system, local and the A41.

D-AGT4:
This proposed development will have a massive and crippling effect on the surrounding roads including
A41, A413 and gyratory system. The suggested intention to modify the gyratory system by closing part of it to feed traffic further into the town centre then return the traffic back to the gyratory system would be laughable if were not so serious.

9.38:
Air quality should be a consideration to all future plans.