Aylesbury Vale Area

MM074

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3017

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Mr James Brewer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation:

Support subject to minor revisions to housing trajectory and number of units being delivered within the plan period

Full text:

Please see document 32735 Crest Nicholson Section 4 and comments below that support MM074 subject to minor changes proposed.

Crest Nicholson would recommend that Policy D-NLV001 Salden Chase is revised to reflect the latest position in terms of site delivery and the known delays. As set out in Section 4 of these representations, due to a recent refusal of the planning application for access into the Salden Chase site and the Section 106 agreement not being signed for the outline resolution to grant permission, we believe an accurate trajectory should allow for at least an additional year for the applicant to either reapply for the necessary access from Milton Keynes and/or appeal. This would therefore deliver the first units in 2024/25, rather than 2021/22 as suggested in main modifications. A tapering off of units towards the end of site delivery has also been assumed, as it is typical to have less outlets operational at the end years of a site. For these reasons we would recommend that the policy wording is revised as set out below:
'50 homes to be delivered 2018-2024 and 1,750 homes to be delivered from 2025-2033'.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3096

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Clifton Kirstie (Bovis Homes Limited)

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation:

The recent refusal of full planning permission by Milton Keynes Council (MKC) for the roundabout infrastructure to support the implementation of the development at Salden Chase (site allocation D-NLV001) on the grounds of insufficient evidence to mitigate the harm of this development, clearly puts into question the ability of this site to deliver dwellings over the plan period. It is evident that delivery would be delayed significantly compared to the purported VALP housing trajectory and further flexibility is required through the allocation of more sites or increased capacity of existing allocations that have been assessed as suitable for development.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amend delivery assumptions for D-NLV001 to appropriately reflect current planning status.

Full text:

It is acknowledged that a resolution to approve the outline planning application for Salden Chase (site allocation D-NLV001) was given in April 2019 subject to a S106 Agreement that is currently being negotiated (Application Ref. 15/00314/AOP). However, the recent refusal of full planning permission by Milton Keynes Council (MKC) for the roundabout infrastructure to support the implementation of the development (Application Ref. 15/00619/FUL refused 15th November 2019 on the grounds of insufficient evidence to mitigate the harm of this development), clearly puts into question the ability of this site to deliver 150 dwellings in the period 2018-2023 and a further 1,705 dwellings between 2024-2033 (as summarised in the attached VALP Housing Trajectory Overview - Figure 1).

Evidently, the refusal of full planning permission relating to highways and access specifically will have considerable repercussions for the deliverability of Salden Chase, as proposed to be allocated through MM074. Quite simply, if an access arrangement is unable to be negotiated, then the site is not deliverable. In this event, there is a chance that the site may not come forward whatsoever, and thus 1,855 dwellings may be lost from the projected housing supply for the District (as illustrated in the attached VALP Housing Trajectory Overview - Figure 2). In this event, AVDC's supply of housing in the plan period would fall to 28,378; falling below the VALP's housing requirement of 28,600 dwellings. In this light, the refusal of permission also puts into question the soundness of the VALP, particularly in relation to deliverability of housing to meet the area's significant housing requirement.

Even if development were to come forth at Salden Chase, the housing trajectory set out by AVDC in MM074 is entirely unreasonable in light of the anticipated delays relating to this recent refusal. Indeed, the presence of clauses within the draft S106 Agreement that make reference to highway arrangement plans that have been submitted and subsequently refused by MKC suggest that the two applications are interdependent. That is, the S106 Agreement relating to the residential-based outline planning application cannot realistically be signed until full planning permission is granted by MKC in relation to the development's highways arrangements.

As it currently stands, it is unclear how long this may take; the applicant must reconsider the highway and access arrangements in light of the recent refusal, seek consultation from the Highway Authority, submit a new full planning application and be given full approval. Only then could a S106 Agreement with AVDC be signed. Even after this, the client must discharge conditions, prepare and submit Reserve Matters, await their determination, discharge pre-commencement conditions, undertake site remediation and preparation, as well as deliver supporting infrastructure (including highways infrastructure), before the first dwellings are delivered on site.

