MM009
Object
VALP Main Modifications
Representation ID: 3351
Received: 08/01/2020
Respondent: Amarillo Ltd & Scandale Ltd
Agent: Planning Prospects
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
The housing requirement figure has risen modestly, and the Council's allocations have also increased modestly as a result. However, the buffer that the Council say is built in to ensure delivery of its housing need over the Plan period is insufficient, particularly where delivery from strategic scale sites from a single settlement are heavily relied upon. Additional allocations should be identified to ensure that the Plan can meet the District's housing needs over the plan period.
Additional allocations need to be identified, to spread the risk of relying heavily on strategic scale allocations around one settlement (Aylesbury).
Please see attachments.
Object
VALP Main Modifications
Representation ID: 3405
Received: 17/12/2019
Respondent: Willis Dawson Holdings Ltd
Agent: Pegasus Plannning Group
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
The VALP provides an insufficient plan period supply.
The VALP is unable to demonstrate a sufficient supply over the plan period and accordingly it will be necessary to identify additional sources of supply.
As set out in response to MM001, in order to address the Inspector's concerns, it is necessary to meet the housing need for at least 30,345 homes. It should be underlined that this is an absolute minimum which should be exceeded to better account for the migration effects of the financial crisis and to provide an appropriate market signals uplift.
The Inspector has identified that it is appropriate to plan for an additional buffer of 5.2% to ensure that these needs are met, whether as part of the housing requirement or additional to it. This would equate to a supply of 31,923 homes.
The VALP however only proposes to provide a supply of 30,233 homes in MM009. This is not only insufficient to meet the absolute minimum housing need but it also provides absolutely no contingency to ensure that this minimum need is met as required by the Inspector.
Object
VALP Main Modifications
Representation ID: 3512
Received: 09/01/2020
Respondent: Barratt Homes
Agent: Graham Bloomfield
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
The representations set out in detail why it is considered that a minimum 20% uplift remains appropriate based on a full assessment of market signals
On the day of adoption, the Plan and its policies will be considered against the 2019 Framework and this already requires that Local Plans are reviewed when they need updating, and at least once every five years (Paragraph 33). This states that the requirement for review should take into account changing circumstances affecting the local plan area, including whether the applicable local housing need figure has changed significantl
see attachment
Object
VALP Main Modifications
Representation ID: 3590
Received: 17/12/2019
Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Whilst the buffer increases from
5.2% to 5.7% Gladman remain of the view that this is insufficient to ensure the effective delivery of
the VALP.
As outlined in previous submissions to ensure the delivery of the necessary scale of housing across
AVDC the Council should be over allocating to provide sufficient contingency for instances when
sites do not come forward as planned. This flexibility within the plan is important given the heavy
reliance being placed on the delivery of homes in Aylesbury. Gladman reiterate the
recommendation that the flexibility factor should be increased to somewhere between 10% and
20%.
recommendation that the flexibility factor should be increased to somewhere between 10% and
20%.
see attachment