Aylesbury Vale Area

MM076

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 100

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3169

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Janet Charles

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. Lack of consultation and detailed information.
2. Ancient Whaddon Streets already a rat run
3/4. Dangerous road links towards Stony Stratford and A421.
5. Landscape + Biodiversity
6. Alternative solutions

Change suggested by respondent:

Move the development to an area where both local and national transport links are already much diverse and fit to take increased traffic of almost 4000 cars

Full text:

Shenley Park was not included in the 2017 Submission. I therefore assumed it had been dropped as a possibility it is sudden the favourite. Please see notes 1-6 on typed sheet attached for more detail.
1. Shenley park was included in the submission in 2015. nothing more until this draft VALP in Dec.2019. There is insufficient detail to determine quite what may happen and therefore difficult to evaluate the effects e.g. the green buffer to Whaddon looks to be about the same space as three houses. As a resident greatly affected by this development should we not be consulted.
2. Whadden currently suffers with cars and lorries taking a short cut down the High Street into Milton Keynes Central and A5D. Householders are not able to park other than on the road, namely Stock Lane and the High St.so there is much weaving in and out to traverse these streets, cars often go narrow pavement to avoid collusion, endangering pedestrians. By adding nearly 100 times the potential users to this rat run will be disaster.
3. The road into Claverton, is already in poor repair, is a country road with twists and turns, adverse cambers, pot holes and collapsing edges. There is one bend in particular that regularly sees accidents, some fatal. Would you like to see more with the increase in traffic.
On the other side of the village ,the A421 already carries too much traffic which is often at a standstill until you reach the H8 dual carriageway. It again is badly maintained, however it is the only main road that these 3000+ new people can use. It is very noticeable that the road (Coddimoor Lane) to the 421 is the best in the area and very recently resurfaced. One wonders why.
5. Whaddon has an ancient history and has a chase and hunting grounds (since Georgian times) with woodlands. Many stands of these trees still remain and are connected in many cases and are mixed and native trees. I have Roe and Muntjac deer, badgers and foxes in my garden. There are bats who have nested in Bottlehouse Farm for generations. There are also Jays (who nest along the Shenley Road), long tailed tits, green woodpeckers, red tailed kites (I have seen as many as 6 all together in the sky above my garden) as well as many other more currently common birds who regularly visit. Some of these are protected species and
they need space, cover and biodiversity to continue to thrive. AVDC seeks to take this away with this plan to build nearly 2000 homes adjacent to a population of approx 200. People seem to think they have a right to roam and walk their dogs on private land without keeping to signposted footpaths, thus keeping wildlife away. The wildlife would not survive and the landscape would be impoverished and ruined. We are lucky that the biodiversity still supports such endangered species in a way that farming does not. We should be planting new trees alongside the old to enhance and extend this biodiversity for future generations.
6. I understand that new houses are required and low cost ones at that, but it seems to me that using land to the south of the city is more 'in-fill' and nearer much better transport links i.e. the A4146 which has been upgraded to dual carriageway and joins Bedfordshire to MK is close to the AS and the Ml, AND a railway station. There is employment locally without undue travel. It appears to be a more environmentally friendly solution. That is assuming it all HAS to go in one place. A number of houses attached to various small towns would be my choice as they perhaps need the commerce and new blood to survive.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3171

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Bennett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Residents have been denied their legal right to examine and challenge AVDC's decision to include Shenley Park in VALP. Infrastructure and environmental issues should be properly considered before any site is included, particularly traffic.

Change suggested by respondent:

Before any plan is issued, alternative sites should be properly assessed. I suggest that Shenley Park is removed as these are potentially better choices.

Full text:

As resident of Whaddon since birth, I have witnessed the adverse effect of encroaching development on our environment and landscape: High Street, in particular, which is narrow-often with houses directly abutting it and pavements damaged, overgrown or non-existent-cannot sustain the volume of traffic now using it, let alone more. Yet it seems to me that proper consideration has not been given to any infrastructure issues (let alone traffic) in the reactionary, seeingly random inclusion of Shenley Park in VALP and my fear is that, once included, it would be too late to preserve this historic village and its surroundings. As Shenley Park was not included in the previous version of VALP, local residents have been denied the legal right to examine and challenge AVDC's decision to promote the area over the two competing sites( or any others) at a Public Hearing. I would urge the inspector to open a further hearing so that proper, crucial assessments regarding traffic, landscape, environment and infrastructure can be prepared before it is too late.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3172

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Franks

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The future transport needs for Shenley Park have not been adequately or properly considered. There is existing congestion in West MK, and more houses yet to be built in Kingsmead and Tattenhoe Park.
No provision is made a secondary school as required by BCC.
There is a marked difference between the protection of villages around Aylesbury and those around Milton Keynes.
The extra strain on the emergency services caused by the new builds along with the disposal of hundreds of tons of new waste have not been adequately addressed.
There is a lack of substantive co-operation by AVDC with MKC. (officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sir,
This letter outlines my objections to the VALP Main Modifications. I believe the public examination (PE) should be re-opened as a number of key issues relating to my village are unsatisfactory. For ease of reference, I have included the appropriate Main Modification (MM) reference after each point.
First: Transport. It is clear that the future transport needs for Shenley Park, Whaddon have not been adequately or properly considered. I have sat for hours on the A421 trying to get to the Bottledump roundabout in the morning and evening and when through the roundabout then joined gridlock in the west of Milton Keynes. This congestion is before the chaos of hundreds more cars from Kingsmead and Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead is added - and they are not even built. After they come on stream, the queues will only get worse, causing yet more pollution. Surely a proper traffic analysis should have been done to highlight this obvious issue? And if it was done, it was not done properly. Traffic analysis must be done first, not as an afterthought. You need to sort out the roads before adding more users. Iain Stewart MP said in 2011 'Infrastructure before expansion' and I agree. (MM007, 010, 076)
Staying with the issue of dubious growth and impact traffic in (MM007, 010, 076) I noted the expansion policy for Shenley Park talks about "at least 1,150" houses, but there is site promotion documentation that suggests 1,800 houses is their real target. That means an urban area twice the size of our village is being envisaged to use the same single road running East/West, as well as adding to the huge flow of cars, LGV and HGV that runs through our village currently. Given the size of the Shenley Park development I noted with amazement that no provision is made a secondary school as required by Bucks County Council policy which was made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum - (MM076)
I am also concerned with what can only be described as double standards towards Coalescence - it has clearly not been thought through in our case. However, it is plain that this double standard is being applied as there is a marked difference between the protection of villages around Aylesbury and the singular lack of similar protection for those villages around Milton Keynes, of which are one. The same standard of protection from Coalescence should apply to both - (MM013, 014, 031).
Sustainability is a major concern as the language used by AVDC suggests proximity to MK equals sustainability. The points raised above highlight why that assumption is fundamentally flawed. The burden for services will be placed on MK rather than Aylesbury Vale (or its successor). Expansion of dwellings will lead to contraction of capability thus leading to unsustainability and the impact on villagers' quality of life. (MM070, 076)
One good example of that is the question of Health Service provision which will be hugely impacted by several thousand new houses in MK and those added by AVDC. The extra strain on the emergency services caused by the new builds along with the disposal of the hundreds of tons of new waste plainly have not been adequately addressed. (MM007, 010,076)
This suggests that there is a lack of substantive co-operation by AVDC with MKC - as was made plain in a recent meeting on Salden Chase. It can also be noted in the marked absence in AVDC policy of compliance with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK for proposed development. Returning to the recent meeting, noted above, the motions passed by the full Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Salden Chase and "Shenley Park" at Whaddon must cause real concern over AVDC's commitment to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate.' (MM072 to 076)
As a result of the points made above, I hereby submit my objection to the VALP Main Modifications in respect of Newton Longville and ask that the PE be reopened.
Your sincerely,

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3174

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr John Nicholls

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. Impact on schools and class sizes. Together with access to schools.2. Negative impact on amenities such as health centres,
doctors, dentists,bus services.3.The fragmenting of the North Bucks Way. 4.MK Council agreed "to ensure 'biodiversity' and 'natural processes' were placed at the top of MK's agenda.
5.Plans weren't included in the Nov 2017 Proposed Submission version of the VALP. The local parish council and residents have been denied any chance to debate and discuss AVDC's decision.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Shenley Park site cannot and does not offer the opportunities available at the two alternative sites. The inherent constraints, not least the unknown traffic implications and inexplicable landscape and biodiversity concerns, suggests that in fact it is the least favourable of the three sites when closely examined. As a result I don't think there are any changes that could make the modification work for the Shenley Park site. Bucks County Council, in response to an AVDC request, have stated "The DS4 scenario - with Shenley Park removed and 1200 dwellings at Eaton Leys has the least impact on the Buckinghamshire highway network". Eaton Leys is a more logical choice as an infill site that would round off the eastern side of MK. There would be no encroachment into open countryside beyond the A4146 Fenny Stratford bypass as all housing would lie within this area.

Full text:

My daughter and her family live in Nash and will be hugely impacted by this development.
My objections are as follows:
1. A development of this size will have a negative impact on local village schools, possibly increasing class sizes and making recruitment and retention of staff more challenging. Pupils (such as my grandchildren) will be negatively affected.
2. The negative impact on amenities such as health centres, doctors, dentists, bus services, etc. will result in harder to access local services.
3. The fragmenting of the North Bucks Way (a valuable resource for health and well-being)runs contrary to Milton Keynes Council's vision for the future. At their Full Council meeting on 23 October 2019, elected members across all political parties of MK Council agreed "to ensure 'biodiversity' and 'natural processes' were placed at the top of MK's agenda, with ambitions to become the 'Greenest City in the World' with a vision of becoming a 'World-leading sustainable City', whilst celebrating the rich variety of wildlife by protecting landscapes and habitats'.
In addition, this will lead to further air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
4. Shenley Park Whaddon wasn't included in the Nov 2017 Proposed Submission version of the VALP so the local parish council and residents have been denied any chance to debate and discuss AVDC's decision to choose this location over the other options during the public hearing sessions in July 2018. To accept AVDC's 'preferred choice' of Shenley Park without proper scrutiny and justification could render the plan unlawful. Local residents must be given the chance to inform the Inspector of the impact such a development would have on our lives and the local environment.
5. Transport and highways issues concerning the A421 and local traffic appear not to have been addressed. AVDC have provided no plans or answers to solving traffic issues that have been raised to date: congestion at peak times already causes problems and will be exacerbated by further development. Shenley Road will be 'swallowed up' by the development, making access to the 'local' Westcroft shopping area of MK difficult (assuming that Shenley Road remains open.
6. The potential residents living in the additional 1,150 houses in the proposed development will, no doubt, be mainly employed within the Milton Keynes area. The traffic currently flowing into Central Milton Keynes from the Western area is already increasing beyond the capacity of the grid roads. This is now being made even worse by the Western Expansion Area.

