MM007

Either reinstate the 300 homes at BUC 51 or remove all sites in Buckingham until further traffic modelling has been undertaken.

Given the removal of 300 homes at BUC 051 and the Buckingham Transport Strategy further modelling indicating that other sites are not feasible (our remaining response demonstrates that the modelling does not support the remaining sites in VALP either) then this is no longer a valid statement as regards Buckingham.

Address issues of Policing, transport, medical, schools, land to be used as buffer.

Firstly, I would like evidence that brown and not green field sites have been fully explored. Secondly the two knife possibly drug related crimes in Milton Keynes need to be addressed as there are serious problems with "gang" culture now in this city know in each zone by their zones name and to expand to add another zone without addressing this issue or providing adequate evidence of policing policy, adequate school back up and social back up is irresponsible.
Thirdly, to expand towards Aylesbury Vale to the extent that is proposed on green field sites is seriously worrying. Roads are barely able to support the amount of traffic at peak times already and the rural bus service is almost non existent.

If this plan is to work then the green spaces must be a sufficient buffer from the rural Villages of Whaddon and Nash and it must carry the infrastructure to cope with the violence escalating in MK at present. It cannot and must not become a feared city or it will loose inhabitants who deserve to live in a peaceful community with roads, schools, medical facilities, sports facilities and transport.

If Milton Keynes expands to Aylesbury Vale it will swallow up a beautiful and valued farming / countryside community to become an urban mess we need to know when enough is enough.

Dear Sir,

I would like to register my objections to the VALP Main Modifications. The letters 'MM' and numbers refer to appropriate modifications.

I think the public examination (PE) should be reopened.

The A421 cannot cope now with every day traffic so more homes at Shenley Park, Salden Chase together with Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead would be unbearable. Infrastructure has to be in place first. (MM007,010,076)

Our health service is at full stretch now so any extra development would bring it to its knees. Our hospitals cannot cope.(MM007,010,076)

I chose to live in a village, not be part of a huge housing estate but further expansion would swallow us. Villages to the north deserve the same protection as those to the south of Aylesbury Vale. (MM13,014,031)

Further development would mean a reduced quality of life, this isn't progress (MM070,076)

There is no provision for a Secondary School at the Shelley Park development therefore not in line with BCC policy. (MM076)

AVDC and MKC need to work together with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK. They need to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate' (MM072 to076)

In respect of Newton Longville I ask for the PE to be reopened.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Jill Mead

Newton Longville resident.

Changes to the proposed modifications should be:
1. include land at Newton Leys for approximately 400 dwellings
2. Policy D2 to be amended to include the above site.

Please see attachment.

Delete "the north east of Aylesbury Vale adjacent to Milton Keynes"

In July 2017, Milton Keynes Council (MKC) adopted Plan:MK, the local plan for the area. As part of the evidence gathering to support to preparation of the plan, a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for the period 2016-2031 was carried out. The Objectively Assessed Need for the area was determined and used to finalise the housing numbers to be delivered through the Plan:MK period.
The infrastructure needs for the Milton Keynes area are based upon evidence gathered during the Plan:MK preparation, and do not include the needs of allocations on the boundary in adjacent areas.
The allocations of Salden Chase and Shenley Park, on the boundary of Milton Keynes, will unbalance the infrastructure requirements of MKC.
These allocations would be best placed around the key settlements in the VALP area, principally Aylesbury and Buckingham.
Consequently, the following main modifications should be amended as follows:

The SWMK Consortium's representations to the strategic objectives contained in Paragraph 2.6 of the Proposed Submission Vale of Aylesbury Plan (PSVALP) noted the failure to mention the edge of Milton Keynes and the opportunities associated with delivering housing in this location, including connecting new development with significant transport infrastructure projects in this area - see Rep Id. 2281. The spatial strategy contained in Policy S2 of PSVALP does refer to strategic scale development on the edge of Milton Keynes and it would be consistent for the strategic objectives in Paragraph 2.6 to refer to this too.

The proposed change in Main Modification MM007 referring to the north east of Aylesbury Vale adjacent to Milton Keynes as a sustainable location for development is supported.

Development will be allocated in accordance with the settlement hierarchy taking a capacity-led approach. It is also an Aylesbury Garden Town first approach. Therefore, the main focus of development will be in sustainable locations at Aylesbury Garden Town where the majority of development will be located. The remainder of housing will be then be located in the next most sustainable locations, the other strategic settlements, which are Buckingham, Haddenham, Winslow and Wendover and in accordance with the spatial strategy and strategic priorities for North East Aylesbury Vale', the north east of Aylesbury Vale adjacent to Milton Keynes, together with an appropriate level of development at the most sustainable settlements in the rural areas.

see attachment