Thus, it is evident that delivery of Salden Chase would be delayed significantly compared to the purported VALP housing trajectory. The application of the assumptions put forth by the findings from Lichfields' Planning Matters: Driving housing delivery from large sites: What factors affect the build out rates of large scale housing sites? ("Planning Matters") can provide a reasonable assumption of the delivery of the site in light of this refusal. That is, the report suggests that the average Total Development time (to the first on-site delivery) is 7.5 years for sites between 1,000 and 1,999 dwellings. Given that highways arrangements require re-negotiation and that the residential application may require amending in this light, this assumption appears reasonable. That would suggest that the site would begin delivering in 2027/28; six years later than the VALP's contention. Furthermore, Planning Matters indicates an average build out rate of 50 dwellings per developer. Given that four housebuilders were involved with the outline application, this would limit the peak build out rate to 200dpa.

Applying these reasonable assumptions would remove 905 dwellings from AVDC's housing supply between 2018 and 2033; of which 150 dwellings would be lost 2018-2023 and 755 dwellings would be lost 2023-2033 (as illustrated in the attached VALP Housing Trajectory Overview - Figure 3). This would reduce AVDC's supply of housing in the plan period from 30,233 dwellings to 29,328 dwellings. On this basis, the supply would afford just a 2.5% buffer above the housing requirement of 28,600 dwellings.

Evidently, therefore, delivery from the site as allocated through MM074 is uncertain, with no assurances regarding when first delivery of housing may be and no clarity of the site's overall capacity in light of transport issues, or indeed whether the site will be delivered at all. Therefore, further flexibility will be required through the allocation of more sites or, indeed, the increased capacity of existing allocations that have been assessed as suitable for the accommodation of further dwellings. This is discussed further in response to MM094.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3360

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: North Bucks Parishes Planning Consortium

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

The Salden Chase application for 1,855 homes was refused by Milton Keynes Council's Development Control (Planning) Committee on 7th November 2019. This decision post-dated the commencement of this public consultation process.
The Consortium's understanding is that the most likely course of action will be for the applicant to appeal this decision and it is inevitable that it will be May 2020 at the earliest that the Appeal decision will be made public.
NBPPC therefore questions whether, with currently nearly 2,000 homes of the district's total of 28,600 (excluding buffer) not assured, VALP is therefore unsound and cannot proceed to adoption until this issue is resolved?

Full text:

See attached document.

Attachments:

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3465

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium

Representation:

Main Modification MM074 identifies a number of main modifications to Allocation Ref: NLV001. This allocation is promoted by the SWMK Consortium.
The proposed changes in Main Modification MM074 are supported.

Full text:

Main Modification MM074 identifies a number of main modifications to Allocation Ref: NLV001. This allocation is promoted by the SWMK Consortium.

In summary the proposed modifications relate to the following matters: delivery timescales, green links and linear park, defensible boundaries, views and skyline, priority habitats, noise, flood mitigation, and cycle links. The proposed delivery timescale assumes that 250 dwellings per annum would be delivered from the South West Milton Keynes site, which is consistent with historic delivery rates at other urban extensions to Milton Keynes and reflects the fact that the site is controlled by a mix of experienced housebuilders and developers. The relationship between development at South West Milton Keynes and neighbouring areas has already been taken into account within the planning application at the site (15/00314/AOP) including providing appropriate boundaries for the development, protecting views and the skyline from development with landscape enhancement measures, protecting and enhancing protected habitats, and providing flood mitigation measures and a sustainable drainage strategy. The proposed development includes green infrastructure comprising green links and linear parks, and provides walking and cycling connections to the surrounding area.