6. Transport issues appear not to have been addressed. AVDC have provided no plans or answers.
7.The additional 1,150 houses in the proposed development will, no doubt, be mainly employed within the Milton Keynes area.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3177

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Winward

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Challenging the use of Main Modification procedure to allocate omission site WHA001 at a late stage in the Examination giving no opportunity for an informed discussion as to suitability with competing sites. Setting out the planning grounds (damage to local landscape, environment, biodiversity and setting of Whaddon village) for the unsuitability of WHA001 for development.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM076 needs to be deleted in its entirety and then compared with the competing sites of Eaton Leys and Salden Chase by way of reopened Hearings at which I will be able to adduce evidence and cross examine the evidence relied on by AVDC.

Full text:

FAIRNESS, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND SOUNDNESS.
Until the 5th November WHAOO1 SHENLEY PARK was an omission site and I had no opportunity to challenge the suitability of this site which will have a significant impact on the local landscape,environment and setting of Whaddon village. To have a late introduction of such a substantial site by the machinery of a Main Modification (MM) is avoiding the proper and effective scrutiny of the suitability of the site and an informed comparison with more suitable sites at Eaton Leys and Salden Chase. The use of a MM in this manner has effectively shut me out of adducing evidence to challenge the MM and cross examining the evidence relied upon by AVDC. This is both unfair and unlawful. And will only be remedied by a new hearing as to the suitability of WHA001. These failings cannot be remedied by the current consultation process.
DUTY TO CO-OPERATE.
National planning policy provides that adjoining Authorities have a ' Duty to Co-operate ' - when
considering significant, strategic cross-boundary housing allocations. This duty
cannot be rectified during a public consultation period. Failure to engage in constructive
dialogue with a neighbouring authority at a much earlier stage can lead the Inspector to
recommending a non-adoption report to be issued.
AVDC state the 'Proposed VALP Submission November 2017',
at paragraph 1.9 "Aylesbury Vale does not exist in isolation. It has major
conurbations nearby which have effects across district boundaries. Councils are under a
formal duty to cooperate over strategic issues which cross their boundaries. This means
the council has to engage positively with neighbouring councils and other organisations,
about issues such as housing numbers and employment requirements." I question whether the requisite cross border co-operation in respect of WHA001 has been properly carried out with Milton Keynes Council the lead planning authority adjoining WHA001 and the other competing sites Eaton Leys and Salden Chase. This failure renders the MM unsustainable, unsound and unlawful.
UNSUITABILITY OF WHA001
LANDSCAPE and BIODIVERSITY
Road access into WH001 must cut across a strong and natural boundary that currently forms a strong
defensible western edge to the existing built up area of MK. Cutting through this ancient North
Bucks Way corridor by one, if not two grid road extensions, will unnecessarily exploit/harm
attractive and as yet unspoilt countryside - 'virgin' land which does not enjoy any further logical outer
boundary that could be described as a similar long-term and defensible boundary. Crest Homes in
their May 2014 'Development Opportunities Plan' have demonstrated this dangerous concept by
showing future development directional arrows heading further west, towards Calverton Lane, well
beyond the boundary they are currently proposing for the 'at least' 1150 homes.
At their Full Council meeting on 23 October 2019, elected members across all political parties of
M.K. Council agreed to ensure 'biodiversity' and 'natural processes' were placed at the top of MK's
agenda, with ambitions to become a "world leading" sustainable city whilst celebrating the rich variety of wildlifeby by protecting important landscapes and habitats. Crossing the hugely important North Bucks Way into open countryside and natural habitats clearly threatens this sustainable vision as was recognised by the Planning Inspector in the 2004 MKC WEA Site 10.4 planning enquiry
HOUSING NUMBERS
The first version of the MM drafted by AVDC provided for "up to 1150 new houses" however the current MM provides for "at least 1150 new homes" a small change to the wording but a significant change to the planning consequences! I question the lawfulness of a increase in housing numbers by means of a MM for an omission site beyond the number of the shortfall of 500 houses identified by the planning Inspector.
COMPETING SITES EATON LEYS & SALDEN CHASE
EATON LEYS
Bucks C.C., in response to an AVDC request, have stated "The DS4 scenario - with Shenley Park
removed and 1200 dwellings at Eaton Leys has the least impact on the Buckinghamshire highway
network". (enquiry document no:- ED215A)
Eaton Leys is a totally obvious and logical ' infill site ' that would sensibly ' round
off ' the eastern side of MK. The total site lies within and is fully contained by the A4146 Fenny Stratford bypass avoiding encroachment into open countryside and defining a permanent south western edge to the city of Milton Keynes. In comparison WH001 crosses the North Bucks Way a strong defensibe landscape barrier which is particularly important to preserving the landscape and environment in the West as MKC major expansion is now east of the MI motorway.
Development at Eaton Leys has strong sustainability and regeneration factors with close links to Fenny Stratford amenities and Bletchley railway station. The site also has excellent existing communication routes to
Central MK, Bletchley, the A4146 Stoke Hammond/Leighton Buzzard bypass, A5 & M1
SALDEN CHASE
Planning permission has already been granted for some 1900 new homes at Salden Chase
(north-east) and the combined site of approx over 3000 homes would enable better land use and
concentrate all the sustainable requirements of major development into one area, ensuring easy
access to 'on site' employment, local shopping and community facilities, public open space and
recreational areas
The southern part of the site adjoins the 'to be re-opened' East-West railway line, and whilst there no current requirement for a new station or 'halt', the opportunity would exist - especially if the location were initially 'ear marked' for open space.
3000 plus homes would guarantee all stages of education includin g Pre-School, Primary and Secondary on one site . This would be a much safer solution allowing 'walking to school' rather than crossing the A421 from SP , and crucial in school planning terms as there are currently no spaces in the local upper schools , with the situation likely to get worse.
Better and more effective t ransport links, highway management and traffic calming solutions , could be designed and maximised . Looking ahead, a greater concentration of homes in this location could 'pave the way' and set aside 'contribution funding' for a greatly needed Newton Longville by-pass .

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3178

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs M.S Hedges

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Officer's summary
It is illogical and completely unnecessary to expand the City boundary into Shenley Park. We don't believe the requirement for additional housing justifies crossing a strong defensible bridleway boundary such as the North Bucks Way into beautiful and much valued open and unspoilt countryside. We believe, as pointed out by Whaddon Parish Council, that either of the other two available sites considered, namely, Salden Chase and Eaton Leys, would be easier and more appropriate to develop in the period up to 2033.
As residents of Nash, we are concerned about the implication for the A42.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

My husband and I support Whaddon Parish Council in believing that it is illogical and completely unnecessary to expand the City boundary into Shenley Park at the current time. We don't believe the requirement for additional housing justifies crossing a strong defensible bridleway boundary such as the North Bucks Way into beautiful and much valued open and unspoilt countryside. We believe, as pointed out by Whaddon Parish Council, that either of the other two available sites considered, namely, Salden Chase and Eaton Leys, would be easier and more appropriate to develop in the period up to 2033.
As residents of Nash, we are concerned about the implication for the A421 which is already a bottleneck at peak times from the Nash roundabout until the dual carriageway starts. We fear that Nash would become a rat-run for drivers trying to avoid the log-jams. We have had one out-of control driver in our front garden and have seen a number of accidents at the south end of Nash from drivers not recognizing the care needed to drive on narrow country lanes.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3184

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Nash Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The extent of the changes and the predicted need for early modification suggests previous consultations are invalid and an ineffective use of resources.
The introduction of Shenley Park (MMM076) is strongly opposed. It threatens the MK/AVDC boundary; promotes the extension of MK and could potentially destroy Whaddon Chase.
Alternative areas for MK development and boundary changes are suggested.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

Comments on the VALP modifications based on the documents "MASTER Draft Submission VALP - FINAL with maps low res", 318 pages, "All modifications 011019", 169 pages, and "Corrections to Mod table rev 011019", 76 pages, from AVDC.
As a general observation, the extent of the changes, involving some 245 pages of notes, to an original document of 318 pages, surely strikes at the very heart of the validity of the VALP and distorts it to an extent where the previous public consultation is surely now invalid. The publicly acknowledged admission by AVDC that when approved VALP would have to be modified within 5 years, well before its expected scope termination of 2033, would seem to indicate that the whole exercise is a waste of time and resources. If this exercise is to be continued Nash Parish Council needs to register its dissatisfaction with the modification listed below in particular. This does not mean Nash Parish Council is in agreement with all the other modifications but merely that this change introduces the most glaring lack of consistency and connected planning in the 245 pages of changes.
MM076 introduces Shenley Park as a necessary site for over 1100 houses, with a potential of 2000, and also promises a defensible Milton Keynes boundary - which it clearly is not. Nash Parish Council rejects any proposal to develop this area.
The importance of a well-defined Milton Keynes boundary has previously been tested during the "development over the ridge" planning action in 2004, when the inspector supported the view that Milton Keynes development should not extend beyond the North Bucks Way. This boundary is included in the current Milton Keynes adopted plan, Plan:MK Adopted Version (March 2019), where it is further confirmed by policy to leave the area to the north of Shenley Park as open countryside. The importance of a well-defined boundary was reiterated in the VALP under the Salden Chase proposal, a paragraph since deleted under MM072, but reappears at several new points in the examination changes. Any development by AVDC, or the subsequent Buckinghamshire Unitary, on their side of the boundary produces an unsustainable situation where council tax and house build premiums are diverted to Buckinghamshire which should clearly go to Milton Keynes whose facilities will be used by residents of such development. Even rubbish collection will be inefficient, going only to the boundary from where another organisation continues. This can only lead in the long run to acknowledgement of the situation and the extension of the Milton Keynes boundary to include such development. Thus, far from providing a defensible boundary it actually promotes the extension of Milton Keynes. In the Shenley Park case, as the development fills the space between Milton Keynes and the Whaddon residential area, there would then be a good case to include the whole of Whaddon Parish within Milton Keynes, which would completely destroy the historic Whaddon Chase.
In a well-ordered planning system, it would be acknowledged that there will inevitably be areas on the edge of Milton Keynes where the original boundary was incorrect for political reasons, and now, due to developments, should logically be expanded. For example, in the Eaton Leys area, south of Milton Keynes, where Milton Keynes proposes to develop their part of what is logically a much larger development opportunity, the remainder is 'owned' by AVDC. Similarly, Newton Leys could logically be extended. But wherever AVDC places development on the edge of Milton Keynes it will produce conflict. Milton Keynes, as a separate planning authority, will have organised infrastructure to cater for only its own planned development. Developments close to Milton Keynes distort the approved local plans. A well-ordered planning system would acknowledge this and cede weak areas to Milton Keynes so that development is made to Milton Keynes standards, with taxes supporting the correct authority, and facilities and infrastructure supplied by the correct authority. In exchange AVDC should receive a credit for the house numbers Milton Keynes built on the land so they do not suffer the housing shortfall. Thus, where there is a strong logical boundary, such as Shenley Park, this should be maintained, and where the boundary is weak, such as the Eaton Leys, Newton Leys and Salden Chase, areas should be offered to Milton Keynes for development as Milton Keynes extensions in exchange for house number credit.
Nash Parish Council also believes that the legal grounds for introducing the Shenley Park development proposal at such a late stage are dubious. It is certainly an unfair and unjust move. The area has been selected in a panic driven bid to increase house numbers. It was previously rejected as unsuitable during the preparation of the VALP but is now proposed as the obvious choice with minimal investigation of the alternatives. The site sustainability has only been reinvestigated now after its selection. A current sustainability survey should have been made to compare alternatives in order to select the best not in order to confirm a dubious decision. At the very least this proposal should be given a public examination due to the far-reaching implications for the geographical area.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3192

