Aylesbury Vale Area

Table 2 Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 29 of 29

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 307

Received: 01/12/2017

Respondent: Cllr Warren Whyte

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Maids Moreton is classified as a "Medium Village" for several reasonable reasons due to the lack of local amenities but a reasonable closeness (by car and occasional bus) to Buckingham. However Table 2 has allocated 171 houses which is far in excess of other medium villages, and indeed is more than all but 3 of the "Large Villages" allocation with their better facilities and connections.

Full text:

Maids Moreton is classified as a "Medium Village" for several reasonable reasons due to the lack of local amenities but a reasonable closeness (by car and occasional bus) to Buckingham. However Table 2 has allocated 171 houses which is far in excess of other medium villages, and indeed is more than all but 3 of the "Large Villages" allocation with their better facilities and connections.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 326

Received: 15/08/2016

Respondent: Carol West

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

In spite of numerous letters Marsworth is still designated at as Medium size village although there is very little amenities in the village.

I understand the need for houses and I was hoping that the quota for the village would be fulfilled by the development of the White Lion in Marsworth, which is an eye sore that has applied for planning permission but each time the plans have been reject for some minor detail. Would you please reinstate the White Lion as being used for residential properties and the development plan be passed.

Full text:

Please also see attached comments on the previous draft version of the plan.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find below the e-mail which was sent the Aylesbury Vale District Council in August 2016 as a response to the proposed AVDC Plans for Marsworth. Since that date the plans have been revised, but in spite of numerous letters and requests from Villagers to the District Council, Marsworth is still designated at as Medium size village although there is very little amenities in the village.

I understand the need for houses and I was hoping that the quota for the village would be fulfilled by the development of the White Lion in Marsworth. The White Lion site has been an eye sore as an entrance to the village for some years and has applied for planning permission over this time period. Each time the plans have been reject for some minor detail and I understand they have been rejected again as the council thought the development would be detrimental affect on the conservation area. Other housing developments have taken place at Marsworth Wharf with a ultra modern style of build and those plans were passed and not found the be detrimental in any way. I would have thought the worse possible sight with a conservation area is a pub which is falling down which looks derelict next to Bridge 132 and the old lock keeper house which is now Bluebell tearooms. The other reason the Planning Department rejected the plans was that the development was not near enough to the main part of the village although the church and the Recreation ground is only a two minute walk.

Would you please reinstate the White Lion as being used for residential properties and would no longer be a pub. Also the development plan for the White Lion be passed so we no longer have to endure the awful sight of the pub falling down, which could be extremely dangerous to passing cars, passers by and the bridge.

Many thanks for your time,

Keith and Carol West.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 329

Received: 01/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Ian Metherell

Representation:

The numbers are not aligned with the settlements in the table.

Full text:

The numbers are not aligned with the settlements in the table.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 383

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: National Trust - Waddesdon Estate/Hartwell House

Representation:

Strongly in favour of the proposed reduction in the number of dwellings at Stone from 208 to 36, in which it is noted that the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the VALP, Technical Annex, September, 2017 states that a reduction in capacity is on the grounds that 'Stone is a constrained settlement given its location on the edge of Aylesbury, in proximity to the proposed route of the HS2 and also the proposed 1,550 homes South West Aylesbury MDA; and also given the presence of Hartwell House to the east; and a proposed locally designated landscape to the north'

Full text:

Strongly in favour of the proposed reduction in the number of dwellings at Stone from 208 to 36, in which it is noted that the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the VALP, Technical Annex, September, 2017 states that a reduction in capacity is on the grounds that 'Stone is a constrained settlement given its location on the edge of Aylesbury, in proximity to the proposed route of the HS2 and also the proposed 1,550 homes South West Aylesbury MDA; and also given the presence of Hartwell House to the east; and a proposed locally designated landscape to the north'

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 447

Received: 12/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Barry Agnew

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

We note that you identify suitable areas of development as being behind certain houses in Main Street, we take issue with your view.

The concensus opinion put forward by the Parish Plan and Village Design Statement was to embrace limited development provided that it did not change the character of the Village. Any back land development behind Main Street would alter the character of the Village completely, and would totally go against the wishes contained in the above mentioned documents.

The only areas, in our view, that fulfill these conditions and continue tradition are along Cooks Lane, Whaddon Road and Little Horwood Road out to the extent of the 30mph signs. We feel these areas should be considered for any future development in advance of the back land sites you identify in your document.

Full text:

VALP Statement

We have recently had been able to view the above for the Village of Mursley, and note that you identify suitable areas of development as being behind certain houses in Main Street.

As residents of Mursley for some 25 years, and having been involved in the preparation of the Parish Plan some 10 years ago, (which incidentally we were told at the time would heavily influence planning decisions for our Village, and which would, within 2 years, have a basis in law), which subsequently gave rise to a Village Design Statement, we take issue with your view.

The concensus opinion put forward by those documents was to embrace limited development provided that it did not change the character of the Village, which is clearly built along linear lines. There have been 3 sizeable developments since that time, Manor Close, Maids Close and Taylors Corner. In the main, these developments have fulfilled that brief, and been both attractive and sustainable. Any back land development behind Main Street would alter the character of the Village completely, and would totally go against the wishes contained in the above mentioned documents, copies of which we feel sure you have retained on your files!

The only areas, in our view, that fulfill these conditions and continue tradition are along Cooks Lane, Whaddon Road and Little Horwood Road out to the extent of the 30mph signs. We feel these areas should be considered for any future development in advance of the back land sites you identify in your document.

Barry & Alison Agnew

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 469

Received: 07/12/2017

Respondent: Brill Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

We welcome the abandonment of the 96-house allocation. However, we have continued concerns regarding categorisation of Brill as a medium village. Policy D2 allows for development outside the developed footprint and to "make some contribution to meeting the housing needs of the district"
Given the special geography nature of Brill in its hilltop location. We feel that Brill should be reclassified as a small village.

Full text:

Brill PC submission on VALP October 2017

We welcome the abandonment of the 96-house allocation. However, we have continued concerns regarding categorisation of Brill as a medium village. Policy D2 allows for development outside the developed footprint and to "make some contribution to meeting the housing needs of the district"
Given the special geography nature of Brill in its hilltop location. We feel that Brill should be reclassified as a small village.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 577

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

These comments relate to the 'Land adjacent to Milton Keynes' category and the provision of 2,212 dwellings.

Rey Construction does not agree with the conclusions of the HELAA (Version 4, January 2017). It is considered more sites could and should have been assessed as suitable, including 'land between Manor Farm and railway line, Whaddon Road' (Site Ref: NLV019).

Sites to the south of the railway line and north of Newton Longville should be assessed together to determine their suitability to provide a much larger SUE than currently identified.

Full text:

These comments relate specifically to the 'Land adjacent to Milton Keynes' category and the total provision for this area of 2,212 dwellings.

Rey Construction does not agree with the conclusions of the HELAA (Version 4, January 2017) not least because it is considered that more sites could and should have been assessed as suitable, including 'land between Manor Farm and railway line, Whaddon Road' (Site Ref: NLV019).

It is considered that there is a fundamental flaw in the approach which the Council has adopted when assessing the suitability of sites to the south west of Milton Keynes, largely but not entirely within the parish boundaries of Newton Longville. For those sites to the north of the railway line (NLV001, NLV023 and NLV020) sites are assessed in relation to Bletchley's urban area, the strategic road network and East West Rail, in respect of which the potential for a future station is referred to. However those sites to the south of the railway line, albeit adjacent to it, are assessed in relation to the village of Newton Longville; for example, it is noted that the Manor Farm site does not adjoin the village and that it is approximately 1.1 km to the village core.

The sites to the south of the railway line and north of Newton Longville would not be developed on an individual, ad-hoc basis, but as part of a wider urban extension or as an extension to the allocation immediately to the north of the railway line (which now has a resolution to approve an outline planning application for the site). The Manor Farm site should be considered in conjunction with other development opportunities in the area which, when combined, could deliver not just a significant contribution to the housing needs of the area but also could facilitate the provision of requisite infrastructure such as the Bletchley Southern Bypass, a railway station on the East West Rail line and Green Infrastructure. It is therefore essential that the District Council, working with Milton Keynes Council, adopts a positive approach to development in the vicinity of the Newton Longville and does not limit its vision to the provision of an urban extension to the north of the railway line.

In this context, Rey Construction is aware that when Milton Keynes Council consulted on its 'Plan:MK - Strategic Development Options'; one of the areas considered related to 'Development to the west, south/west and/or south east of the City' which included land within Aylesbury Vale's administrative area to the north of Newton Longville. In the document, it explained that growth would be in the form of "an arc of urban extensions" extending beyond the existing expansion areas "including land beyond the administrative boundary .... to the south and west around Newton Longville......" Unlike the HELAA, it recognised the benefits of development in the area and in so doing specifically referred to the opportunities afforded by the East-West rail route and that the "The growth arc could potentially help to deliver a Bletchley southern bypass relieving some of the pressure on the east-west A421 route through the city"; a proposal which would also overcome those concerns about the railway line forming a barrier to a well connected urban extension to Milton Keynes. (In this context it is important to note that there is a track which passes under the railway line immediately to the east of the Manor Farm site).

It was further recognised in the consultation document that consideration would need to be given to the impact of development on existing villages; the suggestion being that they are "sensitively treated, for example through the creation of landscape or green buffers."

Having regard to the increasing and acknowledged need for more housing, it is imperative that a positive approach is taken to the development of a much larger sustainable urban extension in the vicinity of Newton Longville than currently envisaged and identified as suitable in the existing HELAA..