The proposed changes in Main Modification MM074 are supported.
As set out in the representations to Main Modifications MM070 and MM071 it is requested that all references to the site as 'Salden Chase' are changed to South West Milton Keynes, including the Concept Plan referred to in Policy NLV001.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3499

Received: 09/01/2020

Respondent: Barratt Homes

Agent: Graham Bloomfield

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation:

The proposed Modifications seek to introduce specific additional policy considerations regarding requirements to protect against actual or perceived coalescence. In relation to the proposed amendments to the spatial strategy for North East Aylesbury Vale these suggested Modifications are considered not justified and not positively prepared, and therefore unsound.
The proposed reference to the site at Salden Chase as represented by D-NLV001 forming the 'western edge of Milton Keynes' is unnecessary and unsound. The evidence base for the VALP does not demonstrate that that this is justified in terms of supporting the most appropriate strategy compared with other reasonable alternatives.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM074 (proposed changes in bold)
Site-specific Requirements:
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment. In terms of the impact on the landscape, site proposal should use land efficiently and create a well-defined boundary as the western edge of Milton Keynes between the settlement and the countryside, ensuring that Newton Longville, Whaddon, Mursley and Far Bletchley remain separately identifiable.
Landscape:
Site proposals will be required to respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings, including the implementation of a defensible boundary along the western edge of Milton Keynes. Proposals will be required to identify the building tradition of the locality, and the scale and context of the setting, the natural qualities and features of the area, and the effect of the development on important public views and skylines and demonstrate a landscape-led approach to conserving and enhancing the separate character and identify of including the protection of Newton Longville and Whaddon villages.

Full text:

see attachment

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3618

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Newton Longville Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

The amendments are not sound as there is already a resolution to approve the site application subject to Section 106 agreement (June 2017). Furthermore, the site still has not received full approval and now Milton Keynes Council have rejected the cross-boundary application. Without approval by Milton Keynes Council the development may not proceed and the allocation is neither justified or sound.

The proposed modification on "Expected time of delivery" indicates how little reliance can be placed on AVDC's housing trajectory. It is clear AVDC have little idea when particular sites are going to be delivered.

Full text:

See attachment for full comments and all issues raised

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3662

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Jackson Planning Ltd ( Lisa Jackson)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation:

It is premature to be seeking to create a defensible Boundary on the western edge of Milton Keynes until the full scope of the growth arc is known. As the Council have failed to identify the broad locations for growth in the longer time frame of the plan this new policy restriction is inconsistent with national policy assumptions that are seeking the major expansion of this area through the growth arc vision. Creating a long-term boundary to the west of Milton Keynes at this stage is entirely inconsistent with the proposed strategic growth of Cam-MK-Ox arc.

Change suggested by respondent:

The section entitled landscape should be modified as follows: Strikethrough text removed, blue is additional text
"Site proposals will be required to respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings.
and to acknowledge physically that this as part of early delivery of development that supports the Oxford-Milton Keynes
- Cambridge Arc emerging from the revised strategic growth strategy including the implementation of a defensible boundary along the western edge of Milton Keynes. Proposals will be required to identify the building tradition of the locality, scale and context of setting, the natural qualities and features of the area and the effect of the development on important public views and skylines including the protection of Newton Longville and Whaddon Villages. The proposal must not prejudice or jeopardise the longer-term objectives of the Oxford-Milton Keynes - Cambridge Arc. "

Full text:

Please see attached report on the main modifications representations by Chase Consortium.
The modification to add to the text of the policy " Including the implementation of a defensible Boundary along the western
edge of Milton Keynes"is entirely inconsistent with the proposed strategic growth of Cam-MK-Ox arc's. This is not
effective and not justified by evidence.
It is premature to be seeking to create a defensible Boundary on the western edge of Milton Keynes until the full scope
of the growth arc is known. As the Council have failed to identify the broad locations for growth in the longer time
frame of the plan this new policy restriction is inconsistent with national policy assumptions that are seeking the major
expansion of this area through the growth arc vision.
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 simply 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 new policy says that that the appraisal process has been followed to select the sites and consideration has also been given to Milton Keynes' capacity to accommodate further growth. There is no evidence to support this contention that
the site selection has been considered in a strategic way looking at long-term solutions for Milton Keynes. 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.