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Kate Delvin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Shenley Park location will have a negative impact on local schools, (threatening access for
existing children in the area.) roads and local amenities (doctors, dentist, bus services).
AVDC haven't engaged with the local community or MKC correctly to discuss the location and many decisions to date seem in conflict with NPPF/ PPG paragaphs (specified in box 1). AVDC conduct to date may render the plan unlawful. Choosing Shenley Park conflicts with local biodiversity
agreements, especially as it is in a BOA area. Eaton Leys is not in a BOA area and seems a more suitable choice.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Shenley Park site cannot and does not offer the opportunities available at the two alternative sites. The inherent constraints, not least the unknown traffic implications and inexplicable landscape and biodiversity concerns, suggests that in fact it is the least favourable of the three sites when closely examined. As a result I don't think there are any changes that could make the modification
work for the Shenley Park site. Bucks County Council, in response to an AVDC request, have stated.
The DS4 scenario - with Shenley Park removed and 1200 dwellings at Eaton Leys has the least
impact on the Buckinghamshire highway network". Eaton Leys is a more logical choice as an infill site
that would round off the eastern side of MK. There would be no encroachment into open countryside beyond the A4146 Fenny Stratford bypass as all housing would lie within this area.

Full text:

We moved to Nash in order for our children to attend village schools with smaller class sizes. The children who move into these new homes will need to go to school and this will put a strain on the existing system and threaten the very appeal of a village school, not to mention increase competition for places. The same could be said for other local services in the area such as doctors - which pose a threat to our childrens' education and quality of life.
Additionally, Shenley Park Whaddon wasn't included in the Nov 2017 Proposed Submission version of the VALP so the local parish council and residents have been denied any chance to debate and discuss AVDC's decision to choose this location over the other options during the public hearing sessions in July 2018. This seems in breach of NPPF paragraphs 155, 158 and 182.
As a result of the late introduction of Shenley Park to the process the locals have been treated with disrespect and in an entirely unfair manner. As a result the inspector must open a further hearing session at the end of the consultation period, so proper comparison testing can be done across the different site options. To accept AVDC's 'preferred choice' of Shenley Park without proper scrutiny and justification could render the plan unlawful. Local residents must be given the chance to inform the Inspector of the impact such a development would have on our lives and the local environment, such as my childrens' education. Government requires that adjoining have a duty to cooperate when considering housing allocation such as this. This 'duty' cannot be rectified during a public consultation period and failure to do so much earlier in the process can lead the Inspector to recommend a non-adoption report - very much contrary to PPG paragraph 3-008 (2014 version). AVDC seem to have paid lip service to this advice, indicating to MKC what they were doing but at no point have they addressed this key strategic housing allocation through effective discussion or proper joint working, signalling a significant failure to meet the definition of 'duty to cooperate' at an early stage. MKC discussed this issue at Full Council on 23 October and members across all parties agreed
that a failure of cooperation has occurred and that community engagement has been minimal. This is all very concerning as MKC could and should have helped select the best, most sustainable site. As a result the plans should be deemed 'unsound' to
date and hearing sessions need to be re-opened to understand why AVDC chose not to cooperate with MKC or the local community throughout the process.
The A421 is already an incredibly busy, and often dangerous road. This proposal would greatly increase traffic and be completely unsustainable for the area, causing disruption and having a negative impact to the local area. AVDC have provided
no plans or answers to solving traffic issues that have previously been date. This plan is also in conflict with the October 2019
Full Council cross-party agreement to 'ensure biodiversity and natural processes are at the top of the agenda with ambitions to
[make MK] the Greenest City in the World'. Crossing the important North Bucks Way wildlife corridor into much valued countryside and natural habitats directly destroys such MKC ideals. The AECOM Sustainability Appraisal also states 'significant
development would be contrary to a Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) and Bucks Green Infrastructure Plan objectives' and the Eaton Leys alternative location option is not in a BOA area, while Shenley Park is. Overall Shenley Park does not offer the
same opportunities as the alternative sites, especially Eaton Leys.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3193

Received: 30/12/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We can't see that our soundness comment on the water cycle study has been addressed in the main modificationsconsultation.
Further to this, in June 2019 we responded to a consultation for the water cycle study for three additional site allocations. We also have an outstanding point of soundness for the water cycle study information that was submitted for these sites.
Please can you clarify this and send us any information regarding the water cycle study that was made in response to our pre-submission draft soundness response and our soundness comments for the three additional sites consultation.

Full text:

Please see attachments.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3196

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Hancock

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The A421 main road to the west is already operating to close to full capacity, with longtailbacks of traffic during the rush-hour periods. This is before the new Development at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead are even built, and the transport
needs for Shenley Park have not been properly considered.

-Infrastructure requirements such as Health Service provision and additional demand
on the emergency services has also not been properly considered.

-AVDC appears reluctant to comply with the Duty to Cooperate regarding the motion
passed by Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Saldon Chase and Shenley Park.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

As a resident of Newton Longville for 60 years, I am writing to express my concern regarding, and to register my strong objections to, the Main Modification to the VALP. In my opinion these require to be reviewed, and that the public examination should be reopened the following reasons:
The A421 main road to the west is already operating to close to full capacity, with longtailbacks of traffic during the rush-hour periods. This is before the new Development at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead are even built, and the transport
needs for Shenley Park have not been properly considered.

-Infrastructure requirements such as Health Service provision and additional demand
on the emergency services has also not been properly considered.

-AVDC appears reluctant to comply with the Duty to Cooperate regarding the motion
passed by Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Saldon Chase and Shenley Park. There is clear lack of cooperation by AVDC with MKDC, as evidenced by the absence in present policy of complying with those contained in the adopted MK Plan.
-There appears to be a lack of protection for the villages surrounding Milton Keynes
compared with the around Aylesbury, which is unfair.

In conclusion, I reiterate my objection to the VALP Main Modifications in relations to Newton Longville, the separate identity of which dates back to 1066 and the quality of life should be preserved as far as far as is reasonably possible for the benefit of future generations.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3198

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Chocolate Box Coaching

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

-SP not included in original VALP, contrary to NPPF.
- MKC and AVDC have not fulfiled duty to cooperate contrary to PPG para 3-008.
-Impact on countryside, traffic on A421, rat-run through Whaddon, sustainability.
-Easton to be preferred.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MM076 needs to be deleted from the VALP before adoption of the VALP occurs. Easton, Bletchley, saldon chase or Newton longville should be considered as a sustainable replacement for Shenley Park. Ideally, sustainable alternative sites should be identified closer to the larger towns within Aylesbury Vale-thereby helping that town;s sustainability and economy, rather than that of Milton Keynes.

Full text:

The Shenley Park (SP) site was not included in the 2017 proposed submission of the VALP. This means that Whaddon Residents were denied of the opportunity to debate and question proposals, contrary to NPPF para 158, 182 and particularly 155. A further hearing must take place to ensure proper comparison between all 3 proposed sites can be made, otherwise this would be entirely unfair and unjust.

I believe that the 2 adjoining authorities have not fulfilled their duty to cooperate-in breach of PPG para 3-008(2014). AVDC has not addressed the strategic housing or would jointly with MKDC as on this as required.
The development would impact substantially and adversely on surrounding landscape, woodlands and wildlife. The North Bucks way would be decimated by roads required.

The current Shenley Road would potentially be cut off, making access from Whaddon to MK grid system tortuous and highly time consuming, adding fuel costs to residents, not to mention extra traffic to the 421, which would become our nearest access. This road already is far too congested. Rat-runing through the village would increase exponentially with further development and potential closure of Shenley Road.
Housing numbers: wording has changed from up to 1150 new houses to at least 1150 houses. The potential for substantially more houses than originally expected would have a devastating effect-increase in traffic, demand for all local services etc.
The concept plan is ludicrously complicated. If residents can not understand proposals, how is consultation fair.?. It is impossible to locate parts relevant to MM076. I do not believe AVDC has thought through the implications of road structure. They say these details will be sorted out at detailed planning stage. This is unacceptable- how can residents form an opinion without all the facts to consider.?
Increased traffic disruption to A421 during lengthy building would bring this road to a stand still.
Eaton hegs should be the choice of site for the new housing. It is obvious infill site, fully contained by A414b bypass, so no encroachment on countryside. It is Y2 within AVDC and MKC. It makes sense to extend the Easton Site.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3199

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Beckwith

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Shenley Park was not included in the original VALP. This is contrary to NPPF. Both MKC and AVDC have failed to fulfil their duty to cooperate as set out in Para 3-008. The impact of Shenley Park would be disastrous for the environment, traffic, congestion, and natural habitats and the health and wellbeing of Whaddon residents as well as visitors to schools and playground.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM076 should be deleted from the VALP before any further developments. Eaton is an obvious in fill opportunity and maybe AVDC should look align its housing development closer to existing large towns in the VALP to support those towns, economies, sustainability and growth rather that of Milton Keynes.

