Aylesbury Vale Area

MM010

Showing comments and forms 31 to 45 of 45

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3444

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: West Bletchley Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

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.

Change suggested by respondent:

Delete "f - Land within in the north east of Aylesbury Vale adjacent to Milton Keynes will make provision for 3,362 on a number of sites"

Full text:

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:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3447

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: LDA Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

The overall increase in the housing requirement from 27,400 to 28,600 is supported. In
particular the addition of text stating, 'at least' to clarify that this housing requirement figure
does not represent an upper limit is supported. For consistency it is suggested that the
housing requirement figures listed for each of the sustainable locations listed in Policy S2 a - j
should also be preceded by 'at least'.

Full text:

See attached document which is submitted on behalf of Figar Land Limited.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3453

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Mr James Brewer

Representation Summary:

Support and agree with conclusion that Shenley Park is the most appropriate site to allocate adjacent to Milton Keynes. Support bullet (f) of policy S2 that increases the housing provision in the North East of Aylesbury Vale from 2,212 to 3,362. As the Inspector noted in document ED181 'I stated that it was for the Council to decide how it wished to meet the need for any additional allocations. The suggestion that it be met entirely by an allocation in the Milton Keynes area would adequately address the specific recommendation of paragraph 37 of my Interim Findings.

Full text:

Please see attached document 32735 Crest Nicholson Section 4 and the comments below that set out Crest Nicholson's support, subject to minor changes, to MM010.

Crest Nicholson would recommend that the second paragraph within Policy S2 is amended to read 'The strategy also allocates growth at two sites adjacent to Milton Keynes which reflects its status as a strategic settlement immediately adjacent to Aylesbury Vale District' as both Salden Chase and Shenley Park are now allocated for residential development.

Crest Nicholson support bullet (f) of policy S2 that increases the housing provision in the North East of Aylesbury Vale from 2,212 to 3,362. As the Inspector noted in document ED181 'I stated that it was for the Council to decide how it wished to meet the need for any additional allocations. The suggestion that it be met entirely by an allocation in the Milton Keynes area would adequately address the specific recommendation of paragraph 37 of my Interim Findings. The source for identifying the allocation is entirely within the Council's discretion. I have no reason to dispute the Council's choice of focussing its attention on those sites identified on pages 248-254 of the HELAA report V4 (January 2017)'.

Crest Nicholson agree with both the Inspector and AVDC that the HELAA report provides the most appropriate piece of evidence from which to determine which site should be allocated for residential development. Of the three options considered next to Milton Keynes, namely Shenley Park, Eaton Leys and an extension to Salden Chase, only Shenley Park is considered suitable for residential development in the HELAA, a conclusion that is also borne out by the Sustainability Appraisal addendum that has been provided as part of the main modifications evidence base. Shenley Park was also the only site of the three included in the 2016 version of the VALP (Regulation 18).

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3466

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: IPE Orchestra

Agent: Arrow Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Bullets A-H should read "at least" XXX dwellings (where XXX is the figure of new homes referenced in each bullet). The global housing figure for AVDC is an "at least" figure (new wording included in this MM in the preceding text in Policy S2) and therefore these parts of the policy should contain the same wording in order to reflect that. Without the wording, the Policy is inconsistent nor is it effective.

Full text:

See attached document which is submitted on behalf of IPE Orchestra Land

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3467

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy S2 should have the words 'at least' reinstated in all criteria. Further, the references to further housing development being exceptional and to the settlement boundaries of made neighbourhood plans should be removed from related policies e.g. policy D2 as those requirements are inconsistent with policy S2.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy S2 should have the words 'at least' reinstated in all criteria.

The references to further housing development being exceptional and to the settlement boundaries of made neighbourhood plans should be removed from related policies e.g. policy D2.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3472

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Stoke Mandeville Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy S2 makes clear in sub-para (a) that Aylesbury Garden Town comprises the area of Aylesbury town and parts of surrounding parishes, many of which have or are developing a Neighbourhood Plan. This acknowledgement that Aylesbury Garden Town is a composite settlement subject to a variety of development documents is not, however, reflected in other parts of the Plan, leading to inconsistency and inaccuracy.