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 586

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Dr Julia Swallow

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

We wish to see site STW004 allocated in the VALP. It was considered wrongly to be 'unsuitable' in the HELAA and the VALP does not propose any allocations at Stewkley. A small development focusing on smaller properties, supporting families and village life would complement Sycamore Close, a street administered by the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust, who support such a development. The site would be accessed via Sycamore Close. The Highway Authority raised no objection in reply to an application for "Pre App" advice in 2014.

Full text:

The site is bordered on two sides by established development so any incursion into the open countryside would be minimal. In recent years deeper incursions elsewhere in the village have resulted in a quaint nonlinear character to the village.
A small development focusing on smaller properties, supporting families and village life would complement Sycamore Close, a street administered by the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust, who support such a development.
The site would be accessed via Sycamore Close to which the Highway Authority raised no objection in reply to an application for "Pre App" advice in 2014.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 666

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Winslow Town Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

There is an allocation of a single site for housing growth in Winslow which is contrary to:
(a) NPPF para 185 covering the key aim/promise of Neighbourhood Planning which
enables communities to decide where new homes should be located;
(b) various Ministerial Statements along the same lines; and
(c) para 1.20 of the proposed Submission VALP which confirms that made Neighbourhood Plans can determine how development will take place in their area.

Full text:

Winslow Town Council Objections to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP)
Winslow Town Council (WTC) welcomes the creation of a new Local Plan to cover Aylesbury Vale District. The approval of VALP will remove uncertainties in local planning - but it is important that the Plan is sound, and not open to further challenge. WTC also recognises that national Government proposals for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc, as reflected in statements in the Autumn 2017 Budget, suggest that it will be necessary over the coming few years to revise VALP to accommodate greater levels of development in the area than are currently envisaged. Such matters, however, are for the future. The immediate priority is to review and revise the currently drafted VALP, and to that end WTC offers the following objections to matters which it considers need to be reviewed and revised before VALP would be sound and consistent with relevant national planning policies.
0 Summary
Winslow Town Council considers that there are elements of the submission VALP which are unsound and need to be modified. These are:
1. The allocation of sites in strategic settlements with made or emerging Neighbourhood Plans, contrary to national policy.
2. Raising to 55% the increase in housing numbers for Winslow, the least sustainable of all the strategic settlements
3. Flaws in the Buckinghamshire Memorandum of Understanding
4. Insufficient affordable housing on qualifying sites
5. Under-delivery of new homes in large villages
6. Understating the growth in population during the Plan period as about 35,000 rather than 60,000
1 Site specific allocation for housing growth
1.1 In Table 2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Plan, there is an allocation of a single site for housing growth in Winslow which is contrary to:
(a) NPPF para 185 covering the key aim/promise of Neighbourhood Planning which enables communities to decide where new homes should be located;
(b) various Ministerial Statements along the same lines; and
(c) para 1.20 of the proposed Submission VALP which confirms that made Neighbourhood Plans can determine how development will take place in their area.
1.2 This aspect of the Plan is therefore unsound and not 'justified' as the most appropriate policy because it is not consistent with national planning policy. It will be for WTC, with its made Neighbourhood Plan, to bring forward an update and revision of Winslow Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) following the approval of VALP. The updated WNP, following robust consultation with the local community, will need to identify how and where any housing growth required in an agreed VALP is to be accommodated, including (if and where necessary) any extension to the WNP's settlement boundary. Both Buckingham and Haddenham are also Strategic Settlements which have a Neighbourhood Plan, and in which VALP has also identified allocated sites for housing development contrary to the same national planning policy.
1.3 This reflects previous correspondence from WTC to AVDC (dated 13th October 2017) on this very issue which refers to the inspector's conclusions for the Maidstone Local Plan, where target housing numbers were seen as an appropriate mechanism to use for an area with a made or emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
Proposed modification:
1.4 To meet WTC's objection this issue should be addressed by VALP stating the target figure of additional housing that needs to be accommodated in an updated WNP, perhaps indicating that one option for locating this might be on the identified land to the east of Great Horwood Road. An equivalent change also should be made to VALP in respect of other areas which have a made or emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
2 Scale of housing growth for Winslow
2.1 In Table 2 and the allocation of Site ref WIN001 on page 126, the level of housing growth proposed for Winslow, which WTC considers to be the least sustainable of the strategic settlements in the Vale (See WTC's initial Strategic Settlements Sustainability Assessment, below), has apparently been increased arbitrarily to 55%. In the draft VALP, the proposed growth was 50%, which the Town Council objected to as being, comparatively, unreasonable when infrastructure provision was considered in relation to the other strategic settlements.
Aylesbury Vale Strategic Settlements Sustainability Assessment for VALP (by WTC)
Aylesbury
Buckingham
Haddenham
Wendover
Winslow
Housing
Close to areas with unmet housing need
3
1
5
4
2
Transport
Train to London, Birmingham, Oxford
4
1
5
4
2
Express bus to nearby centres
5
4
3
1
3
Access to motorway network
3
4
5
3
1
Bypass for through traffic
3
4
5
4
1
Services
Extendable employment sites
5
4
3
2
1
Modern medical centre / surgery
4
3
5
2
1
Access to major retail / leisure / employment centre (Aylesbury or MK)
5
1
3
4
2
TOTAL SCORE
32
22
34
24
13
Each settlement is given a score from 1 to 5 in each row, with 5 representing the greatest level of sustainability.
2.2 The requirement for Winslow to deliver new homes, above those detailed in the WNP, has increased from 402 in the draft VALP to 585 in the submission VALP, an increase of 45%. The housing growth proposed for Buckingham, the second largest strategic settlement in the Vale, with its much stronger infrastructure compared with that of Winslow, has seen its housing growth reduced from 2,612 (50%) in the draft VALP to 2,312 (45%) in the submission VALP. These changes in the proposed growth figures are not explained, appear counter-intuitive and lack any rationale to support them. A report to AVDC's Scrutiny Committee for VALP in September 2017 said that: the Council has worked with town and parish councils to identify sites which can be allocated through revisions to their neighbourhood plans. Winslow is not alone in being able to confirm that no such consultation took place. If the process has been simply to establish a suitable site for housing growth and use its capacity as the level of housing growth to be proposed for a community, then this process would appear to be fundamentally unsound.
Proposed modification:
2.3 WTC proposes that VALP should set a more reasonable and sustainable increase in the number of additional homes within Winslow over and above the 35% increase already detailed in the made WNP. WTC suggests that an increase of about 300 homes over and above those already provided for in the made WNP would be more appropriate in the circumstances. It will be for a future revised WNP to determine, with the benefit of local public consultation, where the additional housing should be located to achieve the required strategic housing provision.
3 Memorandum of Understanding
3.1 The Buckinghamshire Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Aylesbury Vale DC, Wycombe DC, Chiltern DC, South Bucks DC and Bucks Thames Valley LEP (mentioned in paragraph 1.12 of VALP) is, in WTC's opinion, a flawed document. It is the MoU that seeks to justify the requirement for Aylesbury Vale to accommodate the unmet need of 8000 additional homes elsewhere in the Bucks Housing Market Area.
3.2 The Agreement in the MoU in paragraph 2.1(d) states - That the following level of unmet housing need within respective local plan periods up to 2033 will be accommodated in the Vale of Aylesbury Plan. This absolute agreement by AVDC to accommodate 5,725 homes (21% of the VALP total) as unmet housing need from Chiltern and South Bucks in VALP, when those Districts' joint draft Local Plan will not be published until the middle of 2018 and when the figure represents over 44% of the Full Objectively Assessed Need for Chiltern and South Bucks, appears to be an unsound commitment. Similarly, the accommodation of 2,275 homes (8.3% of the VALP total), as unmet need for Wycombe District, in light of the recent publication of the submission Wycombe District Local Plan (WDLP), appears equally unsound.
3.3 WTC believes that Wycombe District Council (WDC) has not recognised its duty and responsibility in these days of 'exceptional circumstances' for the effective delivery of housing, because it has not demonstrated a robust approach to maximise the delivery of new housing within the District's boundary in order to meet its own Full Objectively Assessed Need (FOAN). As a consequence, the WDLP has not followed a strategy which seeks to meet the District's FOAN for new homes during the Plan period. This leads WTC to conclude that the plan has not been positively prepared and is therefore unsound in respect of its provision for housing development. The following paragraphs explain why WTC has come to this view.
3.4 WDLP Policy DM34 specifies that new housing developments should provide (WTC's emphasis in bold):
(a) Opportunities to enhance existing and provide new green infrastructure have been maximised, including delivering long lasting measurable net gains.
(b) In all cases, development is required as a minimum to: Secure adequate buffers to valuable habitats and
(c) Achieve a future canopy cover of at least 25% of the site area on sites outside of the town centres and 0.5HA or more
3.5 These requirements, together with other luxuries and 'nice to haves', significantly limit the area of developable land for housing on allocated sites, and therefore limit the scale of housing development that can be accommodated. WTC believes that this Policy cannot, under the prevailing circumstances, be justified as it does not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives and is not based on proportionate evidence. The Plan offers no justification for this highly questionable policy, which therefore leads WTC to the view that WDLP is unsound in this respect.
Evidence
3.6 Paragraph 4.38 of the WDLP states The Council has thoroughly reviewed the scope for meeting its housing needs within the District. However it does not consider the option of increasing housing densities in order to more fully meet the District's FOAN. The WDLP includes large allocated sites for housing delivering less than 10 dwellings per hectare e.g. - HW4 Abbey Barn 4 - 11.32 hectares - 100 homes at 8.8 dwellings per hectare (dph) and HW6 Gomm Valley and Ashwells - 72.8 hectares - 530 homes at 7.3 dph.
3.7 By way of comparison, WNP, where AONB and Green Belt are not a consideration, delivers its housing growth on identified sites at more than 30 dph and delivers satisfactory provision of green space for each housing development site. Even taking into account the difficulties of the terrain in parts of the High Wycombe area, WTC believes that the identified sites could be developed at appreciably higher densities than are currently proposed, and thereby absorb more, if not all, of the District's FOAN. Similarly, it is WTC's belief that the Princes Risborough expansion area is capable of delivering many more homes than are committed in the WDLP.
3.8 The WDLP only allocates 57 hectares of previously designated Green Belt land for housing, to deliver 1,100 new homes at 19.3 dph. This represents a mere 0.4% of the District's Green Belt, in a District with 48% Green Belt, amounting to over 14,000 hectares. Many LPAs in a similar position to WDC have recognised that, in order to meet the housing need identified by the FOAN, it is necessary to recognise the 'exceptional circumstances*' and to reallocate poorly performing areas of Green Belt for housing development in order to fully meet their own FOAN. A local example of such an approach is South Oxfordshire's Local Plan, where re-designated Green Belt land will deliver 5,500 new homes on 3 sites. Central Bedfordshire and Dacorum Councils are taking a similarly positive approach.
*The Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell, when speaking in relation to the Housing White Paper, said: "The green belt is 13% of the land. We can solve this crisis without having to take huge tracts out of the green belt. We are not going to weaken the protections; we have a clear manifesto promise and there is no need to take huge tracts of land out of the green belt to solve our housing crisis. They can take land out of the green belt in exceptional circumstances but they should have looked at every other alternative first." [emphasis added]