Full text:

MM076/Shenley Park was not included in the November 2017 proposed submission of the VALP and so Whaddon Parish Council and residents has been completely denied.No opportunity for properly debate and understand AVDC's decision to choose Shenley Park over the other 2 competing sites. This is in breach of NPPF para.158 & 182 as well as 155. It is completely unfair and unfair not to allow detailed comparison between all 3 sites.To simply accept AVDC's proposal of Shenley Park as a proposed choice without due dialogue would make the final plan unsound and maybe unlawful. It seems clear that the adjoining authorities have failed in their obligation of a duty to cooperate and this would be seen as contrary to para 3-008(2014) AVDC have clearly not fuly contemplated the implications for transport should Shenley Park be approved.
The A421 already reaches standstill during rush hour and this situation will increase during the building of Shenley Park. With the current Shenley Road particularly being closed or off the only route into Milton Keynes for Whaddon residents would either be through the new route or by adding further to the congestion on the A421. Thisadds to wastage, pollution and increased environmental damage. The frequency of rat running through Whaddon and other villages would increase drastically impacting on residents daily lives and safety vehicles and already recorded at
speeds of the posted limit and seriously worsen.
There is no concept plan to look, as none for some of the major sites in the plan.
The copious sounds placed online as complex for most members of the public to understand, and even if they could find elements that relates to MM076/WHA001 Shenley Park. This seriously suggests an attempt to bamboozle residents in the hope that they will simply give up for AVDC for whatever presenting works.
Referring again to the A421, it seems inconceivable that presenting a major new development to VALP plce at Shenley Park before completing major upgrading of the A421. Potentially this road could be M1 to the M40. The congestion, frequency of accidents and the collapsing surface already wider this dangerous and increase the vehicle numbers before steps to improve this situation is indeed poor planning with no consideration for consequences.
The wording relating to the number new houses at Shenley Park has changed from new houses to at least 1150 houses. This is a minor written amendments and again is suggests the AVDC are attempting a cover-up of the plan. The consequences of this potential change are immerse in respect of the increase to traffic , congestion, environmental impact and impact o already stretched local services.

This proposed new development would seriously impact on the surrounding landscape, wildlife and woodland and other transport routes crossing the North Bucks way will unnecessarily have attractive and as per unspoilt countryside. Milton Keynes Council has reported on goal of becoming Greener City in the world, this proposal and its impact on un spoilt natural land and wildlife habiats is already not allied to that goal. If not Shenley Parkhas where? Eaton is the obvious choice. It stands out as an in fill site and is fully constrained by the A446 bypass. There is no encroachment on open countryside. The Eaton site is fairly evenly school by Milton Keynes and AVDC and MKC have permitted development to commerce. Common sense should dictates that obvious in fill sites should be chosen before disposing virgin countryside.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3200

Received: 13/01/2020

Respondent: Mrs Julia Lemagnen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Whaddon residents have been denied the opportunity to properly debate AVDC's
decision to choose SP over the other sites. It is completely UNFAIR and UNJUST not
to allow detailed and proper 'comparison testing' between the sites.
Authorities have a 'Duty to Co-operate' when considering significant cross-boundary
housing allocations; there has been a significant failing of 'Duty to Co-operate' at an
early stage. Community engagement has also been minimal.
Housing numbers: the amount of homes in the development could be as many as 2,000.
Transport, traffic and highways issues: the impact on traffic levels around Whaddon will be significant.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MM076 needs to be deleted from the VALP before adoption of the VALP occurs,
Eaton Leys, Bletchley or Salden Chase, Newton Longville should be considered as a
sustainable replacement for Shenley Park. Ideally, alternative sustainable sites should be identified closer to the larger towns within Aylesbury Vale - thereby helping that town's sustainability and economy rather than that of Milton Keynes.

Full text:

I object on the following grounds:-
Shenley Park, Whaddon (SP) was not included in the November 2017 'Proposed Submission' version of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP), so Whaddon Parish Council (WPC) and residents have been completely denied the opportunity to properly debate and cross examine AVDC's decision to select SP over the other two competing sites during the public hearing sessions held by the Inspector in July 2018. The alternative sites are Eaton Leys (EL) and Salden Chase (SC). This is in breach of NPPF paragraphs 158 and 182, and especially 155.
● Because of the very late introduction of SP, the Inspector must be strongly encouraged to reopen a
further hearing session at the end of the public consultation period, so that this crucial omission can be
rectified. It is completely UNFAIR and UNJUST not to allow detailed and proper 'comparison testing'
between the three competing sites.
● Simply to accept AVDC's 'preferred choice' of Shenley Park without proper scrutiny and justification will
render the final plan unsound, and possibly unlawful.
● Whaddon residents must be given the opportunity to inform the Inspector of the impact such a large
development will have on their environment, lives & health, road safety, and general well-being etc. Despite
the site being mentioned at a much earlier stage (but then deleted) this consultation is TOO LITTLE, TOO
LATE (and far too complex, given the amount of information on the AVDC website).
● Government requires that adjoining Authorities have a 'Duty to Co-operate' - when considering
significant, strategic cross-boundary housing allocations. Such a 'duty' cannot be rectified during a public
consultation period, so failure to do so at a much earlier stage can lead the Inspector to recommend a nonadoption
report. This is contrary to PPG paragraph 3-008 (2014 version)
● AVDC has not addressed this key strategic housing allocation (a minimum of 1150 new homes) through 'effective discussion' or 'proper joint working', representing a significant failing of 'Duty to Co-operate' at an early stage ...... especially as MKC are the major town and Lead Authority, adjoining the three neighbouring
and competing sites.
MKC discussed this issue at Full Council on 23 October 2019, and members across all parties agreed that
a failure of co-operation has occurred, and that community engagement has been minimal.
● Non-compliance with such an important issue, especially when MKC has an adopted Local Plan with
meaningful policies, is very concerning. MKC could, and should have helped select the best and most sustainable
site. This lack of engagement renders this part of the plan 'unsound' ...... hence further reason to re-open the
hearing sessions to ascertain exactly why AVDC chose not to cooperate and engage more fully with MKC - and
indeed Whaddon Parish Council, and residents.
HOUSING NUMBERS
● The originally drafted AVDC Main Modifications, first seen at the end of July, stated 'up to 1150 new
houses', but following discussion with the Inspector, the revised version states 'at least 1150 new homes'. A minor
change in writing, but with potentially devastating consequences bearing in mind that the promoted site may have
the capacity to provide up to 2000 houses...... and that is before the 'future development direction' arrows,
suggested by Crest Homes in May 2014 come into play!
TRANSPORT, TRAFFIC AND HIGHWAYS ISSUES
● Bucks CC has said "The advantage of the SP development is that it has the potential to provide a new grid
road which would address rat-running through Whaddon". When asked to explain "how?" AVDC had no plans or
answers, only to say that this will be resolved following further traffic investigations at the detailed planning stage!
Answers must be provided now before such a major site is confirmed in a Local Plan, as the impact could have
devastating consequences for Whaddon village, particularly on road safety and the immediate environment due to
ever worsening and increasing 'rat-running' through its two Conservation Areas, and past a school and playgroup.
● Through-traffic numbers and higher levels of HGVs have worsened year on year since MK began, despite
a traffic calming scheme costing approximately £110,000, being installed some six years ago. Since the MVAS
flashing speed signs were installed average weekday traffic levels (in both directions) have increased from about
2024 vehicles (December 2014 MVAS traffic data) to approximately 3098 (November 2019 data) ... or just over a
50% increase in just 5 years. Just imagine what impact a further minimum 3,000 new homes (say 4-5000 cars) at
Shenley Park (at least 1150 houses) and Salden Chase, Newton Longville (circa 1855 houses) will have?
● On 7 November 2019, MKC refused planning consent for the 'access' into Salden Chase off the A421, due
to 'insufficient evidence to mitigate traffic'. This was despite knowing that AVDC have granted planning (in
principle) for the 1855 houses, school etc. What does this say about 'cross boundary discussion?' The developers
must now appeal that decision, which could take six months or more - with no certainty of success. Where does
this leave VALP, if almost 1900 houses are suddenly lost?
● What is the future of Shenley Road, and will it be closed completely? If not, we can expect a longer and
much more tortuous journey to Morrisons through an even bigger housing estate ... and much higher levels of
traffic heading towards Stony Stratford, Wolverton and North MK. (Kiln Farm and Stacey Bushes industrial estates
etc.)?
● Alternatively, perhaps closing Shenley Road, making it 'cycles only', would mean Coddimoor Lane
becoming the only way into Whaddon from the A421? ...... but surely that would worsen by far the rat-running?
● Coddimoor Lane currently joins the A421 at a very busy roundabout. Traffic congestion into MK is a major
problem at peak travel times and during bad weather. Many accidents have occurred in this vicinity (both on the
A421 and along Coddimoor Lane) in recent years. The roundabout is already hard to access at peak times during
the day. Parents will find it increasingly difficult when delivering to, and collecting their children from the Primary
School and Playgroup.
● SP has no easy access to rail stations. Both MK and Bletchley stations would be 6km away.
● These are all hugely important questions to Whaddon residents, who have endured 30-plus years of 'year
on year' increases of traffic through two conservation areas, and past the village primary school and play group.
WPC believe these are critical questions that should have been addressed by both AVDC and MKC at an earlier
stage - but they have not. This makes the plan very 'unsound' especially as the two authorities use different traffic
modelling techniques - neither of which look at the impact of major growth on the surrounding rural road network.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3203

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Denise McClellan

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Shenley Park , Whaddon site cannot and does not have the available opportunity opportunity to be sound as the two alternative sites. The inherent constraints, not least the known and unknown traffic implications and education issues, plus the inexplicable landscape and biodiversity concerns suggests that it is at least favourable of the three sites when closely examined.

Change suggested by respondent:

Based on the points raised and elements referred to in my case, I would suggest that Eaton Leys be moved to preference one and Saldon Chase be considered as second choice or reserve.

