Aylesbury Vale Area

MM014

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3071

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Clifton Kirstie (Bovis Homes Limited)

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

Bovis Homes supports the appropriate addition of a reference to the need "to support thriving rural communities" through development. However, whilst the addition of this statement is certainly welcomed, Bovis Homes notes that the remainder of the Local Plan does not respond to, or accord with, Policy S3 and fails to allocate sufficient development in settlements that are deemed to be suitable to accommodate residential development.

Change suggested by respondent:

None specific to MM014 - changes proposed in relation to other specific modifications to address failure to allocate sufficient sites to promote sustainable development in rural areas.

Full text:

Bovis Homes supports the appropriate addition of a reference to the need "to support thriving rural communities" through development, noting its 'in principle' accordance with NPPF paragraph 78 that states that, "to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities." NPPF paragraph 78 outlines that "planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services."

However, whilst the addition of this statement is certainly welcomed, Bovis Homes notes that the remainder of the Local Plan does not respond to, or accord with, Policy S3 as amended through MM014. Notably, MM014 appears to afford a particular emphasis on the delivery of small and medium sites, yet the Local Plan fails to allocate sufficient development in settlements that are deemed to be suitable to accommodate residential development. In particular, the Draft Plan's failure to maximise housing delivery within the large village of Stone, despite the evident additional capacity within site allocation D-STO008, is discussed in response to MM094 below. Within this, it is clearly shown that the development does not compromise the character of the countryside (limb a) or result in a negative impact on the identities of neighbouring settlements (limb b).

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3253

Received: 07/01/2020

Respondent: Jill Mead

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3416

Received: 17/01/2020

Respondent: Wendover Parish Council

Representation Summary:

S3 which gives more protection against coalescence and retention of individuality of settlements.

Full text:

VALP Main Modifications consultation
Response from Wendover Parish Council

The Wendover Parish council have the following comments with regard to the main VALP modifications:
We are pleased to note that:
Much of the VALP remains unchanged for Wendover in that the 132 houses in Wendover have been completed and there are still 1000 in Halton for this plan. There are points we have considered that are the important features of the modifications which have a bearing on Wendover.
WPC are encouraged and in particular support the following points:
 S3 which gives more protection against coalescence and retention of individuality of settlements.

 D-Hal 003 - Where Halton the Sports and Heritage sites are to be retained (p143) and 50% green infrastructure has been specified (p145)

 D7 / E5- Promotes support for local centres (considers effects of out of town shopping etc to be detrimental)

 D8 - Aylesbury Town Centre action plan which details how to improve it in a positive manner (p181)

 H4 - Considers replacement dwellings in the countryside will be permitted if the same size as before, but not bigger

 H6b - Considers Care needs and that the definitions have been revised and are generally good (p206)

 T5 - Vehicle parking has been updated removing small garages as spaces as it is recognised that they are often used for storage not cars! (p246)

 T7 - Refers to electric charging points, at least one per new house, 10% of bays for flats. Employment sites and long stay points to be provided, 1 per 25 spaces, and charging times/ wattage are specified (p250)

 BE4, section9 - more weight is given to protecting these.

 NE1 - Protected sites has given biodiversity more weight and is more specific which is to be encouraged (p266)

 NE4 - AONB is more protected

 NE5 - Landscape - visual impact to be minimised, avoid loss of important views, noise effects etc

 NE7 - Specifies the importance of agricultural land of quality 1, 2 and 3a which should be retained.

 NE9 - Trees etc strengthened to refuse developments adjacent, adding buffers and joining up fragmented areas of woodland with new planting.

 C3 - Uses of natural resources highlights renewable energy and the current issues with water supply and sewage (new reservoirs required?).

 C4 /I1- Green infrastructure has been strengthened and is more precise. I1 also considers playing pitches and open spaces following a new assessment in 2017/19 and their importance management and possible need for extra provision. (also I2 & Appendix D)

 I5 - Water resources consultation required for large developments. We are in a water stress area!

 Appendix B - Deals with parking standards which are largely unchanged save for the garage issue.

 p33 - Halton development effects on the Chilterns Beech woods in terms of recreational use and air quality, and Natural England have asked for clarification, but in general are happy with modifications in line with their comments in the previous consultation.


These points are all supported by WPC as they strengthen the case for sensitive developments which consider their affects on the surrounding landscape, facilities and wildlife.

Cllr Sheila Bulpett 16.12.19
(on behalf of Wendover Parish Council)

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3502

Received: 09/01/2020

Respondent: Barratt Homes

Agent: Graham Bloomfield

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Policy S3 (and the definition at footnote 7 and 8) states that regard should be had to any perceived further coalescence between settlements. It is important that a flexible approach is adopted towards these requirements, particularly where the VALP itself does not provide a longer-term vision for North East Aylesbury Vale.
Unsound policy restrictions on future development in relation to coalescence should therefore be avoided. References to 'further' and 'perceived' coalescence in Policy S3 and footnote 7/8 should therefore be omitted to enable consideration on a site-by-site basis, as demonstrated for the strategic opportunity at Park Manor.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM014 (proposed changes in bold):
The scale and distribution of development should accord with the settlement hierarchy set out in Table 2, and the site allocation policies that arise from it and the requirements of Policy S1. Other than for specific proposals which accord with policies in the plan to support thriving rural communities and land the development of allocations in the Plan, or where it has been demonstrated that the proposals would contribute towards cohesive development and complement the objectives of the spatial strategy, new development in the countryside should be avoided, especially where it would...

Full text:

see attachment

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3610

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Newton Longville Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Many of the Main Modifications appear to be designed protect the villages
surrounding Aylesbury and to prevent coalescence, whilst at the same time
promoting coalescence with Newton Longville, Whaddon and communities in
Milton Keynes particularly Oxley Park, Kingsmead, Tattenhoe and Bletchley.
AVDC seem to hark back to the South East Plan as if it is justification for
allocating sites close to Milton Keynes this is neither sound nor justified.
There should not be such double standards and villages in the north of the
district must be offered the same protection from coalescence as the south.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove the allocation

Full text:

See attachment for full comments and all issues raised