3.9 Criticisms of the WDLP, such as those of a failure to positively plan to maximise housing delivery in order to meet the FOAN and a reluctance to take a robust approach to the reallocation of poorly performing Green Belt land for housing development, will almost certainly also apply to the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan. The MoU is a
document which appears to invite housing overspill into Aylesbury Vale and lacks checks and balances to ensure any unmet housing need has been demonstrably minimised.
Proposed modification:
3.10 The MoU (referenced in para 1.12) appears to be based on an unsound judgement of the opportunities that exist for the three southern districts of Buckinghamshire to deliver a greater proportion of their own FOAN. Following further detailed scrutiny of the figures in the MoU through the examination of the other relevant local plans, WTC believes that the unmet need housing targets for Aylesbury Vale District should be reduced, or alternatively the time scale over which those targets apply should be extended beyond the end of the plan period for VALP.
4 Affordable housing
4.1 The reduction in percentage and quantum of affordable housing to be delivered, compared with that previously shown in the draft VALP, does not appear rational when there is a recognised national shortage of such housing. The draft VALP proposed 31% of affordable homes on qualifying sites, which would have yielded about 8,800 affordable homes, whereas the submission VALP in Policy H1 only proposes 25% generating about 5,900 affordable homes. Evidence from CPRE, the National Housing Federation, Shelter, the Institute for Public Policy Research etc are all telling the same story, one of shortfalls of affordable housing delivery, more homelessness, an ever-increasing annual housing benefit bill etc. WTC understands that the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust (VAHT) has evidence that indicates that the provision of 6,000 affordable homes in Aylesbury Vale over the 20 year plan period will be significantly less than demand. When a neighbouring authority (WDC) demands 40% affordable homes on qualifying greenfield sites, why does VALP propose a very much lower target for the same Plan period within the same Bucks Housing Market Area?
Evidence
4.2 WTC considers the following paragraphs of the Affordable Housing section of the VALP Housing Topic Paper November 2017 in particular contain inaccuracies which have resulted in unsound conclusions regarding the percentage of affordable homes to be delivered on qualifying sites.
4.5 As set out in the HEDNA December 2016 to establish the past trends and current estimates of the need for affordable housing local authority data on homeless households and temporary accommodation, was considered alongside census data on concealed households and overcrowding together with information from the English Housing Survey, Housing Register and information from Housing benefit data on households unable to afford their housing costs. Based on this information the study concluded that there are 3,311 households currently in affordable housing need in the Buckinghamshire HMA who are unable to afford their own housing. Deducting those whose housing is not suitable and households that will release their housing back into the market leaves a net need of a 1,150 households who that are currently in affordable housing need who are unable to afford their own housing.
[VALP Housing Topic Paper November 2017]
4.3 On 8th December 2017 VAHT told WTC that:
"As of November 2017 there were nearly 3,900 applicants registered on Bucks Home Choice (BHC) within the Aylesbury Vale. Of these just over 2,300 are in bands A to D and eligible for affordable rented housing in the Vale. Around 1,600 are in band HO and may be eligible for rural exception properties or others with strict local connection criteria."
4.4 And Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association (BPHA), the organisation which manages the register for shared ownership affordable homes in the Vale, told WTC that... the figures for Shared Ownership applicants for Aylesbury Vale since 2015 (based on applicant requests for 2, 3, 4, 5 bedrooms) were:
 2015 - 352
 2016 - 434
 2017 so far - 482
BPHA does not maintain a register of unmet need and these figures no longer appear to be available. When Catalyst managed the Shared Ownership Register, they recorded unmet need figures of 407 in 2010 steadily rising to 1,048 in 2014.
4.5 So in the past 3 years about 1,300 applications for shared ownership properties have been recorded. Paragraph 1.48 of VALP states that over the past 5 years an average of 1,127 dwellings were built each year. Out of this total, an average of 349 were affordable dwellings. With 25% of affordable homes allocated to shared ownership, over the past 5 years an average of just 87 shared ownership affordable properties have been delivered each year. This leaves an unmet need figure for the past 3 years alone of over 1,000 plus the backlog from 2014 and earlier.
4.6 From the above data, WTC concludes that the current unmet need for all types of affordable homes in Aylesbury Vale is over 5,000 and the evidence is of an increasing demand. Although this evidence would have been available to AVDC and its consultants it does not appear to have been considered. WTC's evidence from those 'at the coal face' indicates that the base figure for unmet need of 3,331 for all forms of affordable homes in December 2016 is incorrect. Para 1.47 of VALP states: The total number of households on the Bucks Home Choice housing register waiting for a social housing tenancy in April 2016 was over 3,000. (WTC believes this figure only relates to Aylesbury Vale, as opposed to the entire BHC area). This appears to suggest that no account was taken in the HEDNA of the need for shared ownership affordable homes.
4.8 Government requirements now prohibit the requirement for affordable housing applying to housing sites of 10 or less dwellings. As this is expected to be a significant proportion of new housing development in Aylesbury Vale the percentage of affordable housing needs to be increased to 25% to allow the total requirement of 4,200 affordable dwellings for the district to be achieved. This is of course provided that the proportion of affordable required does not generally render proposed housing developments in Aylesbury Vale unviable on the basis of paragraph 173 of the NPPF.
[VALP Housing Topic Paper November 2017]
4.7 This paragraph (4.8, above) only takes account of the FOAN for Aylesbury Vale and takes no account of the unmet need of 8,000 for the District Councils in the south of the County, where the LPAs are expecting delivery of affordable homes in accordance with their Local Plans. Wycombe's draft Local Plan requires 40% affordable homes on their own greenfield sites. If, say, 35% of the 8,000 unmet need homes included in VALP were required to be affordable, and if 85% of them were on qualifying sites, this would result in an additional requirement of about 2,400 affordable homes, resulting in a total of 6,600 affordable homes (representing about 29% of all new homes), not 5,900 as proposed by VALP. For the overall percentage delivery of affordable homes to be based solely on the Vale's requirements, when 29% of housing delivery will be for unmet need from other Districts, is a flawed approach and therefore unsound.
4.9 The council has engaged consultants Dixon Searle Partnership to advise it on viability. They have concluded that the 25% affordable housing requirement should be viable in almost all cases. They have further advised that the affordable housing requirement of 30% could be viable in some cases. The council has therefore set the 25% requirement as a minimum in the proposed affordable housing policy which will allow a higher provision where justified by viability. The viability information is however clear that a requirement higher than 30% would not be justified.
[VALP Housing Topic Paper November 2017]
4.8 WTC believes that the evidence in the submission VALP proves that a minimum figure much higher than 25% should be viable in almost all cases. As referred to above, Paragraph 1.48 of VALP advises that average annual housing delivery in the Vale for the past 5 years was 1,127, of which 349 was the average annual delivery of affordable homes. This represents a 31% delivery of new affordable homes across qualifying and non-qualifying sites.
4.9 In Paragraph 4.8 of the VALP Housing Topic Paper it says:
...the percentage of affordable housing needs to be increased ... . As 31% affordable homes has been delivered over all sites for the past 5 years this must mean that the percentage delivery figure on qualifying sites has been appreciably more than 31%. So a target higher than 31% has been shown to be viable.
4.10 Strategic communities with made Neighbourhood Plans in the Vale require at least 35% affordable housing delivery on qualifying sites. For both Winslow and Buckingham, for those sites identified in respective Neighbourhood Plans where planning applications have been approved or submitted, no issue as to the viability of the 35% figure has been raised.
4.11 Notwithstanding the above evidence that viability can be achieved at 35%, and there is more than sufficient demand at that level, the consultant's report in the Housing Topic Paper, para 4.9, only indicates - the affordable housing requirement of 30% could be viable in some cases. AVDC then erroneously concludes - The viability information is however clear that a requirement higher than 30% would not be justified. WTC considers this to be another unsound element underpinning the highly questionable 25% delivery figure for affordable housing proposed in VALP.
4.12 Finally WTC considers that setting a minimum target for affordable housing is not appropriate as developers will seek to design to such a minimum rather than deliver anything higher. It would be more prudent to set a realistic but challenging target percentage to be delivered - and accept that developers may be able to demonstrate viability problems in meeting the target in full on some specific sites.
Proposed modification:
4.13 WTC considers that, in respect of affordable homes delivery, VALP has not been positively prepared and is therefore unsound. WTC proposes that VALP be modified to set a minimum of 35% affordable housing delivery on qualifying sites. Alternatively, in recognition that the viable delivery of brownfield sites for housing can be more problematic than for greenfield sites, it could be more realistic to specify a minimum 40% for qualifying greenfield housing sites and a minimum 30% for brownfield sites.
5 Accommodating demographic growth in second-tier settlements
5.1 In VALP para 3.20 it is stated that
The settlement hierarchy is based on an assessment of population size, settlement connectivity and the availability of employment and other services and facilities. A draft settlement hierarchy has been consulted on, and a number of changes have been made to the conclusions as a result of comments received. A report has been produced setting out how the settlement hierarchy was established which is available on the Council's website. The proposed settlement hierarchy is set out in Table 2, along with the amount of housing to be accommodated at each settlement. The allocations for each settlement are based on the capacity of the settlement to accommodate housing growth, rather than a blanket percentage increase on existing housing stock as was previously proposed in the draft Plan. [WTC's emphasis added]
5.2 The emphasised section above appears to be flawed because the Plan gives no account of how the Plan has robustly established "the capacity of each settlement to accommodate housing growth." It is important to bear in mind that the district-wide housing growth in VALP is 36% without the buffer and total growth of 40% across the district including the buffer. Table 2 simply indicates the total amount of housing development per settlement as completions/commitments plus any allocations. Of the 11 larger villages (Stoke Mandeville is omitted because, we are informed, it is included in the Aylesbury figures), defined as such in the settlement hierarchy because of their superior infrastructure, only 5 have any allocations. Of those 11 larger villages, 8 are expected to deliver less than 20% housing growth. Four of them are not even expected to meet their own demographic growth to 2033. These are Stone (population over 2,600) 3.4% housing growth, Ivinghoe (population 1,000) 4.6%, Long Crendon (pop over 2,500) 9.5% and Wing (pop over 2,800) - 10.9%. Only Steeple Claydon with a 22.8% increase and Aston Clinton with a 40.3% increase in homes exceed 20% growth, whilst Waddesdon (including Fleet Marston) has 20% growth. The second tier in the Plan's settlement hierarchy comprises all the larger, more sustainable villages that have at least reasonable access to facilities and services and public transport, making them sustainable locations for development [WTC's emphasis added]. A Local Plan which does not demand that these second tier settlements should provide housing growth that meets their individual demographic growth as a minimum during the Plan period, would appear to be unsound.
Proposed modification:
5.3 WTC proposes that VALP be modified to require all 'large villages' to deliver appreciably more than the basic figure for demographic growth during the Plan period, bearing in mind that Aylesbury Vale is a growth area and that district-wide housing growth is more than 36%.
6 Population growth expectations
6.1 Para 1.35 of the submission VALP states that during the Plan period there will be a growth in population of about 35,000 (once allowance has been made for the growth which took place between 2011 and 2013). With growth of 27,300 homes in the Plan period, this figure for population growth appears to be under-stated. WTC drew attention to this at the draft VALP stage, but has received no explanation for the apparent discrepancy, nor any correction of it in the submission Plan.
Proposed modification:
6.2 The expected increase in the population of Aylesbury Vale in the plan period should be stated more accurately to be in excess of 60,000 based on the number of additional homes proposed.
7 Examination in Public
7.1 AVDC is asked to note that Winslow Town Council wishes to participate in the