Full text:

-Lack of opportunity to debate AVDC's decision Shenley Park alongside the other 2 sites Eaton Leys and Salden Chase Extension.
-Basis for request that the inspector to open a further hearing session, Duty to Cooperate, landscape, biodiversity, including ref. to the North Bud.way.
-Housing Numbers and change of wording.
-Concept Plan
-Transport and Highways with specific reference to codimoor have, Shenley Road and the A421.
-Education-Major concern especially upper school provision.
-Employment
-Funding /Monies

General Points in more detail re Shenley Park, Whaddon - continuation of box 1
* Not included in Nov. 2017 "Proposed Submission"-VALP
* We were denied the opportunity to debate & cross examine AVDC's decision to choose Shenley Park over the other 2 sites (Eaton Leys and Salden Chase) This is in breach of NPPF paragraphs 158 & 182 and especially 155
* The Inspector should reopen a further Hearing Session, it is Unfair if not and Unjust not to allow comparison testing on all 3 sites.
* It is Unsound and possibly Unlawful to accept AVDC's preferred choice without proper scrutiny & justification
* Whaddon residents must be given the opportunity to inform the Inspector of the impact of such a large development on their lives, environment, education, health, road safety and general well-being, etc.
* "Duty to co-operate" -see PPG paragraph 3--008 (2014 version)
* AVDC appears to be paying lip service to this advice and failed to comply
* MKC - 23rd October - members agreed that a failure of co-operation has occurred
* MKC- lack of engagement renders this part of the plan "Unsound" and this should lead to the reopening of the Hearing session.
Landscape & Biodiversity
* North Bucks Way not mentioned and its protection
* Due consideration should be made to Public Open Space, Countryside and Natural
habitats Housing Numbers
* A major change was introduced in the wording- in July "up to 1150"
* Revised version - now "at least 1150"
Transport, Traffic and Highways
* No answers to explain Bucks CC statement regarding addressing "rat-running" through Whaddon
* Devastating consequences for Whaddon Village- route past school and playgroup sites
* More HGVs - this issue has worsened year on year- to consider the impact on the village
as a result of the high number of proposed houses and facilities
* MKC - th November refused planning consent for the access into Salden Chase despite
knowledge of AVDC planning for 1855 houses to mitigate traffic- where is the cross
boundary discussion and cooperation?.

Future of Shenley Road uncertain-additional problems for traffic and access to Westcroft
and MK
* Coddimoor Lane - major issues with many accidents over the past few years and huge
impact on A421 roundabout already. Increased traffic will exacerbate these problems
and has treat implications that will impact on the School and Playgroup.
* A421 is already over capacity and causes concern
* Shenley Park provides no direct/ easy access to rail and major road links
All these points make the choice of Shenley Park "Unsound"
Education
* Shenley Park numbers would not enable provision for ALL age pupils i.e. Upper School,
although a 2 form entry primary school is on the plans. This is unacceptable, especially
when the alternative sites (Eaton Leys and Salden Chase) would be able to.
* These other two sites would not require pupils/ parents crossing a main road (A421) in
order to access the school, but movement/ walking within one site would be possible.
This surely Is the approach to be strongly supported, especially with today's awareness
of the environmental problems and concerns.
* Numbers to justify a new Upper School would require building alongside the A421.
Would this mean an underpass, level crossing, over bridge? Has this situation even been
considered?
* Pollution and its effects is something to bear in mind when evidence shows the damage
this can do to people and the environment. There seems to be a lack of information/
planning to address this situation and the negative and damaging implications for the
Health and Safety of pupils and residents
* Local schools, including the selective Grammar School -Royal Latin School-Upper Schools
Employment
* Access to MK though Whaddon is of great concern. This cut- through will, as now,
become a favoured route plus the increase in traffic.
Funding / Monies
This appears to be under dispute between AVDC and MK for several aspects

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3204

Received: 28/11/2019

Respondent: Sir Beville Stanier

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Shenley Park was not originally in the Plan, we have had no chance to question AVDCs decision to include it. We must have this.

Secondly there has been no cross border consultation with Milton Keynes.

Traffic would be a huge issue. The A421 is already over crowded. If Shenley Park exits onto the A421 there will be incredible congestion. Likewise, extension of Milton Keynes grid system would create similar congestion which will also apply to Coddimoor Lane.

Milton Keynes Council will provide many of the services e.g. health & education for which Buckinghamshire Council will receive the Council Tax.

Change suggested by respondent:

Shenley Park should be excluded while the nearby Eaton Leys or Salden Chase would provide a more suitable method of providing the required number of houses.

Full text:

Shenley Park was not originally in the Plan, we have had no chance to question AVDCs decision to include it. We must have this.

Secondly there has been no cross border consultation with Milton Keynes.

Traffic would be a huge issue. The A421 is already over crowded. If Shenley Park exits onto the A421 there will be incredible congestion. Likewise, extension of Milton Keynes grid system would create similar congestion which will also apply to Coddimoor Lane.

Milton Keynes Council will provide many of the services e.g. health & education for which Buckinghamshire Council will receive the Council Tax.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3210

Received: 05/12/2019

Respondent: Bipin Patel

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer summary)
(1)The housing expansion has not been properly planned with reference to supporting infrastructure.
(2) It would put more than 2,000 cars on roads which are frequently heavily congested at peak times.
(3) Damage re air pollution and environmental harm
(4)There will be an excessive cost burden to Milton Keynes. Will not benefit from Council Tax receipts as Aylesbury will benefit from this.
(5) The current housing building programme which already been approved has not yet been completed.
6) There is an unnecessary risk to the green space betwwen Harlow cresent and Saltwood Avenue bypass around to Shenley Park.

Change suggested by respondent:

The project should not be approved

Full text:

(1)The housing expansion has not been properly planned with reference to supporting infrastructure.
(2) It would put more than 2,000 cars on roads which are frequently heavily congested at peak times.
(3) Damage re air pollution and environmental harm
(4)There will be an excessive cost burden to Milton Keynes. Will not benefit from Council Tax receipts as Aylesbury will benefit from this.
(5) The current housing building programme which already been approved has not yet been completed.
6) There is an unnecessary risk to the green space between Harlow cresent and Saltwood Avenue bypass around to Shenley Park.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3217

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Mr David Pugh

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. There has not been appropriate comparison testing across the 3 proposed sites-This is unsound and possibly unlawful.

2. Failure on duty to cooperate between the adjoining authorities.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MM076 needs to be deleted from the VALP before adoption of the VALP occurs. Eaton Leys, Bletchley should be considered as sustainable replace for Shenley Park. Alternative sites should be identified closer to lager towns within Aylesbury Vale therefore helping that towns sustainability and economy rather than that of Milton Keynes.

Full text:

Shenley Park was not included in the NOV.17 proposed submission version of the VALP. So residents have been denied the opportunity to debate AVDC's decision to choose it own site. It is unfair and unjust not to allow proper comparison testing between the 3 sites and to accept their choice without scrutiny would be unsound and possibly unlawful. There has closely been a failure of a duty to cooperate as agreed across all parties at the meeting on 23/10/19. Community engagement has been minimal. Eaton Leys is a far more sensible choice of location in terms of being as obvious infilll site, a present of construction currently going on, road access and infrastructure considerations e.g school.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3220

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Marlen Lawrenz

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I object to MM070, MM071, MM075 and MM076 (in respect of 'Shenley Park') given that:-
1) The modifications were made without due consultation of the affected parties, thereby preventing a proper comparison testing of the three potential sites (Eaton Leys, Salden Chase & Shenley Park).
2) AVDC failed to comply with its 'Duty to Cooperate' with the adjoining local authority MKC in terms of i) local planning aims, and ii) developer's contributions.
3) The Sustainability Appraisal appears to be incomplete, jeopardising the report's soundness and validity of its conclusions.

Change suggested by respondent:

Modifications MM07, MM071, MM075 & MM076 need to be deleted from the VALP before adoption of the VALP occurs. Eaton Leys, Bletchley or Salden Chase, Newton Longville should be considered as a sustainable replacement for Shenley Park. Ideally, alternative sustainable sites should be identified closer to the larger towns within Aylesbury Vale - thereby helping that towns' sustainability and economy rather than that of Milton Keynes.

Full text:

I object to the proposed Main Modifications MM070, MM071, MM075 and, importantly, MM076, which have all been made in respect of 'Shenley Park (WHA001). My objection is based on the following key points:-

1. Shenley Park was only included at this late stage by way of 'modification'. It is, however, evident that AVDC's decision to prefer Shenley Park over the two competing sites (Eaton Leys & Salden Chase) was taken without allowing for a full hearing of the parties affected by the proposed site allocation. This lack of consultation denied Whaddon Parish Council and local residents the opportunity to properly examine, scrutinize and discuss Shenley Park and its impact. Importantly, this also prevented a due & proper comparison testing of the three potential allocation sites. This is unfair and the modifications are not adequately justified. I ask the Inspector to open a further hearing session at the end of the consultation period to rectify this defect, which could otherwise render the final plan unsound and therefore, potentially, unlawful.

2. The proposed modifications were made by AVDC without complying with its 'Duty to Co- operate' with the adjoining authority (being MKC). Whilst AVDC stated that it kept MKC informed, no records or minutes have been provided to evidence effective discussions or proper joint working. It was acknowledged by MKC at the Full Council Meeting on 23 Oct 2019 that a failure to cooperate had occurred. This breach of Government guidelines and national policy may affect the soundness of the plan. I therefore ask the Inspector to re- open the hearing sessions to allow AVDC to adequately respond.

2.1. This failure to cooperate is particularly concerning as the AVDC Local Plan fails to take into account the strategies stated in the MKC Local Plan, in particular in terms of MK's proposed development areas, infrastructure, accessibility and biodiversity aims. This casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of the AVDC Local Plan where it is not aligned with the MKC Local Plan.

2.2. Further issues arise in respect of the proposed distribution of S106 payments, or indeed the complete lack of discussion regarding CIL payments. All three proposed sites are located in immediate proximity of Milton Keynes. As a result, residents will primarily use MK's public services, in particular for healthcare, policing, ambulance, fire services, education etc. This was even acknowledged in the proposed modification MM076. Yet, the AVDC Local Plan fails to address or mitigate the respective strain on MK's infrastructure. In fact, there is a fundamental mismatch between the two local authorities' treatment of developer's contributions: Whilst MKC operates a tariff system under the CIL regime (with a guaranteed amount paid per dwelling), AVDC have not yet started preparing for the adoption of CIL; this is only expected to commence after the Local Plan is adopted. Instead, AVDC rely on the S106 method which is open to developer debate and challenge, therefore potentially delaying the Local Plan's delivery.
And yet, this discrepancy was not remedied by way of 'proper joint working'. I therefore ask the Inspector to re-open the hearing to allow for full discussion of the above points.