Full text:

See attached document which is submitted on behalf of Stoke Mandeville Neighbourhood Plan Group

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3477

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Susan & Rex Horton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
Housing Numbers
It shows an increase in the number of New Home planned for the larger developments D-AGT1, D-AGT2, D-AGT3 and D-AGT4 and fails to take into account the number of new homes currently being constructed on a large number of developments in Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville, Bishopstone, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville, Bierton and Marsworth. These current development are considerably adding to the strain being put on the local infrastructure, eg. roads, trains, education, doctors and hospitals etc. The new increased numbers of new homes reduces the quality of life in the area.

Full text:

We feel that this Modified Local Plan has a number of major flaws and should not be submitted to the Inspector in it's current form.

Housing Numbers

It shows an increase in the number of New Home planned for the larger developments D-AGT1, D-AGT2, D-AGT3 and D-AGT4 and fails to take into account the number of new homes currently being constructed on a large number of developments in Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville, Bishopstone, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville, Bierton and Marsworth. These current development are considerably adding to the strain being put on the local infrastructure, eg. roads, trains, education, doctors and hospitals etc. The new increased numbers of new homes shown in the modified plan, will only reduce the quality of life in the area.
All major routes in and out of Aylesbury are already heavily congested now, with vehicles often travelling at walking pace at peak times. This plan offers no change to the current situation and vehicle movements will only get worse.
What does this say about AVDC and BCC's strategic thinking and planning? How does this make you feel? Could you agree or disagree that this is the best strategy when there are reasonable alternatives to be considered, what are your thoughts ?
HS2
The Plan relise heavily on funds being made available from HS2 (para 4.44) to construct the area D-AGT2. However this project is under threat and no final decision has been made on whether it will scrapped or goes ahead. The Plan cannot be approved until there is a final decision on HS2.
Surely this is not the best strategy when there are reasonable alternatives to be considered, what does it say about AVDC and BCC's strategic thinking and planning? What do you make of this?

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway

The Modified Plan make reference to this project several times, but fails to link any road infrastructure projects into the plan. They have also deleted reference to any major infrastructure projects that require co-operation (para 3.39) and state they may (para 3.81) consider them at some unspecified time in the future. It would also appear that they no longer support the project.
This does not give a very good account of the AVDC and BCC strategic thinking and planning. How does this make you feel and what do you make of it?

Earlier Planning applications have been rejected by the government Inspector on the basis of the Aylesbury Road Network will not cope with the increase of traffic flow. However this plan shows there will be a considerable increase in the number of vehicles on our roads but fails to produce an update of any transport assessment based of the new homes to be built.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3479

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: L&Q Estates

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

support the proposed modification to Policy S2 'Spatial strategy for growth'
which increases the housing requirement to 28,600 new homes within the plan period to
2033 (an increase of 1,200 homes). The proposed increase in overall housing provision
reflects the outcome of the exchange which took place between the Inspector and AVDC
following the Examination hearings
notwithstanding our in principle support for the allocation of additional land for
housing adjacent to Milton Keynes, as we detail below, the proposed allocation of Shenley
Park through MM075 and MM0076 (Policy D-WHA001) is unsound.

Full text:

see attachment

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3505

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Ether Solutions

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There are several increases in housing numbers, yet there is no assessment of the additional impact on traffic.
I live on the A413 and the congestion brings traffic to a crawl during both the morning and evening rush hour. More houses means more traffic and worse congestion, how does that fit with Aylesbury being a Garden City - are the planners trying to grow pollution?
A single traffic incident in Aylesbury results in gridlock. Even the police recently posted advice about a recent incident - "just avoid the area"!
The traffic problem needs to be sorted BEFORE any additional housing.

Change suggested by respondent:

Address congestion before any more houses are built

Full text:

Housing Numbers.

There are several increases in housing numbers in the modifications, yet there is no assessment of the additional impact on traffic.
I live on the A413 and the congestion brings traffic to a crawl during both the morning and evening rush hour. More houses means more traffic and worse congestion, how does that fit with Aylesbury being a Garden City - are the planners trying to grow pollution?

A single traffic incident in Aylesbury results in gridlock. Even the police recently posted advice about a recent incident - "just avoid the area"!

The traffic problem needs to be sort BEFORE any additional housing.


HS2 and Oxford Cambridge Expressway.