Examination in Public.

Sean Carolan

Deputy Clerk

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 737

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Sue Barber

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Halton and Wendover are not the same parish and should not be put together to calculate housing needs. Halton is not within a reasonable walking distance of Wendover.

Full text:

Wendover and Halton are separate parishes. Halton is NOT a sustainable strategic settlement it has no infrastructure support such as medical centre, pub, open space, playfields (all the open space and playfields belong to RAF Halton. Roads infrastructure is inadequate for current traffic and the village is used as a rat run for drivers to avoid Wendover, Weston Turville etc.
Halton is not a service centre for surrounding villages, Wendover is.
The closure of Halton is 'planned' for 2022 not confirmed. Wendover has a housing need identified of 800 in the previous plan, why has this been removed and the priority timescale changed? Halton is not within reasonable walking distance of Wendover as stated. If unwell how can people be expected to walk to the doctors, how can people be expected to carry heavy shopping up the hill to Halton from Wendover. There is no bus service in Halton, this appears to have been ignored in the plan.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 894

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Board

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Settlement Hierarchy should make a distinction between AONB and non-AONB villages. Settlements in the AONB or its setting should have special consideration e.g. Ivinghoe, Edlesborough, Pitstone, Aston Clinton, Marsworth, Cheddington, Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville. More weight should be given to population size as well as facilities e.g. >2000 population plus key criteria. It does not make sense for Ivinghoe, a village of only 722 people and constrained by the AONB, to be a 'larger village'. It has the smallest population of any 'larger village' and is smaller than Chardon which at 862 people is a 'smaller village'.

Full text:

Settlement Hierarchy should make a distinction between AONB and non-AONB villages. Settlements in the AONB or its setting should have special consideration e.g. Ivinghoe, Edlesborough, Pitstone, Aston Clinton, Marsworth, Cheddington, Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville. More weight should be given to population size as well as facilities e.g. >2000 population plus key criteria. It does not make sense for Ivinghoe, a village of only 722 people and constrained by the AONB, to be a 'larger village'. It has the smallest population of any 'larger village' and is smaller than Chardon which at 862 people is a 'smaller village'.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 944

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Thame Town Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

AVDC identifies Haddenham as a service centre. It has been scored relatively against other Vale settlements, and has poor provision. Most main and top-up food shops trips are, and will be, made in Thame. Most journeys (95%+) are car-born. The level of housing committed and proposed suggests a population in excess of 7,000 for Haddenham. No effort has been made to redress shortfall.

Full text:

Aylesbury Vale District Council have dispersed development according to the capacity of each settlement. The District states in Paragraph 2.8 of the Proposed Submission Plan that development must be located in a way that enables sustainable settlements to remain sustainable.
The assessment of capacity results in a score for each settlement; each has only been judged relatively, against one another. Haddenham has therefore been flagged as being capable of enabling sustainable development, against the evidence.
Haddenham has been identified for 1,051 dwellings over the Plan period, including 315, newly allocated. It is identified as a service centre for the surrounding area. Using the 2011 Census average household size this means the population of Haddenham could swell to 7,130 through the committed and allocated development, up from the 4,502 recorded at the start of the Plan Period.
The VALP Settlement Hierarchy, September 2017 shows Haddenham has only 5 food stores. These are dispersed across the village, with only 2 being within 200 metres of one another; the rest are up to 1 km apart. Two of the food stores are farm shops, offering a small range of specialist goods, only.
The VALP Retail Study (February 2015) highlights the issue. In 2014, just 0.3% of expenditure within Haddenham's retail zone (Zone 6 of the study) was spent in Haddenham, against 8.6% in nearby Thame. For top-up shopping, Haddenham again scores a low 1%, against Thame's 12.2%.
This demonstrates that for a significant proportion of Aylesbury Vale's residents, Thame is the most immediate retail centre for convenience goods. This is notable, given that retail zone 6 encloses Aylesbury and is close to Bicester, two much higher level retail centres.
The retail study also shows that the over 95% of visitors (Annex A, Q02) journey to Thame by car either as a driver or passenger. Almost 60% do so for the discrete function of food shopping, with some 30% linking trips in some way.
The impact on Thame's amenity of an extra 1,051 dwellings, or over 2,600 people, has not been assessed by the Vale.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 990

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Carole Hawkins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Although the housing quota for Marsworth has been reduced, it is still designated a medium village. This should not be. The plan allows for building on brown field sites as of preference and yet recently permission was refused for the building on the derelict pub site in the village on the basis that it was in the country and not in the centre of the village-it is one minute walk from the pub and 2 minutes from the recreation ground and village hall and less than 5 minutes walk from the church and school.

Full text:

Dear Sirs
your online portal to make comments on the local plan does not seem to be working
I do not intend to waste any more time on it so please accept this email as my representation
I wish to say the following regarding Marsworth
Although the housing quota for Marsworth has been reduced, it is still designated a medium village. This should not be as Marsworth school is only a tiny 1st school of 20 or so pupils and will surely close soon as it cannot be cost effective. The plan allows for building on brown field sites as of preference and yet recently permission was refused for the building on the derelict pub site in the village on the basis that it was in the country and not in the centre of the village-it is one minute walk from the pub and 2 minutes from the recreation ground and village hall and less than 5 minutes walk from the church and school. Planners need to have joined up thinking when applying the plan and pay site visits if the plan is to work as it should
Regrds
Carole Hawkins

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1444

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: South Oxfordshire District Council

Representation:

Page 38 of VALP sets out the overall number of
dwellings to come forward during the plan period. At Haddenham a total of 1,051 homes of which
more than half are committed or completed. The remaining 315 being allocated within the VALP. On
its own it is not considered to have a significant impact on South Oxfordshire, particularly as this is a
significant reduction on previous versions of the VALP which included a new settlement near
Haddenham.