3. AVDC uses the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) as main evidence for its decision to favour Shenley Park over suitable alternatives at Eaton Leys and Salden Chase. However, it appears that the SA fails to adequately discuss and appraise some important aspects of Shenley Park in terms of landscape, traffic & highways and biodiversity, therefore casting serious doubt on the completeness and effectiveness of the document. Importantly, the document completely omits the importance of the North Bucks Way (Bridleway). This is not justified. Without duly considering the importance of this ancient landscape boundary, natural habitat and wildlife corridor, the report's soundness is seriously jeopardised, in particular its reasoning and conclusions regarding the sites' landscape and biodiversity aspects. I therefore urge the Inspector to re-open the hearing to be able to adequately discuss and assess the impact of interrupting the North Bucks Way by the proposed grid road extensions.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3226

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Scott Travel Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Late addition of Shenley Park to VALP has denied residents the opportunity to represent the devastating impact on the environment, traffic, road safety in a small village, already subsumed by its proximity to MK. I understand that AVDC have also not fulfilled their duty to cooperate with MKC.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM076 should be removed before adoption of VALP. Eaton leys(Bletchley) or Salden Chase(Newton L'ville) would be sustainable alternative but alternative sites can be identified closer to large towns in A.V., helping those towns' long-term economy sustainability rather than Milton Keynes.

Full text:

SP (Shenley Park, Whaddon) was not included in NOV.17 proposed VALP so whaddon P.C and residents have been denied the opportunity to examine AVDC's decision to promote S.P in preference to the alternative two sites during the public hearing in July 2018. This breaches paras.155,158 and 182 of NPPF. Due to this late inclusion of S.P. The Inspector is called to reopen a further hearing to examine this council, unfair and unjust omission so that the three competing sites can be comparison tested-The acceptance of S.P without proper scrutiny would render the plan unsound and potentially unlawful and potentially.

I find the late inclusion of Shenley Park in VALP, the pre-Christmas timing and the
complexity of the so-called "public consultation" indefensible. I fully support
Whaddon Parish Council's detailed (and expert) objection to this contentious, illconsidered
proposal. Living on Whaddon High Street, as I do, with a bedroom wall
no more than a metre from ever-increasing traffic, and narrow, dangerouslyinclined,
damaged sidewalks, I am appalled at the potential for more accidents, noise
and pollution even if new arrangements were made to access the A421 which is
often already so congested. I would like to know whether any of the proponents of
this scheme have any experience or knowledge of "life on the ground" in a supposed
"Conservation Area" or whether, as I suspect, superficial expediency is the order of
the day. Without any way of knowing or understanding the general layout, highway
distribution, landscaping (green gap between the SP site and Whaddon), it is totally
unreasonable to expect residents to make informed comment. Why was this crucial
information not prepared? Did lack of time, knowledge and understanding play a
part in the process, when AVDC 'lost' so many other dwellings from previouslyallocated
sites? Major infrastructure decisions and further traffic investigations
must be undertaken and resolved BEFORE the site is allocated in the Local Plan, and
MUST NOT be allowed to wait until the later Supplemental and Detailed planning
stages.
I understand MKC discussed this issue at Full Council on 23 October, and members
across all parties agreed that a failure of co-operation has occurred, and that
community engagement has been minimal. Non-compliance with such an important
issue, especially when MKC have an adopted Local Plan with meaningful policies, is
out of order. MKC could, and should, have helped select the best and most
sustainable site if it must abut its boundary. This lack of engagement renders this
part of the plan 'unsound' ...... hence further reason to re-open the hearing sessions
to ascertain exactly why AVDC chose not to cooperate and engage more fully with
MKC - and indeed Whaddon Parish Council, and residents. It is very clear that the MK members have grave reservations as to how sites adjoining MK boundaries will
actually work in practice. The sites will essentially be part of MK and new residents
will almost certainly avail themselves of MK services - healthcare, waste sites,
education, police, ambulance, road repairs etc. So, who will pay for the extra
pressure on these vital services?
Common sense dictates that obvious infill sites should be chosen before despoiling
virgin countryside. But, even so, the Shenley Park site cannot offer the
opportunities available at the Eaton Leys and Salden Chase sites. The inherent
constraints, not least the unknown traffic implications, and landscape and
biodiversity concerns, suggest that in fact it is the least favourable of the three sites
when closely examined, especially as the Shenley Park site would mean crossing the
North Bucks Way- a strong and defensible landscape barrier and wildlife corridor.
Eaton Leys is a totally obvious and logical 'infill site' that would sensibly 'round off'
the eastern side of MK. The total site lies within, and is fully contained by, the A4146
Fenny Stratford bypass, meaning that there will be no encroachment into open
countryside beyond. The A4146 will then clearly define a long lasting and permanent
edge to the east of Milton Keynes

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3230

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Ian Whipp

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's Summary)
The burden for this and any proposed development next to MK will place an unfair strain on services rather than Aylesbury Vale and actually achieves diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life. This cannot be seen as progress. (MM070, 076) The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to "at least 1,150" houses. This conceals the fact that the site promoters are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site, this will further diminish sustainability.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

Comments to the VALP Main Modification
I am writing to register my objections to the VALP Main Modifications which require further review.
I believe the public examination (PE) should be re-opened for the following reasons.
Transport requirements for the new proposed Shenley Park, Whaddon have in my mind are inadequate and not correctly assessed. We already experience long traffic jams at peak times on the A421 with traffic backing up to the far Bletchley roundabout. This is before this and the further two large developments of Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead agreed by Milton Keynes Council (MKC) are completed.
The traffic analysis that has been completed should have been completed before consideration of the proposal and not as an afterthought. The analysis has already been brought into question and further and more detailed examination will I'm sure show the data is flawed. (MM007, 010, 076)
At MKC's full council meeting on Salden Chase, the committee raised concerns for the affect that this proposal would have on the areas towns and villages in respect to transport congestion and the local hospital, social and education services, so rejected this proposal. Shenley Park is a mirror image and would also have the same effect.
The issue of coalescence has similarly not been properly considered, and there is a very obvious lack of protection for the villages around Milton Keynes, Newton Longville has become an unofficial by-pass for and could in time cease to be a village. This trend appears to have been driven by developers or political reasons, rather than any other consideration for those living in the north of Aylesbury Vale. Northern villages must be offered the same protection from coalescence as the south. (MM013, 014, 031) AVDC seems to think that simply being close to Milton Keynes makes a development sustainable.
The burden for this and any proposed development next to MK will place an unfair strain on services rather than Aylesbury Vale and actually achieves diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life. This cannot be seen as progress. (MM070, 076) The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to "at least 1,150" houses. This conceals the fact that the site promoters are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site, this will further diminish sustainability.
Further evidence of the lack of active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC can be seen in the absence in AVDC policy to comply with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan: MK for such a proposed development. Further, the motions passed by the full council of Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Salden Chase and "Shenley Park" at Whaddon also raise serious questions over AVDC's real appetite, or otherwise, to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate.' (MM072 to 076) For all the above reasons I re state my objection to the VALP Main Modifications in respect of Newton Longville and ask that the PE be reopened.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3238

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Bletchley Park Area Residents Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The Shenley Park development refers to "at least 1,150" houses, whereas developers are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site - this will further diminish sustainability. No provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy as is made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum. (MM076).

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Full text:

As Chair of Bletchley Park Area Residents Association (BPARA), I am writing to register our objections to the VALP Main Modifications which require further review. The letters 'MM' and numbers refer to the appropriate modifications, and we believe the Public Examination should be re-opened for the reasons stated below.

As set out in previous communications going back as far as BPARA's objections to the original Salden Chase proposed development 10 years or so ago, AVDC are guilty of "piggy-backing off" the services provided by MKDC council taxpayers who live in the MK area bordering Aylesbury Vale. By supporting proposed developments such as those at Salden Chase and Shenley Park, Whaddon, AVDC benefits from planning gain and future council tax income, at the expense of MK. The expansion would create diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life - (MM070, 076). 10 years ago, BPARA advocated "I before E" - Investment before Infrastructure, a term which is now used by others but is even more relevant today, as indicated below:

Transport
* The requirements for Shenley Park, Whaddon have not been properly considered.
* Current long traffic jams at rush-hour on the A421 are proof that the roads on the west of MK are already at capacity, even before any new developments at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead have been built
* Traffic jams will worsen - traffic analysis must be done as a priority now, not as an afterthought. (MM007, 010, 076).

Health Service Provision
* The additional demands on health and emergency services from new developments, plus the disposal of waste have not been properly considered. (MM007, 010,076).

With regard to protection of villages, we agree with others who state there is an obvious double standard being applied between the protection of villages around Aylesbury and the lack of protection for villages around Milton Keynes. All villages must be offered the same protection. (MM013, 014, 031).

The Shenley Park development refers to "at least 1,150" houses, whereas developers are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site - this will further diminish sustainability. No provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy as is made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum. (MM076).

From submissions due to be made by MK Council to AVDC, there appears to be no active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC - AVDC policy fails to comply with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK for such proposed development. In addition, from motions passed by Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Salden Chase and Shenley Park, Whaddon, it is questionable that AVDC has any intention to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate.' (MM072 to 076).

For all the above reasons, and also due to uncertainty following legal objections against the 2,000 properties planned for Salden Chase, we wish to register BPARA's objection to the VALP Main Modifications in respect of Newton Longville and ask that the Public Examination be reopened.


Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3242

Received: 09/01/2019

Respondent: MR David Spencer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Shenley Park proposal has not been discussed with Whaddon PC or residents so local site comparative assessment has been critically at fault.
* No meaningful discussion has occurred with MKC when such discussion is imperative.
* These omissions mean that hearings should be re-opened.
* The local road system must be fully addressed before Shenley Park is agreed. Other issues need resolution.
* Eaton Leys provides a minimal impact opportunity to provide AVDC's homes.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM076 has too many faults so it requires root and branch modification if it is to be adopted.

Full text:

The proposal for a new development of 1150 homes at Shenley Park has never been put at Whaddon's Parish Council or, indeed, to its residents and it was not included in the Nov.2017 Proposed Submission Plan. Clearly this omission has meant there has been critically at fault-Unfair and unjust spring to mind as the least damming words I would use.
It would appear that AVDC has also been at fault by a lack of discussion with MKC. This was made abundantly clear at a recent meeting which included some MKC Councillors. AVDC has a duty to co-operate when considering significant cross boundary housing allocations such as Shenley Park.

