Aylesbury Vale Area

S7 Previously developed land

Showing comments and forms 1 to 15 of 15

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 227

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Terry Benwell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

There can be no consistency in site selection using the wording in S7, because the ambiguity can give rise to a subjective interpretation of previously developed land, this is not the intention of the NPPF. Also the word SUSTAINABLE is not used in the NPPF.

Full text:

Clause S7 is in conflict with NPPF, there being no qualifications as laid down in S7. Previously developed land as stated in the NPPF must be therefore sustainable by definition, the comments in S7 are superfluous and give rise to ambiguity. There is no reference in the NPPF under Previously Developed Land to SUSTAINABLE LAND OR SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS.

This section seeks to limit the use of Previously Developed Land by introducing restrictive and prescriptive wording, that can be interpreted to givie a negative response to the suitability of a site, therefore conflicting with the spirit and ethic of the NPPF.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 686

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Whaddon Parish Council

Representation:

Policy S7 Whaddon PC Support.

Full text:

Policy S7 Whaddon PC Support.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 854

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: AB Planning & Development Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The general support offered towards redevelopment of previously developed (brownfield) land, which is broadly consistent with national guidance, is overly constrained by caveats within the policy that could be used later to attempt to thwart development. To some degree, the suggested caveats to brownfield land redevelopment is already reflected in a plan that is currently highly reliant on greenfield site developments in order to accommodate new needs.

Full text:

The general support offered towards redevelopment of previously developed (brownfield) land, which is broadly consistent with national guidance, is overly constrained by caveats within the policy that could be used later to attempt to thwart development. To some degree, the suggested caveats to brownfield land redevelopment is already reflected in a plan that is currently highly reliant on greenfield site developments in order to accommodate new needs.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 901

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Board

Representation:

The Chilterns Conservation Board supports the policy which encourages the re-use of previously developed land in sustainable locations

Full text:

The Chilterns Conservation Board supports the policy which encourages the re-use of previously developed land in sustainable locations

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1497

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Corbally (Finmere) Group and Mrs Vanessa Tait

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Objection is raised to Draft Policy S7 as it goes beyond the scope of national policy and
is therefore not consistent with the national policy.

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Proposed Submission Version of the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan, made on behalf of Corbally (Finmere) Group and Mrs Vanessa Tait.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1617

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Representation:

Support this policy, however note that Policy S1 (d) seeks to prioritise brownfield land and is not consistent with this policy.

Full text:

Please see attached representation and appendices.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1676

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited

Agent: GL Hearn

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Aylesbury Vale District should provide commitment to preparation of a brownfield land register, to include appropriate previously developed sites that are suitable, available and deliverable for residential developments.

Full text:

On behalf of our client, Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited, please see attached representations duly made towards the Reg. 19 Aylesbury Vale Local Plan

Full text where it has been summarised:

Para 1.14

Paragraph 1.14 is supported in terms of the policy approach of new employment need being met by new allocations to meet forecast need. However, it is apparent that Aylesbury Vale District is retaining historic employment land that is no longer suitable, or viable for current and future employment needs.
The Council is failing to provied an effective planning policy framework by retaining areas of previous employment land at the Gatehouse Industrial Estate which are no longer suitable, viable or deliverable for
employment purposes. The Gatehouse Industrial Estate has already been subject to incremental and
piecemeal redevelopment for alternative land uses, notably for residential at Brook Mews, and residential
being brought forward at Alton House. The character and form of development at the Gatehouse Industrial
Estate has already chaged such that land between Alton House and Brook Mews should be released for
residential and mixed use development.
The Council's approach in retaining the Gatehouse Close Industrial Estate as a key employment site
is inconsistent with the NPPF paragraph 22 which seeks to prevent the long term retention of employment land where there is no reasonable prospect of the land being used for that purpose. In these circumstances Planning Auithorities should review the potential for allocation the land for alternative land uses, including for residential.
The Council's evidence base relating to the Gatehouse Industrial Estate is out-of-date and should be reviewed to take account of existing and permitted residential development locally.