Full text:

Planning
HEAD OF SERVICE: ADRIAN DUFFIELD
Contact officer:
Karen.attwood@southoxon.gov.uk
Tel: 01235 422600
Textphone users add 18001 before you dial
Your reference:
Our reference:
Dear Sir/Madam
Officer Response
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) response to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP)
2013-2033 Proposed Submission version
Please find below an officer's response to the proposed submission version of the Vale of
Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) 2013-2033. Our formal response is in the process of being signed off by
the relevant cabinet member and will follow in due-course.
SODC considers the plan to be sound, legally compliant and meet the requirements of Duty to Cooperate.
SODC does not think it to be necessary to attend the examination unless the Inspector believes it
necessary to demonstrate Duty to Co-operate has been followed. An MoU between SODC and
Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) is expected to be signed shortly.
Housing Need:
As part of the Duty to Co-operate we continue to monitor the possibility of any potential unmet
needs particularly housing from neighbouring councils. Both councils recognise we are not within the
same Housing Market Area (HMA) and as such there is no need to address any development needs
resulting from the Central Buckinghamshire HMA. It has been noted that AVDC has increased its
housing requirement by 8,000 homes during the plan period to 27,400 homes as a result of the
collective unmet housing need arising from the authorities to its south, namely Wycombe, Chiltern
and South Bucks. It is recognised that AVDC has sufficient suitable and deliverable sites to meet this
need and would not require any of this to be met by SODC.
On page 33 of the VALP it states 'we fully anticipate the need to carry out an early review of VALP to
take into account newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on
calculating housing need, as well as the impacts of major strategic schemes'. As such SODC would like
to maintain an ongoing dialogue and be updated following any review of the housing need for AVDC
and any unmet need resulting from the wider Central Buckinghamshire HMA.
Haddenham and Thame cross border issues:
Overall the sites proposed for development within the VALP are not considered to have a significant
cross border impact on South Oxfordshire, particularly as the majority of new homes required are
some distance from the shared border with development focused on Aylesbury and other existing
settlements with no new settlements planned. However, it has been noted that a significant number
of new dwellings is to be allocated at Haddenham. Page 38 of VALP sets out the overall number of
dwellings to come forward during the plan period. At Haddenham a total of 1,051 homes of which
more than half are committed or completed. The remaining 315 being allocated within the VALP. On
its own it is not considered to have a significant impact on South Oxfordshire, particularly as this is a
significant reduction on previous versions of the VALP which included a new settlement near
Haddenham. It has been noted that Haddenham remains a potential location for a new settlement if
after a review of the plan it is determined the need exists. SODC would like to remain in contact on
this issue in order to better understand the cross-border impacts of the proposed development and
any future growth in the area, particularly on the A415 between Haddenham and Thame. We would
seek continued dialogue with AV on the potential infrastructure implications resulting from
development at Haddenham and Thame and would like to explore the potential for joint working on
further studies.
The South Oxfordshire Playing Pitch Strategy identifies a significant proportion of the pitch provision
in the North sub-area of the district based around Chinnor to cater for teams and residents arising
from Aylesbury Vale. The strategy recognises that significant additional growth in Aylesbury Vale
could lead to insufficient capacity at these pitches. We would welcome dialogue with AV on the
implications of this and the potential for sharing developer contributions to address the impacts of
increased demand for these pitches and their associated facilities as a result of significant growth in
Aylesbury Vale.
Oxford - Cambridge Expressway Implications:
Assessment of the potential corridors for the route of the Expressway are currently being
investigated by Highways England. The proposed Southern route option would likely run in close
proximity to Thame and Haddenham and would have a significant impact on the area. Should a more
northerly route be chosen, this could also have wider traffic and environmental impacts that would
need careful consideration. The councils have been co-operating on this matter for some time to
better understand the potential implications of the project. Should this option be taken forward
there will be a need for further joint working/liaison to explore and plan for both the economic
benefits and environmental impacts of these proposals.
Chinnor Reservoir:
As a result of Thames Water confirming that there are no longer any plans for a Chinnor reservoir,
the site is no longer needed to be safeguarded in either Local Plan. Both councils came to an
agreement on this in May 2017 and a statement as such will be included in an agreed Memorandum
of Understanding ahead of the submission stage of VALP and SODC Local Plan.
Duty to Co-operate:
It is important to maintain officer and member level Duty to Co-operate dialogue to better
understand the issues above and any other issues that may impact on each council in-order to
positively plan for development and mitigate impacts. SODC looks forward to finalising a formal
Memorandum of Understanding with AVDC which is currently being drafted, as well as a wider
Memorandum of Understanding/ Statement of Common Ground on cross-border transport matters
which is also proposed to include Wycombe District Council and the respective County Councils.
If any clarification is required on any of the above comments or any issues relating to this response,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Ryan Hunt
Enquires Officer
Policy Team
South Oxfordshire District Council

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1475

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Vanderbilt Strategic

Agent: Wessex Environmental Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The SA has not looked at Aston Clinton fairly. The evidence base does not point to a finite environmental, school or other infrastructure capacity for Aston Clinton having been reached. Policy S 2 plus supporting tables and text references should therefore be amended to allow a further allocation at Aston Clinton and with the suggestion of 89 homes on land adjacent to College Road South.

Full text:

Please find enclosed a letter of representation made on behalf of Vanderbilt Strategic plus requisite form and in respect of policies affecting Aston Clinton.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1527

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Bellway Homes

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

it is noted that Stoke Mandeville, Bierton and Weston Turville do not have their own housing requirement due to their proximity to Aylesbury. Despite being categorised as "Medium Villages', each of their requirements are included within Aylesbury's overall requirement of 16,398 dwellings (See Proposed Submission Policy S2, Table 3). This effectively ascribes Weston Turville the status of 'Strategic Settlement', as part of Aylesbury.

Full text:

Please find attached representations on behalf of Bellway Homes to the Proposed Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2017.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1823

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: DPD Architects

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Proposed housing development allocations in Weston Turville, is unbalanced allocation is contrary and fails to support to the strategic objectives, by failing to provide an appropriate level of growth to preserve and enhance the village facilities of Weston Turville, and fails to provide an appropriate mix of housing.

Full text:

Please find appended our consultation response in relation to the Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1866

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Halton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

In both Tables 1 and 2 of S2 Spatial strategy for growth, the single line entry combining Wendover with Halton (Halton Camp) should be separated into distinct rows and Halton should have a distinct entry in the tables with the correct demarcation (a "smaller village") and its housing allocation (1,000 houses). In Table 2 the entry for Halton needs to have a description in column 2 highlighting why it has been selected for the 1,000 houses and how that fits within the settlement hierarchy.

Full text:

Halton Parish Council (HPC) supports AVDC's desire to provide housing on the current RAF
base sited within Halton within the existing building footprint on the site. This is providing that
sufficient employment, leisure, retail and infrastructure are included as part of any housing
development. Whilst HPC acknowledges that the Defense Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)
wants to sell the land for the highest price, HPC is keen to ensure that protected land, including
land with green belt status, is preserved for future generations during the opportunity to build on
to-be-vacated Ministry of Defense (MoD) land. Whilst the HPC has not been engaged in the
development of the VALP, we welcome the opportunity to add local knowledge to ensure that
development of the MoD land is of sufficient quality commensurate with the local area.
Issues
 Some of the VALP wording suggests that the 1,000 houses will be sited in Wendover,
not Halton.
 Halton will need to lose its classification as a "smaller village".
 Halton is not part of a strategic settlement.
 The VALP is unclear that the dwellings proposed for the RAF Halton site are within
Halton.
 HPC looks forward to early involvement in producing the Masterplan / SPD specific to
land in the parish of Halton.
 Information and Infrastructure
 Green Belt and Other Protected Land.
 Mixed Use
 VALP Policy map.
 Infrastructure
 Transport.
 Remove Uncertainty.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1945

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation:

STRATEGIC SETTLEMENTS -
Wendover/ Halton

HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.