For these two reasons the hearings must at least be re-opened.
At those hearing the most critical aspect that needs to be addressed(and has not been) is the local road system. Already the ability of Whaddon's residents to use local roads congested and consequently 50% more traffic comes through the village than 5 years ago. A full explanation of AVDC's highway plans is imperative particularly, as seems likely, the Oxford/Cambridge expressway is not to go ahead. But there are other important issues to be addressed and resolved. Amongst these
-The effective use by Shenley Park residents of Milton Keynes' service and of any consequent boundary changes.
-The effect of a development 5 times the size of Whaddon on its village amenities
-Schooling and public transport
-Maintenance of infrastructure and in particular of the proposed parkland
Of the 3 plans, Eaton Leys must surely be the front runner. It very clearly has the least impact on the highway network and, environmentally, it is within the bounds of Bletchley and its A4146 bypass. It will have easy access into Bletchley and its rail links and into Milton Keynes. With 600 homes to be built on the adjoining site by MKC, the minimal impact Eaton Leys opportunity exists and it does not make any sense to start a new rural development at Shenley Park.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3243

Received: 03/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Janet Spencer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

There has been insufficient local information and discussion.
There must be further hearings.
Added traffic through the village is a huge concern.
Extra traffic onto the A 421 must be a concern also.
The closing of Shenley Road through to Westcroft will have a detrimental effect on Whaddon
residents. Eaton Leys would provide a much more sensible location for this huge number of houses.

Change suggested by respondent:

There are too many unsatisfactory aspects of this proposal and the whole thing needs further
discussion.

Full text:

The proposal for 1150 new homes so close to the edge of this small village does not appear to have been properly discussed with the Parish Council or the residents. I feel that the proposal was just made, without proper discussion locally, in order to tick a numbers box for AVDC. It is very important for further hearing to take place in order to address local concerns. Personally, my chief concern is the announce of traffic that is likely to jam up the village centre as residents of the new housing will use the village as a quick way round Milton Keyness roads towards Northampton/A5/M1 north. There is already far too much rat running through the village at rush hour. Also, why should we lose the use of a road that takes village residents quickly and peacefully to the nearest shopping at Westcroft. If closed to traffic this means more queuing at the roundabout to get on to the A421 and more traffic cluttering up this totally over busy road. The impact on traffic must be addressed. I feel that a much more satisfactory site would be Eaton Leys work has already and would be much better served by local travel availability.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3244

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Philip Hosker

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I am responding to the almost unlawful way that AVDC have proposed bolting-on 1150 houses (the estate of Shenley Park) to Milton Keynes, governed by MK Council.

This development will stretch even further the road transport system (Whaddon is a cut-through from A412); education requirements (limited numbers of schools in the area); healthcare requirements (limited doctor's surgeries) and the area has limited local shops. 1150 houses would increase the population by at least 4000 people whose needs will have NO increased infrastructure supporting them therefore a further 1150 houses will be a burden on this part of Milton Keynes.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MM076 needs to be deleted from the VALP before adoption of the VALP occurs, Eaton Leys, Bletchley or Salden Chase, Newton Longville should be considered as a sustainable replacement for Shenley Park. Ideally, alternative sustainable sites should be identified closer to the larger towns within Aylesbury Vale - thereby helping that town's sustainability and economy rather than that of Milton Keynes

Full text:

IMPACT of a flawed planning proposal by AVDC:
● Shenley Park, Whaddon (SP) was not included in the November 2017 'Proposed Submission' version of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP), so Whaddon Parish Council (WPC) and residents have been completely denied the opportunity to properly debate and cross examine AVDC's decision to choose SP over the other two competing sites during the public hearing sessions held by the Inspector in July 2018. The alternative sites are Eaton Leys (EL) and Salden Chase (SC). This is in breach of NPPF paragraphs 158 and 182 and especially 155.
● Due to the very late introduction of Shenley Park, the Inspector must be strongly encouraged to reopen a further hearing session at the end of the public consultation period, so that this crucial omission can be rectified. It is completely UNFAIR and UNJUST not to allow detailed and proper 'comparison testing' between the three competing sites.
● To simply accept AVDC's 'preferred choice' of Shenley Park without proper scrutiny and justification will render the final plan unsound and possibly unlawful.
●Whaddon residents MUST be given the opportunity to inform the Inspector of the mpact such a large development will have on their environment, lives & health, road safety, and general well-being. Despite the site being mentioned at a much earlier stage (but then deleted) this consultation is TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. (and far too complex given the amount of information on the AVDC website).

ATTACHED PAGE 1

● Government requires that adjoining Authorities have a 'Duty to Co-operate' - when considering significant, strategic cross-boundary housing allocations. Such a 'duty' cannot be rectified during a public consultation period, so failure to do so at a much earlier stage can lead the Inspector to recommend a non-adoption report. This is contrary to PPG paragraph 3-008 (2014 version)
● AVDC have paid 'lip-service' to this advice, by indicating to MKC what they were doing, but they have not addressed this key strategic housing allocation (a minimum of 1150 new homes) through 'effective discussion' or 'proper joint working', representing a significant failing of 'Duty to Co-operate' at an early stage especially as MKC are the major town and Lead Authority which adjoins the three neighboring and competing sites.
● MKC discussed this issue at Full Council on 23 October, and members across all parties agreed that a failure of co-operation has occurred, and that community engagement has been minimal.
● Non-compliance with such an important issue, especially when MKC have an adopted Local Plan with meaningful policies, is very concerning. MKC could and should have helped select the best and most sustainable site. This lack of engagement renders this part of the plan 'unsound' hence further reason to re-open the hearing sessions to ascertain exactly why AVDC chose not to cooperate and engage more fully with MKC - and indeed Whaddon Parish Council, and residents.


IMPACT of new houses on building infrastructure:

● It seems to me that AVDC are just "bolting on" their housing requirement to the nearest biggest town irrespective of the concerns of MK Council.
● Milton Keynes has already endured continuous building developments for 50 years with no real thought about a supporting infrastructure. A further influx of 1150 houses with no schools, local centres (shops) and healthcare facilities - Doctors and Dentists will mean that the new residents will then be impacting an already stretched Milton Keynes infrastructure.
● For example, the nearest doctor's surgery in Westcroft already has two to three weeks waiting times for appointments to see health practitioners; adding another 1150 households to this already stretched medical centre will result in overflow to other facilities which are just as stretched.
● The nearest first school to this proposed development is Whaddon CoE First school; and whilst the school has aims to expand intake it will not be able to accommodate the influx of the children of 1150 households - where do these children go?

IMPACT of new houses on transport and road usage:

● Bucks CC have said "The advantage of the SP development is that it has the potential to provide a new grid road which would address rat-running through Whaddon". When asked to explain "how?" AVDC had no plans or answers, only to say that this will be resolved following further traffic investigations at the detailed planning stage!
● This is of high concern as the current traffic levels going through Whaddon have increased significantly in the past 3 years since I have lived here. The village is used as a cut through from the A421 to the North West Milton Keynes; with added housing this will only lead to higher volumes of traffic causing even more congestion. There are two significantly sharp corners within the village boundaries that are already dangerous and extra traffic will only increase this danger. Therefore I have a real concern for road safety and people crossing the road.
● Answers must be provided now before such a major site is confirmed in a Local Plan, as the impact could have devastating consequences for Whaddon village, particularly on road safety and the immediate environment due to ever worsening and increasing 'rat-running' through its two Conservation Areas, and past a school and playgroup.
● Through-traffic numbers and higher levels of HGV's have worsened year on year since MK began and despite a traffic calming scheme costing approx. £110,000, being installed some six years ago. Since the MVAS flashing speed signs were installed average weekday traffic levels (in both directions) have increased from about 2024 vehicles (December 2014 MVAS traffic data) to approximately 3098 (November 2019 data) ... or just over a 50% increase in just 5 years.
Just imagine what impact a further minimum 3,000 new homes (say 4-5000 cars) at Shenley Park -
(at least 1150 houses) and Salden Chase, Newton Longville (circa 1855 houses) will have?
●MKC on 7th November refused planning consent for the 'access' into Salden Chase off the A421, due to 'insufficient evidence to mitigate traffic'. This was despite knowing that AVDC have granted planning (in principle) for the 1855 houses, school etc. What does this say about 'cross boundary discussion?' The developers must now appeal that


ATTACHED PAGE 2

decision, which could take 6 months or more - with no certainty of success. Where does this leave VALP, if almost 1900 houses are suddenly lost?
● These are all hugely important questions as over the past 30 plus years of 'year on year' increases of traffic through two conservation areas, and past the village primary school and play group. WPC believe these are critical questions that should have been addressed by both AVDC and MKC at an earlier stage - but they have not. This makes the plan very 'unsound' especially as the two authorities use different traffic modelling techniques - neither of which look at the impact of major growth on the surrounding rural road network.



Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3247

Received: 07/01/2020

Respondent: Jill Mead

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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.

Our health service is at full stretch now so any extra development would bring it to its knees. Our hospitals cannot cope.

Further development would mean a reduced quality of life, this isn't progress.

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

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'

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'

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.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3261

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Michael Chapman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The proposed modifications have implications which are detrimental to AVDC residents living in the
north of the district and in Milton Keynes. The issues are around protection of community identity and
sustainability, including transport, health service provision and education. There also appears to
have been inadequate collaboration with Milton Keynes Council.

Full text:

I am objecting for the following reasons:
 MM 007, 010 & 076 - We already have traffic problems in this area with long rush-hour queues on the A421. Adding further development will only make this situation worse.

 MM 007, 010 & 076 - Health services are struggling to cope with the expanding population of Milton Keynes and the surrounding villages. The investment in infrastructure (before further development can be started) should include improved provision for the local hospital, GP surgery and dentists.

 MM 013, 014 & 031 - The individual identity of villages to the north of the district should be offered the same protection as those surrounding Aylesbury.

 MM 070 & 076 - Transport and health provision needs have already been mentioned above but there are other issues with development adjacent to Milton Keynes. Many people in this area commute by train and the services for Bletchley and Milton Keynes are struggling to cope. Parking in the city is an issue. Education requirements for a growing population also need to be taken into account (noting that Buckinghamshire County Council policy/the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum requires that provision is made for a secondary school but that doesn't appear to have been allowed for in the plan).

 MM 076 - The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to 1,150 houses but we know that the parties promoting the site are lobbying for 1,800 houses. This will further impact negatively on sustainability.