The modifications include references to both HS2 and the Oxford Cambridge Expressway as individual discrete items. This is an absolute nonsense. If two major investments do not co-ordinate and integrate they are both failing to address basic principles. The VALP needs to consider the integration of the two schemes and how they will impact / benefit the area. A simple application of logic says there will be a "Parkway" station at the intersection and that will have consequences for VALP.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3513

Received: 09/01/2020

Respondent: Barratt Homes

Agent: Graham Bloomfield

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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 significantly.

Full text:

see attachment

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3536

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Slough Borough Council

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
One of the proposed main modifications is that the total housing provision in the plan should be increased from 27,400 to 28,600. Whilst the text continues to explain that this allows for 5,750 houses to meet Chiltern and South Bucks needs, the reference to this in Policy S2 is now recommended to be deleted. This Council support the proposed modification to the policy and the increase in the housing provision figure.

Full text:

One of the proposed main modifications is that the total housing provision in the plan should be increased from 27,400 to 28,600. Whilst the text continues to explain that this allows for 5,750 houses to meet Chiltern and South Bucks needs, the reference to this in Policy S2 is now recommended to be deleted. This Council support the proposed modification to the policy and the increase in the housing provision figure.

Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Main Modifications Consultation (November 2019)
-The examination into the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan took place in July 2018. A key part of this plan is the proposal to meet Chiltern and South Bucks unmet housing needs by building an additional 5,750 dwellings in houses in Aylesbury.

-This Council made representations at the examination that it was not reasonable or sustainable to import housing from outside of the "functional" Housing Market Area such as the southern part of South Bucks. It was estimated that 1,750 houses fell into this category and so this number should be deducted from the number of houses being built in Aylesbury to accommodate South Bucks unmet need.

-Inspector published his interim finding in August 2018. This concluded that the plan could be made sound through modifications which are now the subject to public consultation until the 17th December.

-The Inspector has proposed that the total housing provision in the plan should be increased from 27,400 to 28,600. Whilst the text continues to explain that this allows for 5,750 houses to meet Chiltern and South Bucks needs, the reference to this in Policy S2 is now recommended to be deleted. It is recommended that this proposed modification to the policy should be supported.

-The plan was prepared under the now superseded 2012 version of the NPPF. As a result the Objectively Assessed Housing Need figure for Aylesbury of 20,600 was derived from their own Housing Needs Assessment. All plans now have to use the Government's standard methodology for calculating housing needs. Using this, the current housing needs figure for Aylesbury would be 29,520. This means that the plan is not actually going to meet the District's own needs and there is no scope for it to provide for the 8,000 unmet needs from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks.

-It is not possible to object to the proposed modifications on this basis but it makes it all the more important that the figures are removed from Policy S2.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3592

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Gladman Developments Ltd

Representation Summary:

supportive of this update as it is required to ensure that the Plan is
consistent throughout and that the distribution of growth reflects the modified housing
requirement figures and discussions regarding sites and locations for growth at the EiP.

Full text:

see attachment

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3611

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Newton Longville Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Several Main Modifications propose altering allocations from "around x" to
"at least". We contend that is unsound as it is not sufficiently precise and for
example in the case of D-WHA001 could lead to the policy being read as
supporting 1,800 dwellings which is what the developers contend should be
on the site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Change 'at least' to 'around' throughout the plan's policies

Full text:

See attachment for full comments and all issues raised

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3654

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Jackson Planning Ltd ( Lisa Jackson)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Council have failed to provide a proper contingency plan for the Cam-MK-Ox growth arc during the life of the plan to 2033. The opportunity to show the wider area of growth that supports AVDC's aspirations has been lost and with it the opportunity to influence the growth arc in a positive way. The plan is therefore not positively prepared.
The additional allocation of 1150 dwelling near MK does not sufficiently address the spatial hierarchy where MK is the city region within the AVDC area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Review the allocations for MK in the plan and consider the spatial hierarchy to reflect the primary role of MK city in the
development allocations. Identify the future directions of growth to fit with the growth arc aspirations for 1 million
home by 2050.
Revise wording of policy S2 - Add new wording before letter a)
Milton Keynes expansion as part of the government's aspirations for 1 million new homes in the Oxford to Cambridge growth arc by 2050. In addition to the specific allocations that extend Milton Keynes city within AVDC the plan will
support development that goes beyond the allocations that meets the aspirations for sustainable growth of the city that meets the four pillars of the MHLG and local partners agreed aspirations for the growth arc (March 2019).