Full text:

Response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan 2013-2033 - Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19)
Aylesbury Vale District is located to the west of Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. The potential cross boundary issues which may arise from the current consultation document are considered below.
Paragraph 3.20
The proposed settlement hierarchy is set out in Table 2 [Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development], along with the amount of housing to be accommodated at each settlement.
STRATEGIC SETTLEMENTS -
Wendover/ Halton
The new development proposed is located in Halton, to the west of Tring and Berkhamsted within Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. 1,128 dwellings are allocated in the area of Halton. This settlement has a relationship with Hertfordshire with children resident attending schools in Tring and Berkhamsted.
A primary school is proposed as part of the development, therefore, it is considered that the potential development proposed is unlikely to have any significant impact on primary school places in the administrative boundary of Hertfordshire County Council.
Notwithstanding this, no additional secondary school provision has been mentioned in the Proposed Submission document. Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
LARGER VILLAGES -
Aston Clinton
Within the Larger villages category, Aston Clinton is scheduled to provide 627 dwellings in the next 15 years. These dwellings are from 13 different sites and have obtained planning permission from the planning authority.
The nearest town with a school in Hertfordshire closest to Aston Clinton is Tring in Dacorum. It is not clear whether new education provision will be included as part of those developments.
At primary phase there are few Aston Clinton pupils that attend Primary Schools in Dacorum District; in particular into Long Marston Voluntary Aided C of E Primary; and Grove Road Primary School which prioritises pupils for which it is the nearest school.
With regard to secondary school provisions, Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Resources
Property
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
Ivinghoe
18 homes are proposed in Ivinghoe. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Pitstone
It is suggested from the consultation document that approximately 199 dwellings could be proposed in Pitstone. The 199 dwellings are made up of 5 sites, these sites proposed are to the north of Tring in Dacorum District. Education provision in Tring would be one of the closest for pupils within these new developments.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
MEDIUM VILLAGES -
Weston Turville
36 homes are proposed in Weston Turville. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
D-AGT4: Aylesbury south of A41
One of the growth locations identified in Policy D1 is D-AGT4 - Aylesbury South of A41.
Aylesbury south of A41 is a strategic allocation for Aylesbury and contributes to the delivery of Aylesbury Garden Town.
Aylesbury Vale District Council has proposed approximately 3,111 dwellings directly adjacent to the south eastern edge of Aylesbury in their Local Plan. Education provision in Tring would be the closest for pupils within this new development outside the District.
HCC note the proposed primary schools to form part of the development, however, it is not clear whether the two new schools would provide sufficient spaces to serve the additional population.
As opposed to primary school provision, no detailed information regarding secondary schools are included in the Proposed Submission document. The latest forecast for Tring (secondary school) shows a deficit every year, varying between -0.3 FE to -1.1FE up to 2020/21. An existing inflow of
Resources
Property
approximately 2FE per year of children living in Buckinghamshire contributes towards the forecast demand.
Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council to ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Conclusion
Finally, HCC welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Aylesbury Vale District Council as new housing developments within the District may potentially have an impact upon the demand for school places in Hertfordshire.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1946

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation:

LARGER VILLAGES -
Aston Clinton

HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.

Full text:

Response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan 2013-2033 - Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19)
Aylesbury Vale District is located to the west of Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. The potential cross boundary issues which may arise from the current consultation document are considered below.
Paragraph 3.20
The proposed settlement hierarchy is set out in Table 2 [Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development], along with the amount of housing to be accommodated at each settlement.
STRATEGIC SETTLEMENTS -
Wendover/ Halton
The new development proposed is located in Halton, to the west of Tring and Berkhamsted within Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. 1,128 dwellings are allocated in the area of Halton. This settlement has a relationship with Hertfordshire with children resident attending schools in Tring and Berkhamsted.
A primary school is proposed as part of the development, therefore, it is considered that the potential development proposed is unlikely to have any significant impact on primary school places in the administrative boundary of Hertfordshire County Council.
Notwithstanding this, no additional secondary school provision has been mentioned in the Proposed Submission document. Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
LARGER VILLAGES -
Aston Clinton
Within the Larger villages category, Aston Clinton is scheduled to provide 627 dwellings in the next 15 years. These dwellings are from 13 different sites and have obtained planning permission from the planning authority.
The nearest town with a school in Hertfordshire closest to Aston Clinton is Tring in Dacorum. It is not clear whether new education provision will be included as part of those developments.
At primary phase there are few Aston Clinton pupils that attend Primary Schools in Dacorum District; in particular into Long Marston Voluntary Aided C of E Primary; and Grove Road Primary School which prioritises pupils for which it is the nearest school.
With regard to secondary school provisions, Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Resources
Property
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
Ivinghoe
18 homes are proposed in Ivinghoe. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Pitstone
It is suggested from the consultation document that approximately 199 dwellings could be proposed in Pitstone. The 199 dwellings are made up of 5 sites, these sites proposed are to the north of Tring in Dacorum District. Education provision in Tring would be one of the closest for pupils within these new developments.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
MEDIUM VILLAGES -
Weston Turville
36 homes are proposed in Weston Turville. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
D-AGT4: Aylesbury south of A41
One of the growth locations identified in Policy D1 is D-AGT4 - Aylesbury South of A41.
Aylesbury south of A41 is a strategic allocation for Aylesbury and contributes to the delivery of Aylesbury Garden Town.
Aylesbury Vale District Council has proposed approximately 3,111 dwellings directly adjacent to the south eastern edge of Aylesbury in their Local Plan. Education provision in Tring would be the closest for pupils within this new development outside the District.
HCC note the proposed primary schools to form part of the development, however, it is not clear whether the two new schools would provide sufficient spaces to serve the additional population.
As opposed to primary school provision, no detailed information regarding secondary schools are included in the Proposed Submission document. The latest forecast for Tring (secondary school) shows a deficit every year, varying between -0.3 FE to -1.1FE up to 2020/21. An existing inflow of
Resources
Property
approximately 2FE per year of children living in Buckinghamshire contributes towards the forecast demand.
Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council to ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Conclusion
Finally, HCC welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Aylesbury Vale District Council as new housing developments within the District may potentially have an impact upon the demand for school places in Hertfordshire.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1947

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation:

18 homes are proposed in Ivinghoe. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.

Full text:

Response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan 2013-2033 - Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19)
Aylesbury Vale District is located to the west of Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. The potential cross boundary issues which may arise from the current consultation document are considered below.
Paragraph 3.20
The proposed settlement hierarchy is set out in Table 2 [Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development], along with the amount of housing to be accommodated at each settlement.
STRATEGIC SETTLEMENTS -
Wendover/ Halton
The new development proposed is located in Halton, to the west of Tring and Berkhamsted within Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. 1,128 dwellings are allocated in the area of Halton. This settlement has a relationship with Hertfordshire with children resident attending schools in Tring and Berkhamsted.
A primary school is proposed as part of the development, therefore, it is considered that the potential development proposed is unlikely to have any significant impact on primary school places in the administrative boundary of Hertfordshire County Council.
Notwithstanding this, no additional secondary school provision has been mentioned in the Proposed Submission document. Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
LARGER VILLAGES -
Aston Clinton
Within the Larger villages category, Aston Clinton is scheduled to provide 627 dwellings in the next 15 years. These dwellings are from 13 different sites and have obtained planning permission from the planning authority.
The nearest town with a school in Hertfordshire closest to Aston Clinton is Tring in Dacorum. It is not clear whether new education provision will be included as part of those developments.
At primary phase there are few Aston Clinton pupils that attend Primary Schools in Dacorum District; in particular into Long Marston Voluntary Aided C of E Primary; and Grove Road Primary School which prioritises pupils for which it is the nearest school.
With regard to secondary school provisions, Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Resources
Property
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
Ivinghoe
18 homes are proposed in Ivinghoe. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Pitstone
It is suggested from the consultation document that approximately 199 dwellings could be proposed in Pitstone. The 199 dwellings are made up of 5 sites, these sites proposed are to the north of Tring in Dacorum District. Education provision in Tring would be one of the closest for pupils within these new developments.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
MEDIUM VILLAGES -
Weston Turville
36 homes are proposed in Weston Turville. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
D-AGT4: Aylesbury south of A41
One of the growth locations identified in Policy D1 is D-AGT4 - Aylesbury South of A41.
Aylesbury south of A41 is a strategic allocation for Aylesbury and contributes to the delivery of Aylesbury Garden Town.
Aylesbury Vale District Council has proposed approximately 3,111 dwellings directly adjacent to the south eastern edge of Aylesbury in their Local Plan. Education provision in Tring would be the closest for pupils within this new development outside the District.
HCC note the proposed primary schools to form part of the development, however, it is not clear whether the two new schools would provide sufficient spaces to serve the additional population.
As opposed to primary school provision, no detailed information regarding secondary schools are included in the Proposed Submission document. The latest forecast for Tring (secondary school) shows a deficit every year, varying between -0.3 FE to -1.1FE up to 2020/21. An existing inflow of
Resources
Property
approximately 2FE per year of children living in Buckinghamshire contributes towards the forecast demand.
Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council to ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Conclusion
Finally, HCC welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Aylesbury Vale District Council as new housing developments within the District may potentially have an impact upon the demand for school places in Hertfordshire.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1948

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation:

Pitstone

HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.

Full text:

Response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan 2013-2033 - Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19)
Aylesbury Vale District is located to the west of Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. The potential cross boundary issues which may arise from the current consultation document are considered below.
Paragraph 3.20
The proposed settlement hierarchy is set out in Table 2 [Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development], along with the amount of housing to be accommodated at each settlement.
STRATEGIC SETTLEMENTS -
Wendover/ Halton
The new development proposed is located in Halton, to the west of Tring and Berkhamsted within Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. 1,128 dwellings are allocated in the area of Halton. This settlement has a relationship with Hertfordshire with children resident attending schools in Tring and Berkhamsted.
A primary school is proposed as part of the development, therefore, it is considered that the potential development proposed is unlikely to have any significant impact on primary school places in the administrative boundary of Hertfordshire County Council.
Notwithstanding this, no additional secondary school provision has been mentioned in the Proposed Submission document. Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
LARGER VILLAGES -
Aston Clinton
Within the Larger villages category, Aston Clinton is scheduled to provide 627 dwellings in the next 15 years. These dwellings are from 13 different sites and have obtained planning permission from the planning authority.
The nearest town with a school in Hertfordshire closest to Aston Clinton is Tring in Dacorum. It is not clear whether new education provision will be included as part of those developments.
At primary phase there are few Aston Clinton pupils that attend Primary Schools in Dacorum District; in particular into Long Marston Voluntary Aided C of E Primary; and Grove Road Primary School which prioritises pupils for which it is the nearest school.
With regard to secondary school provisions, Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Resources
Property
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
Ivinghoe
18 homes are proposed in Ivinghoe. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Pitstone
It is suggested from the consultation document that approximately 199 dwellings could be proposed in Pitstone. The 199 dwellings are made up of 5 sites, these sites proposed are to the north of Tring in Dacorum District. Education provision in Tring would be one of the closest for pupils within these new developments.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
MEDIUM VILLAGES -
Weston Turville
36 homes are proposed in Weston Turville. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
D-AGT4: Aylesbury south of A41
One of the growth locations identified in Policy D1 is D-AGT4 - Aylesbury South of A41.
Aylesbury south of A41 is a strategic allocation for Aylesbury and contributes to the delivery of Aylesbury Garden Town.
Aylesbury Vale District Council has proposed approximately 3,111 dwellings directly adjacent to the south eastern edge of Aylesbury in their Local Plan. Education provision in Tring would be the closest for pupils within this new development outside the District.
HCC note the proposed primary schools to form part of the development, however, it is not clear whether the two new schools would provide sufficient spaces to serve the additional population.
As opposed to primary school provision, no detailed information regarding secondary schools are included in the Proposed Submission document. The latest forecast for Tring (secondary school) shows a deficit every year, varying between -0.3 FE to -1.1FE up to 2020/21. An existing inflow of
Resources
Property
approximately 2FE per year of children living in Buckinghamshire contributes towards the forecast demand.
Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council to ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Conclusion
Finally, HCC welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Aylesbury Vale District Council as new housing developments within the District may potentially have an impact upon the demand for school places in Hertfordshire.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1949