 MM 072, 073, 074, 075 & 076 - Are AVDC and Milton Keynes Council actively cooperating on this plan and the proposed developments on the MK border (Salden Chase and Shenley Park)? Press coverage for Milton Keynes suggests not. Should AVDC not be complying with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK?

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3267

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Roy Van de Poll

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Unsound and Possibly Illegal Process in the Choice of the Housing Development Site for 1,150 Dwellings 'In Close Proximity' to Milton Keynes. This matter must be revisited and I suggest this process starts with EiP Hearings in order that a sound process for the determination of a fully validated chosen site is agreed. (officer summary)

Full text:

Please see attached submission.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3268

Received: 07/01/2020

Respondent: Mr Steve Heath

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Shenley Park allocation: The appropriate policy of infrastructure before expansion would be a sensible course of action yet has been ignored by AVDC. The question of the necessary and significant uplift for Health Service provision, the
extra strain on emergency services caused by new developments and the disposal of waste have not been properly considered. Coalescence has not been properly considered. Site not sustainable. The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to "at least 1,150" houses. This conceals the fact that the site promoters are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site. No evidence of cooperation between AVDC and MKC.

Full text:

Dear Sir,
I am writing to register my objections to the VALP Main Modifications which require further review. The letters 'MM' and numbers refer to the appropriate modifications.
I believe the public examination (PE) should be re-opened for the following reasons:

1. Transport needs for Shenley Park.
The western side of Milton Keynes has shown a very high traffic growth and has
reached the point where long traffic jams at rush-hour on inter alia the A421 are
common place. This will be made worse with the new builds at Tattenhoe Park and
Kingsmead. The traffic jams are only going to get longer. This is something that
AVDC are in complete denial judging by their endorsement of the Salden Chase
traffic analysis which has formed part of the recent high level modelling used to
justify the choice of Shenley Park. This duplicity included using different hidden sets
of traffic data that artificially reduce the traffic impact and configuring the models to
give a more favourable result. It is believed that this incorrect data was then
incorporated into the model used to evaluate and justify Shenley Park.
The modelling document stresses that it is high level only and requires further low
level work to confirm/understand the impact. This has not been done yet Shenley
Park has been selected with no real understanding of what the overall impact will be
in the area. Those that have analysed the traffic in this area - such as myself -
know that the traffic impact will be severe resulting in a potential gridlock. This will
require substantial infrastructure investment which appears to low on AVDC's
agenda. It appears to be applying the policy of get the houses built and let MK sort
out the resulting mess. The appropriate policy of infrastructure before expansion would be a sensible course of action yet has been ignored by AVDC and simply left to MK to pick up the financial burden while AVDC pockets the income. Unfortunately, it seems not to be a consideration in this case and that must be addressed. (MM007, 010, 076)

2. The question of the necessary and significant uplift for Health Service provision, the extra strain on emergency services caused by new developments and the disposal of waste have not been properly considered. (MM007, 010,076)

3. Coalescence has similarly not been properly considered, and there is a very
obvious double standard being applied between the protection of villages around
Aylesbury and the lack of protection for villages around Milton Keynes. This
protectionism appears to have been driven by politics rather than any other
consideration and is manifestly unfair to those living in the north of Aylesbury Vale.
A further example is the bypass planned for Whaddon to prevent Shenley Park
traffic rat running through the village. No such provision was made for Newton
Longville in the Salden Chase proposal and it is clear that significant traffic from any
further development will go through the village as it is the unofficial SWMK bypass.
All northern villages must be offered the same protection from coalescence as the
south. (MM013, 014, 031)

4. AVDC seems to think that simply being close to Milton Keynes makes a
development sustainable. Every developer extols the benefits and maintains that
makes everything ideal. That is not the case for the above reasons. There have
already been public outcries insisting that AVDC residents should use Aylesbury for
their medical services which is some 15-20 miles away. This is due to the lack of
resources in MK. With all of the planned AVDC expansion, all the burden will be
placed on MK rather than Aylesbury Vale and thus expansion actually achieves
diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life. It will be up to MK to make up
for the additional stresses that AVDC have caused. This cannot be seen as
progress. (MM070, 076)

5. The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to "at least 1,150" houses. This
conceals the fact that the site promoters are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site.
This is similar to the Salden Chase proposals where a larger development is split
into smaller ones so that excessive unsustainable development can be achieved at
the expense of residents. This will further diminish sustainability and furthermore no
provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy as
is made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum. Note that if current AVDC
development progress is followed that the school will be one of the last items to be
built and that pupils will either need to be bussed elsewhere in AVDC or place
additional burdens on MK's education resources. (MM076)

6. Further evidence of the lack of active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC can be seen in the absence in AVDC policy to comply with the adopted policies in the
adopted Plan:MK for such a proposed development. Further, the motions passed by
the full council of Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Salden Chase and
"Shenley Park" at Whaddon also raise serious questions over AVDC's real appetite,
or otherwise, to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate.' It is clear that all AVDC is
interested in is development without the responsibility. It was happy to go along with
the Salden Chase transport statement misrepresentation as it benefited them
financially yet has now started to accept that the transport statement was wrong
both in its conclusions and methodology. As stated previously, it is believed that this
erroneous data was used in the high level model, despite them knowing it was
incorrect for over two years. (MM072 to 076)

For all the above reasons I reconfirm my objection to the VALP Main Modifications in
respect of Newton Longville and ask that the PE be reopened.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3292

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Goodman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Transport needs for Shenley Park, Whaddon have not been properly considered.

Health Service provision, the extra strain on emergency services caused by new developments and the disposal of waste do not seem to have been properly considered.

All the burden will be placed on MK rather than Aylesbury Vale and thus expansion actually achieves diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life for those in the north.

The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to "at least 1,150" houses. This conceals the fact that the site promoters are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site.

No provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy.

The lack of co-operation by AVDC with MKC can be seen in the absence in AVDC policy to comply with the adopted policies in Plan:MK.

Full text:

I am writing to register my objections to the VALP Main Modifications which require further review. The letters 'MM' and numbers refer to the appropriate modifications. I believe the public examination (PE) should be re-opened for the following reasons.

Transport needs for Shenley Park, Whaddon have not been properly considered. The long traffic jams at rush-hour on inter alia the A421 prove the roads on the west of MK are already at capacity, and this is before the new builds at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead have been built. You must understand these traffic jams are only going to get longer. Traffic analysis must be done first, not as an afterthought. Infrastructure before expansion would be a sensible course of action. Unfortunately, it seems not be a consideration in this case and that must be addressed. (MM007, 010, 076)

The question of the necessary and significant uplift for Health Service provision, the extra strain on emergency services caused by new developments and the disposal of waste do not seem to have been properly considered. (MM007, 010,076) Coalescence has similarly not been correctly considered, and there is a very obvious double standard being applied between the protection of villages around Aylesbury and the lack of protection for villages around Milton Keynes. This protectionism appears to have been driven by politics rather than any other consideration and is manifestly unfair to those living in the north of Aylesbury Vale. Northern villages must be offered the same protection from coalescence as the south. (MM013, 014, 031)

AVDC seems to think that simply being close to Milton Keynes makes a development sustainable. That is not the case for the above reasons. All the burden will be placed on MK rather than Aylesbury Vale and thus expansion actually achieves diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life for those in the north. This cannot be seen as progress. (MM070, 076)

The expansion policy for Shenley Park refers to "at least 1,150" houses. This conceals the fact that the site promoters are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site. This will further diminish sustainability and furthermore no provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy as is made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum. (MM076)

Further evidence of the lack of active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC can be seen in the absence in AVDC policy to comply with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK for such a proposed development. Further, the motions passed by the full council of Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Salden Chase and "Shenley Park" at Whaddon also raise serious questions over AVDC's real appetite, or otherwise, to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate.' (MM072 to 076)

For all the above reasons I reconfirm my objection to the VALP Main Modifications in respect of Newton Longville and ask that the PE be reopened.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3298

Received: 14/12/2019

Respondent: Robyn Johnston

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

At rush hour the A421 is already very congested and this is before the new houses at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead have been built. The traffic jams will get worse with more housing allocated.
Healthcare, waste disposal and emergency services are going to be stretched to breaking point.
Why have the villages around MK not been given the same level of protection from coalescence as those around Aylesbury.
It appears that AVDC assumes that that being close to MK makes a development sustainable. This is WRONG.
The site promoters are angling for 1,800 , 1,150 is dishonest
No provision has been made for a secondary school
Evidence of the absence of active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC. (Officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sir,

I would like to make my objections known and registered in respect to VALP Main Modifications, these need further review. Letters 'MM' and nos. refer to appropriate modifications.

It is my belief that the public examination should be reopened for the following reasons.

Volume of traffic caused by Shenley Park, Whaddon !! At rush hour the A421 is already very congested with long queues and this is before the new houses at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead have been built. The traffic jams will get worse. The roads west of MK simply cannot cope now, traffic analysis should be a priority BEFORE not after allocating more housing. This has not been the case. (MM007, 010,076)

Healthcare, waste disposal and emergency services are going to be stretched to breaking point but again this does not appear to have been taken into consideration. (MM007,010, 076)

Has anyone thought about infrastructure before expansion??

Why have the villages around MK not been given the same level of protection from coalescence as those around Aylesbury? There are definitely double standards in force here and it is unacceptable. (MM013, 014, 031)

It appears that AVDC assumes that that being close to MK makes a development sustainable.
This is WRONG - see reasons above. MK will have to shoulder the burden rather than Aylesbury Vale actually reducing sustainability and quality of life due to ill conceived expansion. This is not Progress. (MM070, 076)

With reference to numbers of houses at Shenley Park, the expansion policy refers to 'at least 1,150 houses'. Why the dishonesty when it is known the site promoters are angling for 1,800 properties?? No provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BBC policy, and these additional 'secret houses' will further lessen sustainability, add to traffic chaos and adversely affect quality of life for people living in the area. (MM076)

Evidence of the absence of active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC can be seen in the failure of AVDC policy to comply with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK for such a proposed development. Additionally the motions passed by the full council of MK Council regarding both Salden Chase and Shenley Park makes one question whether AVDC has any intention of complying with the 'Duty to Cooperate'. (MM072 to 076)

I again therefore impress on you for the above reasons my objection to the VALP Main Modifications in respect of Newton Longville and request that the public examination be reopened.

Yours sincerely,

Robyn Johnston