Para 3.78-3.80

Paragraph 3.80 of the VALP emphasises the considerable difficulty of potential large scale allocations being
brought forward speedily to meet immediate and short term (5 year) housing land supply requirements. Whilst
large scale urban extensions or a new settlement would prove a strong solution to medium and longer term
housing delivery, it is clear that a step change is required to increase the short term supply and delivery.
Aviva remain concerned that existing employment sites, such as HELAA site ref. AYL078 - Land at
Gatehouse Close, Aylesbury, have not been adequately assessed to consider the potential for existing
employment land to be releasd in the shorter term to realise and deliver much needed new housing.
Specifically, further consideration must be given to the current and future difficulties associated with HELAA
site ref. AYL078 - Land at Gatehouse Close being successful or viable for employment purposes. HELAA
site AYL078 would be able to deliver approximately 300 dwellings, reducing the need for release of
greenfield land for a similar quantum of housing.

Table 9 and para 6.6:

Aviva object to the HELAA site ref. AYL078 forming part of the key employment site known as the Gatehouse
Industrial Area. Whilst HELAA site ref. AYL0788 is currently in partial use, the only realistic long term use of the
site is for residential development. There is very limited demand for the existing types of units on the site, and the
site's location and poor access for modern commercial vehicles means that the re-use or redevelopment
for employment is not viable. Although the site presently has some very short term tenants the only realistic long
term use of the site would be residential development.
In addition, it is submitted that paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 are overly protective of employment land, paricularly of
employment land such as that at HELAA site AYL078 which is clearly suitable for alternative more appropriate
land uses. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states that:
"Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no
reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose"...and..."land allocations should be regularly reviewed".
The NPPF goes on to say in the same paragraph that "where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being
used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on
their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable
local communities".
The NPPF also state that: "To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively
to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century".
It is submitted that AVDC should continue to release some greenfield land sites for mixed use development that
consists of residential and employment space. The strategic greenfield sites would allow for the employment sites
to be located in areas that are accessible and sustainable and allow the facilitation of the of the growth of the
Aylesbury Vale economy. Research and development, manufacturing and distribution have all traditionally been
located on the edge of settlements as they benefit from better connectivity.
Given the committed investment projects of East West Rail and HS2 and the larger strategic housing sites, it is
likely that Aylesbury will benefit from improved connectivity by 2033. This therefore means that previously
allocated land for employment that was once 'out of town' (such as land at HELAA site ref. AYL 078 Gatehouse
Industrial Estate) will be situated in an urban hinterland due to settlement expansion, rendering the employment
sites surplus to modern day requirements.
In the case of HELAA site ref. AYL078 it is submitted by Aviva that there is very limited demand for the type of
units on the site, and the site's location and poor access for modern commercial vehicles, means that re-use or
redevelopment is not viable as a continuation of 'B' uses.
In conclusion, it is submitted that either the Gatehouse Industrial Estate should no longer be identified as a key
employment site, or alternatively the HELAA site ref. AYL078 should be excluded from identification in the Local
Plan proposals map as no longer forming part of the Gatehouse Industrial Estate as a key employment site.

S2 and table 1:

Policy S2 is supported in terms of identifying an approach to delivery of land for housing and employment growth
and development, including to meet some of the needs of adjoining highly constrained districts including
Wycombe and Chiltern/South Bucks Districts.
Nevertheless, the approach of releasing large greenfield sites for residential development to meet the needs of
Aylesbury and adjoining authorities is not justified, effective or consistent with National Policy where there is
significant previously developed land available that can deliver new homes at sustainable locations.
Aylesbury District is seeking to retain historic/ existing employment land for employment purposes where there is
no realistic or viable prospect of the land contributing towards employment development throughout the Plan
period.
Land at the Gatehouse Industrial Estate should be reviewed in light of current and permitted residential
developments at Brook Mews and Alton House and in light of the long term and persistent vacancies and
poor take up of employment land and premises.
Aylesbury Vale has not recently reviewed the ability for the Gatehouse Close Industrial Estate to contrbute
towards employment development, and it is submitted that in accordance with paragraph 22 of the NPPF land
east of the residential scheme at Alton House should be allocated for an alternative and more suitable land use
i.e. a logical and sustainable form of residential linking Alton House, with Brook Mews.

S7:

Poliy S7 is supported by Aviva. Policy S7 appropriately expects efficient and effective use of land and
encourages reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land in sustainable locations. Nevertheless, Policy S7
should be strengthened to confirm that Aylesbury Vale will encourage efficient and effective use of land, in
sustainable locations and subject to specific site considerations, ahead of release of greenfield or Green Belt
land.
Policy S7 should also be strengthened to set out how Aylesbury Vale intends to apply the emerging
requirements from the government for Council's to prepare brownfield land registers.
Paragraph 3.67 only makes reference to the emerging brownfield land register initiative. Aviva submit that
Aylesbury Vale should set out within paragrph 3.81 and policy S7 strong support for the principles of
brownfield land. Indeed, it is recommended that Aylesbury Vale should provide confirmation that a brownfield
land register will be prepared by the Council, to be informed by detailed and fresh assessment of suitable,
available and deliverable previosuly developed land, such as HELAA site ref. AYL078 - Land at Gatehouse
Close, Aylesbury.