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Representation:

MEDIUM VILLAGES -
Weston Turville
36 homes are proposed in Weston Turville. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.

Full text:

Response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan 2013-2033 - Proposed Submission Plan (Regulation 19)
Aylesbury Vale District is located to the west of Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. The potential cross boundary issues which may arise from the current consultation document are considered below.
Paragraph 3.20
The proposed settlement hierarchy is set out in Table 2 [Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development], along with the amount of housing to be accommodated at each settlement.
STRATEGIC SETTLEMENTS -
Wendover/ Halton
The new development proposed is located in Halton, to the west of Tring and Berkhamsted within Dacorum District in Hertfordshire. 1,128 dwellings are allocated in the area of Halton. This settlement has a relationship with Hertfordshire with children resident attending schools in Tring and Berkhamsted.
A primary school is proposed as part of the development, therefore, it is considered that the potential development proposed is unlikely to have any significant impact on primary school places in the administrative boundary of Hertfordshire County Council.
Notwithstanding this, no additional secondary school provision has been mentioned in the Proposed Submission document. Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
LARGER VILLAGES -
Aston Clinton
Within the Larger villages category, Aston Clinton is scheduled to provide 627 dwellings in the next 15 years. These dwellings are from 13 different sites and have obtained planning permission from the planning authority.
The nearest town with a school in Hertfordshire closest to Aston Clinton is Tring in Dacorum. It is not clear whether new education provision will be included as part of those developments.
At primary phase there are few Aston Clinton pupils that attend Primary Schools in Dacorum District; in particular into Long Marston Voluntary Aided C of E Primary; and Grove Road Primary School which prioritises pupils for which it is the nearest school.
With regard to secondary school provisions, Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Resources
Property
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
Ivinghoe
18 homes are proposed in Ivinghoe. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Pitstone
It is suggested from the consultation document that approximately 199 dwellings could be proposed in Pitstone. The 199 dwellings are made up of 5 sites, these sites proposed are to the north of Tring in Dacorum District. Education provision in Tring would be one of the closest for pupils within these new developments.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
HCC would anticipate that any increase in demand arising from new housing proposed in Aylesbury Vale District is managed in the local area(s) with new school places being provided where required as part of Buckinghamshire's school planning strategy.
MEDIUM VILLAGES -
Weston Turville
36 homes are proposed in Weston Turville. This level of growth will have a minimal impact on school places in Hertfordshire.
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
D-AGT4: Aylesbury south of A41
One of the growth locations identified in Policy D1 is D-AGT4 - Aylesbury South of A41.
Aylesbury south of A41 is a strategic allocation for Aylesbury and contributes to the delivery of Aylesbury Garden Town.
Aylesbury Vale District Council has proposed approximately 3,111 dwellings directly adjacent to the south eastern edge of Aylesbury in their Local Plan. Education provision in Tring would be the closest for pupils within this new development outside the District.
HCC note the proposed primary schools to form part of the development, however, it is not clear whether the two new schools would provide sufficient spaces to serve the additional population.
As opposed to primary school provision, no detailed information regarding secondary schools are included in the Proposed Submission document. The latest forecast for Tring (secondary school) shows a deficit every year, varying between -0.3 FE to -1.1FE up to 2020/21. An existing inflow of
Resources
Property
approximately 2FE per year of children living in Buckinghamshire contributes towards the forecast demand.
Ashlyns and Tring secondary schools both prioritise local pupils in their admission criteria and due to increased Hertfordshire demand it is anticipated that there could be a 'push back' of children that live in Buckinghamshire who would typically attend these schools.
HCC would recommend that Aylesbury Vale District Council to ensure that sufficient school places are provided in tandem with the proposed new housing development to prevent additional pressure being placed on existing schools where there are already capacity issues.
Conclusion
Finally, HCC welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Aylesbury Vale District Council as new housing developments within the District may potentially have an impact upon the demand for school places in Hertfordshire.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2000

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Society of Merchant Ventures

Agent: Savills Reading

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Table 2 confirms that there is no need to allocate any additional housing growth at Cheddington.
However, given the Council's housing shortfall (see comments to Policy S2), we consider that there is a need to allocate additional housing - including at Cheddington - to meet the full OAN for Aylesbury Vale.
See further details in the attached covering letter.

Full text:

On behalf of our Client, the Society of Merchant Venturers, please find attached our representations to the Proposed Submission Version of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2017

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Agent: Savills Southampton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

This strategy devalues Milton Keynes, which is unjustified, and threatens the prompt delivery of appropriate levels of planned growth, which is ineffective.

Full text:

On behalf of Crest Strategic Projects (CSP), I enclose a suite of documents as formal representations on the above plan.

The lead representations statement (Savills) provides a detailed account of CSP's stance on the VALP as a whole. A range of inter-related objections are set out, relating to the amount and distribution of housing, site-specific allocations, and the consideration of alternatives within the Sustainability Appraisal. Particular objections are raised in respect of Shenley Park (site WHA001), which was included in the previous draft of the VALP, but is now omitted; and proposed allocation sites at RAF Halton, Buckingham and Winslow, which CSP objects to. The document should be read in conjunction with the following appendices:

* Appendix 1a - Shenley Park Vision Statement (Savills Urban Design Studio). This demonstrates and explains how the proposed development of Shenley Park can be delivered, not simply as a means to meet growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale in an optimal location and in a timely way, but to create a sustainable and integrated community with access to new facilities and nearby employment.
Please note that due to file size, the above is contained in my separate email ('email 2').

* Appendix 1b - Landscape and Green Infrastructure statement (The Landscape Partnership). This demonstrates that there are no landscape reasons why Shenley Park /WHA001 should not be included within the VALP. Concerns about the sensitive gap between Whaddon and Milton Keynes can be overcome by design and site planning. The north-west of the Site should include a permanent defensible buffer between built development on the Site and Whaddon comprising woodland planting and accessible semi-natural green space.
Please note that the above is accompanied by a series of figures and photographs in a separate file. Due to file size these are sent separately (in 'email 3').

* Appendix 1c - Technical note relating to highways and transport (RPS). This provides evidence on highways and transport matters, confirming that there are no significant transport constraints that would otherwise hamper the consideration of site WHA001 as a viable option for sustainable growth and timely delivery in the VALP.

* Appendix 2 - Draft Scoping Opinion (Aylesbury Vale District Council). This confirms that a formal EIA scoping report submitted by Savills on behalf of CSP satisfactorily sets out the likely environmental effects of the proposed development and determines the scope of the future assessment for the EIA

* Appendix 3 - Review of RAF Halton (Savills). This paper demonstrates that the VALP's allocation of RAF Halton is unsound, and should be removed and replaced with a site that is properly evidenced, available, deliverable and have a realistic prospect that it will deliver an appropriate number of dwellings within the plan period.

* Appendix 4 - Sustainability Appraisal Review (Savills). This shows that the Sustainability Appraisal of the VALP contains a number of flaws and inaccuracies, and that taking the SA as it is currently prepared may render the VALP being found 'unsound'. Correcting inaccuracies and appraising another alternative option for growth would offer a sound, sustainable way forward for the VALP.

* Appendix 5 - Technical report on housing need and local market absorption (Savills). This provides an analysis underlying CSP's view that a reduction in total housing targets (from the 2016 draft VALP to the current Submission Draft), is not justified, along with consideration of market issues.

* Appendix 6 - Review of housing land supply (Savills). This sets out an analysis to show that whilst AVDC is ostensibly able, in mathematical terms, to show a 5 year housing land supply in the Submission Draft VALP, there are number of substantial shortcomings in the intended approach relating to geographical distribution and overall levels of development.

* Appendix 7 - RAF Halton technical note relating to transport (RPS). This identifies that RAF Halton would not improve the proportion of travel by sustainable modes, by being remote from neighbouring areas or facilities, would not reduce the need to travel by relying on insufficient patronage to support a range of new facilities; and would not improve the efficiency of transport networks, by relying on lower order roads, including unsuited B-class and other rural roads and lanes for its outward connectivity.