Full text:

Whilst the changes to the policy S2 are welcome, they do not go far enough and do not address the Inspector's criticism that the plan does not reflect the advice that "To be sound, VALP should make contingency plans to accommodate them, not
simply abandon its function to a future review of uncertain timescale". Whilst the references to an early review have been dropped the plan has not been sufficiently modified with a contingency plan to deal with Cam-MK-Ox growth arc.
The Inspector accepted that it may not be possible for the Council to identify new settlements (which would account for less than half of the homes required to support the Cam-MK-Ox arc's future workforce) and these may be left to a
future review of the plan, however, this does not recognise the ability of delivery at pace to serve the strategic needs of the arc in the near future. An additional 1150 dwellings allocation is simply not sufficient recognition of the strategic
role of the area.
The strategic growth of Cam-MK-Ox arc is totally underplayed in the plan describing it as "a site adjacent to Milton Keynes."
In terms of NPPF 47 the Council could:
"where possible, identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10"
The Council have failed to provide a proper contingency plan for the Cam-MK-Ox growth arc during the life of the plan to 2033. The opportunity to show the wider area of growth that supports AVDC's aspirations has been lost and with it the opportunity to influence the growth arc in a positive way. The plan is therefore not positively prepared.
This is yet again an example of piecemeal planning that has dogged the proper planning of the area for the past decade since the demise of the South East Plan.

The Council have failed to provide a proper contingency plan for the Cam-MK-Ox growth arc during the life of the
plan to 2033. The opportunity to show the wider area of growth that supports AVDC's aspirations has been lost and
with it the opportunity to influence the growth arc in a positive way. The plan is therefore not positively
prepared.The additional allocation of 1150 dwelling near MK does not sufficiently address the spatial hierarchy where MK is the city region within the AVDC area.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3660

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Jackson Planning Ltd ( Lisa Jackson)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Whilst the changes to the policy S2 are welcome, they do not go far enough and do not address the Inspector's criticism that the plan does not reflect the advice that "To be sound, VALP should make contingency plans to accommodate them, not
simply abandon its function to a future review of uncertain timescale". Whilst the references to an early review have been dropped the plan has not been sufficiently modified with a contingency plan to deal with Cam-MK-Ox growth arc.

Change suggested by respondent:

Review the allocations for MK in the plan and consider the spatial hierarchy to reflect the primary role of MK city in the development allocations. Identify the future directions of growth to fit with the growth arc aspirations for 1 million
home by 2050.
Revise wording of policy S2 - Add new wording before letter a)
Milton Keynes expansion as part of the government's aspirations for 1 million new homes in the Oxford to Cambridge growth arc by 2050. In addition to the specific allocations that extend Milton Keynes city within AVDC the plan will support development that goes beyond the allocations that meets the aspirations for sustainable growth of the city that meets the four pillars of the MHLG and local partners agreed aspirations for the growth arc (March 2019).

Full text:

Please see attached report on the main modifications representations by Chase Consortium. Whilst the changes to the policy S2 are welcome, they do not go far enough and do not address the Inspector's criticism that the plan does not reflect the advice that "To be sound, VALP should make contingency plans to accommodate them, not simply abandon its function to a future review of uncertain timescale". Whilst the references to an early review have been dropped the plan has not been sufficiently modified with a contingency plan to deal with Cam-MK-Ox growth arc.
The Inspector accepted that it may not be possible for the Council to identify new settlements (which would account for less than half of the homes required to support the Cam-MK-Ox arc's future workforce) and these may be left to a
future review of the plan, however, this does not recognise the ability of delivery at pace to serve the strategic needs of the arc in the near future. An additional 1150 dwellings allocation is simply not sufficient recognition of the strategic
role of the area.
The strategic growth of Cam-MK-Ox arc is totally underplayed in the plan describing it as "a site adjacent to Milton Keynes."
In terms of NPPF 47 the Council could: "where possible, identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth for years 6-10"
The Council have failed to provide a proper contingency plan for the Cam-MK-Ox growth arc during the life of the plan to 2033. The opportunity to show the wider area of growth that supports AVDC's aspirations has been lost and with it
the opportunity to influence the growth arc in a positive way. The plan is therefore not positively prepared.
This is yet again an example of piecemeal planning that has dogged the proper planning of the area for the past decade
since the demise of the South East Plan.