Policy maps for Aylesbury:

Aviva object to the potential housing allocations VALP policy map inset for Aylesbury, as the map fails to identify
HELAA site ref. AYL078, land at Gatehouse Close as a potential housing allocation. HELAA site ref. AYL078
is located immediately adjacent to, and shares its eastern boundary with the now completed residential
development at Brook Mews, as well as its western boundary with the permitted residenital development at
Alton House. HELAA site ref. AYL078 also shares the same credentials as a highly sustainable location for
residential development, being within walking distance of Aylesbury town centre and railway station, as well as
the range and mix of commnity facilites and servies within and around the town centre.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Ainscough Strategic Land

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

However, ASL do consider that the policy in its current form is to narrow and restrictive
and would request that the Policy is amended with the following revisions identified in
red:

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Pre Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Consultation prepared on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land in relation to 'Land at the Former Marsworth Airfield, Marsworth, Buckinghamshire', which is being promoted through the emerging Local Plan for a residential led mixed use development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1780

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Cerda Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

No specific objections are lodged to the provisions of Policy S7, however, it is important that as applied it should not be read as providing some sort of sequential approach seeking to utilise previously developed land in favour of greenfield land. If the policy were to be applied in that manner, it would be inconsistent with the NPPF which does not contain any such sequential approach.

Full text:

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

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1830

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Rectory Homes Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Whilst we support the policy's encouragement of re-use of previously developed land (PDL), it needs to be recognised within the policy that Aylesbury Vale maintains very limited PDL resource and therefore the majority of development will have to take place on greenfield sites to deliver the identified housing requirement.

Full text:

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

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2001

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Wheeldon Estates

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The representations set out our support for the recognition of Buckingham as a 'strategic settlement' (Policy S3), the Council's approach to re-use of previously developed land (Policy S7), and confirm the flexibility in terms of appropriate uses within town centres (Policy D6). In addition, the representations confirm our broad support for allocation BUC040 in Buckingham, but with the caveat that greater clarity is required regarding the distribution of uses.

Full text:

see attachments

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2025

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Agent: Savills Southampton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

CSP does not object to this policy, which closely reflects the NPPF's prioritisation of previously developed land. However, we observe that the VALP's proposed approach to RAF Halton, in terms of retaining the site within the Green Belt, potentially risks failing to make the most efficient use of that site. As such, the policies for RAF Halton are ineffective and unjustified, as set out later in this document under the specific allocation policy for that site, and in accompanying technical appendices.

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: 2093

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

whilst we support the principle of the re-use of previously-developed land, occasionally such land or sites can have historical interest. We therefore welcome the caveat in the policy regarding environmental value, in addition to the caveat regarding impact on local character, as part of the positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of, and the clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by paragraphs 126 and 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Full text:

See attachment for full representation.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2419

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Representation:

The policy is acceptable in principle, subject to the need to develop a suitable
Masterplan for the RAF Halton site.

Full text:

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

Overview and Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2665

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Midlands

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

We are supportive of Policy S7 and would actively encourage the Council to identify appropriate sites on their Brownfield Land Register. Policy S7 should be consistent with the proposed allocations in the VALP by prioritising the redevelopment of previously developed land in line with Policy S1 and Objective 1 of the VALP.

Full text:

As it stands, the VALP is not sound and hence there are a number of changes required to the plan including a number of strategic and development management policies as identified in the submitted representation letter. In summary, we consider that the following policies are unsound and for reasons stated above, do not meet the test of soundness: Policy S2 'Spatial Strategy for Growth'; Policy S3 'Settlement Hierarchy and Cohesive Development'; Policy H1 'Affordable Housing'; Policy H5 'Self/Custom Build Housing'; Policy H6 'Housing Mix'; Policy H7 'Dwelling Sizes'; Policy T5 'Vehicle Parking'; and Policy T7 'Electric Vehicle Infrastructure'. My client's site at Calvert Green represents an achievable, suitable and deliverable allocation that is part brownfield to support the necessary housing growth for Aylesbury Vale.