* Appendix 8 - Representation forms (Savills). These are contained in AVDC's pro-formas, and set out CSP's representations on individual elements of the plan. There is a considerable element of overlap between these and the above-listed documents, and therefore the submission should be read as a whole.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2087

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

the "sustainability" of different settlements in the district appears to be based solely or primarily on accessibility to facilities and services. However, this is a very limited and somewhat outdated basis for ascertaining the "sustainability" of a settlement - consideration should also be given to the environmental capacity of a settlement to accommodate new development, with reference to potential impacts on the historic environment - many of the district's 124 conservation areas are in the villages. (This would be in accordance with the statement in paragraph 3.10 of the Plan).

Full text:

See attachment for full representation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2209

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: North Bucks Parishes Planning Consortium

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The inconsistency of the Settlement Hierarchy and the housing delivery expected of individual settlements is also exemplified by VALP's demands of Maids Moreton detailed in Table 2. Maids Moreton is defined as a 'medium village,' it currently comprises roughly 370 homes yet VALP specifies it will have an allocation of 170 additional homes for delivery during the Plan period. This is a 46% growth in housing, proportionately greater than all the second tier larger villages including Aston Clinton!

Full text:

See attachment for full representation.
North Bucks Parishes Planning Consortium (Mr Geoff Culverhouse) [29662]

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2396

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr David Vowles

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

agree with methodology used, except the settlement hierarchy approach is now meaningless regarding policy differentiation among larger and medium villages.

plan is also unsound with regards to housing provision. approval of plan should be subject to immediate review.

Full text:

Paras 3.19-3.21 Policies S2 & S3 Tables 1 & 2 Pages 129 & 134
1. Very much welcome the shift in the method of allocating housing growth (additional to commitments) from one based on blanket percentage increases settlement to accommodate growth.
2. Table 2 of the Plan shows that new housing allocations made in the Plan are now distributed as shown in the attached Table A.
3. The different approached means that the policy distribution between larger villages and medium villages disappeared. In fact only three new allocations, in total, are proposed in the 12 villages whilst 6 new allocations are made in the 19 medium villages. The attached table shows that these allocations range in size from 10 to 118 in the larger villages and from 9 to 170 in the medium village.
4. However, a purported policy difference between larger and medium villages remains within sub-paragraphs g) and h) of Policy S2, Table 1, table 2 and the first sentence of Policy S3. In
5. The sections of tables 1 and 2 which distinguish between larger and medium villages should also be merged into a single, larger villages section and references to Fleet Marston and Broughton should be deleted as they are discrete "other settlements". In fact Broughton will be completely surrounded by the Aylesbury Garden Town development located in part of Bierton parish. Paragraphs 3.19 and 3.20 and redundant as they provide a description of a process which has effectively been superseded. The strategic settlements (including Salden and Halton Camp) cover a wide range of new allocation growth levels that run from 7810 at Aylesbury to zero at Wendover, whilst outside the strategic settlements these paragraphs deal with the distribution of merely 524 of the 12839 new housing allocations, all to be built before 2023 (see paragraph 8 below).
6. The changes I suggest below will clarify and simplify the Plan, removing redundant references to a settlement hierarchy approach which has little relevance tot eh polices to be pursued particularly with regard to the distribution between larger and medium villages. The Plan, correctly in my view, does make significant policy distributions between larger/medium villages (covered along with strategic settlements, in Policy D2) smaller villages (covered by Policy D3) and other settlements (covered by Policy D4).
Continuation sheet for Representation/
8. It should be noted that all the committed and allocated housing sites in the villages are expected to be developed by 2023. Therefore in the last 10 years of the Plan (2023 - 2033), unless new allocations are brought forward in a review of the Plan or in response to a shortfall in delivery revealed by monitoring, development in all villages (larger, medium and smaller) will be limited to sites brought forward in new or reviewed Neighbourhood Plans, windfall sites or Policy H2 sites.
9. Using data from the Council's housing Land Supply Soundness document I have complied the attached the Table B which gives the projected annual house building for Aylesbury Buckingham, Haddenham, Wendover/Halton Camp, Winslow, Edge of Milton Keynes, the larger villages, the medium villages and the smaller villages. It shows that building is expected to peak in 2025/26 in Aylesbury, in 2022/23 in Buckingham and Haddenham, in 2024/25 in Winslow and in 2020/21 in the larger and medium villages. Building is projected to cease in Buckingham and Haddenham after 2025/26, in Winslow after 2029/30, in the larger villages after 2024/25 and in the medium villages after 2025/26. In fact there is a discrepancy between the land Supply document and the local plan in respect of larger and medium villages. The supply document shows building continues to 2024/25 in the larger and medium villages and to 2025/26 in the medium villages. However, Polices D-SCD 008, D-MMO 006 and D-QUA 001 of the plan, which cover the sites concerned, state that development of all these sites will be completed by 2023.
10. After 2025/26 building will be restricted to Aylesbury, Halton Camp (1 site), Winslow (1site) and Edge of Milton Keynes (1 site). After 2029/30 it will be restricted to just Aylesbury and Halton Camp. I suggest that this is unrealistic and does not provide any flexibility. I reality building will almost certainly continue in the District as a whole after 2033, including to accommodate further unmet demand from the south Buckinghamshire districts; and after the dates at which it is projected to cease at Buckingham
+, Haddenham, Winslow and, probably, some of the larger and medium villages. Achieving the high building rates envisaged in the projection will be challenging but, if they are achieved, it would be perverse not to maintain them, at least in the strategic settlements (other than Wendover) for a few years, depending on there being demand, rather than assume an immediate fall0off after the peaks are reached.
11. The housing trajectory shows that house building is projected to exceed the target figure for the 10 years from 2019/20 to 2028/29, reaching a peak about 600 above the target in the 3 year period 2021/24. This mirrors the national target announced in the 2017 Budget of housebuilding increasing by about 50% to 3000,000 per year by the early 2020'2
12. However, once the peak building rate is reached the intention, nationally, is presumably that it should be maintained for at last a few years but the local plan assumes a steady decline in building post 2023/24, despite Aylesbury vale being part of the Oxford/Milton Keynes/Cambridge growth corridor.
13. If it is assumed that an average annual building rate for the district for about 1960 is indeed achievable by 2021-2024 and that it should then be continued for at least 5 years (unit 2028/29) it will be necessary for site allocations additional tot hose made in the Local Plan to start making contribution from 2024/25.
14. In other words additional sites will need to be found for at least 1810 dwellings. I suggest that these sites will need to be agreed well before 2024. It may be possible to accelerate delivery of the projected post-2024 contribution from some of the sites already allocated in the plan at Aylesbury, Winslow, edge of Milton Keynes and Halton Camp; but these sites will then new to be replenished with new allocations to maintain housebuilding at an approximate level beyond 2029.
15. The plan does not provide for this and so it is unsound as far as the later years of the house building trajectory is concerned. I therefore suggest that the plan should be found to be sound on an interim basis (as regards, say, the first five years after adoption) but that an immediate review should be required, as indeed envisages in paragraph 3.77 of the plan, to deal with the shortcomings I have identified, together with the proposals for Oxford/Cambridge growth axis and the proposed national formula for establishing housing need.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2684

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Amarillo Ltd & Scandale Ltd

Agent: Planning Prospects

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Comment on S2(d), table 1 and table 2. The current draft of the VALP is unsustainably reliant on Aylesbury and the District's villages to deliver the District's much needed homes, whilst Winlsow, a Top Tier Strategic Settlement where growth should be
concentrated, is identified to deliver a disproportionately low and insufficient level of housing for a settlement of its status. This is exacerbated when additional growth linked to East-West Rail and the provision of a new station in Winslow is considered. As currently drafted the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan will not deliver the homes required in the District and has not considered fully all of the reasonable alternative options available to the District.

Full text:

See attachments

Policy S2 sets out the Spatial Strategy for growth in Aylesbury Vale over the emerging Plan Period (2013 to 2033) and says that the VALP will provide for 27,400 new homes during that period. Policy S2 is followed by Table 1 which sets out that the Allocations put forward in teh draft VALP amount to 12,997, which when added to commitments in the Sitrict will result in provision of 28,830 new homes during the plan period. This represents a buffer of 5.2% over the total housing requirements put forward in the VALP.

Not with standing our concerns over the level of housing growth put forward in the VALP (subject to a separate response form) we do not consider that a 5.2% buffer gives sufficient flexibility should the sites identified by the Council not deliver at the rate or density anticipated in the Plan or even should they fail to deliver at all. This is particularly concerning where the VALP includes a number of large strategic allocations which are subject to significant delivery constraints such as major infrastructure requirements (including being linked to delivery of HS2).

Paragraph 3.79 of the draft VALP sets out that in the four years of the Plan period that have occurred to date (i.e 2013 to 2017) delivery in those years has cumulatively fallen short of the annual delivery target. this means that there is already a pent-up shortfall in delivery in Aylesbury Vale in the Plan period and the %.2% buffer has already been eaten into during its early years, thereby reducing the flexibility further going forward.

Paragraph 3.80 acknowledge that achieving the level of housing delivery set out in the VALP is ambitious and will be a significant increase on past rates. With this in mind, we consider it necessary to identify additional allocations to provide a greater buffer and provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that the homes required in Aylesbury Vale are delivered in the Plan period.

Our concerns are exacerbated if (as we consider it should be) a higher OAN is considered and the level of housing growth is increased as a result.

With the above in mind, we do not consider that the Plan as currently drafted is positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with National Policy as it will not deliver the homes required in Winslow or the District or indeed the winder HMA.