Aylesbury Vale Area

MM085

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2966

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Fattorini

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Lack of clarity over details proposed and still fails to take into consideration fundamental disconnectedness of site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Clarification of location of additional 3.5 ha.

Full text:

1) The VALP Main Modifications public consultation for D-HAD007 states an increase in site size from 10 ha to 13.5 ha but it is not clear from the text or drawings where this additional 3.5 ha is located.

2) The public therefore have to make the assumption that the site size is to be increased by extending outwards along the full length of the northwest boundary.

3) Text concerning the pedestrian and cycle link from the site to the village and airfield has been made more definite as the words "if appropriate and possible" are deleted.

4) The second assumption the public therefore have to make is that this increase in size along the northwest boundary is to accommodate the pedestrian and cycle link, presumably because this was proving impossible to implement otherwise.

5) One of the major public concerns about this site is its isolated and disconnectedness from shops, schools and amenities with only the one road set to provide access for the "Provision of at least 269 dwellings". Unfortunately this access road is on the opposite side of the village meaning that traffic going to & returning from the railway station, Co-op store & airfield sports pavilion will be inclined to use the direct route through the narrow lanes in the village.

6) Bucks CC Highways have assessed the area and although they consider it able to support the increase in traffic little or no consideration is given to the impact on pedestrians and cyclists already using the narrow local lanes, particularly as:
- there are no footpaths on these lanes (single carriageway in places)
- blind S-bend on Rudds Lane
- the lanes are pot holed & uneven
- little or no street lighting
- treacherous in winter

CONCLUSION - Without consideration of this site within the context of the airfield developments then this proposal must be refused. It cannot be treated in isolation. If this proposal is granted then there must be a relief road encompassing the pedestrian and cycle link connecting it to the airfield development, Co-op store, care home, sports pavilion and railway station.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3101

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Dr Michael Stubbs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

That the cycle link via the airfield development must be delivered in the first phase and is not an either/or option with the Churchway link but a fundamental pre-requisit as it (a) creates a safe route (b) Is directly routed to the station and (c) promotes place-making, active travel and a quality of life.

Change suggested by respondent:

The site should be accessed via Churchway with the retention of the existing footpaths and further provision of pedestrian and cycle linkages through the site and into the village including [BOTH] along Churchway, to the train station and with [A PRIMARY CYCLE AND WALKING CONNECTION VIA THE ] with the adjoining approved Haddenham Airfield development

Full text:

The policy criterion dealing with the cycle linkages still requires precision and to ensure desirability (under the NPPF tests) must be tightened. It should say [denoting changes]....

The site should be accessed via Churchway with the retention of the existing footpaths and further provision of pedestrian and cycle linkages through the site and into the village including [BOTH] along Churchway, to the train station and with [A PRIMARY CYCLEANDWALKING CONNECTION VIA THE ] with the adjoining approved Haddenham Airfield development DELETED:if appropriate and possible INSERTED:(site HAD005 on the VALP Policies Map)

The route via Churchway is not a direct and safe route to the station and the newly created link via HADD 007 direct to the station across the airfield development is a tangible improvement and also serves a large swathe of the N of the village, who also benefit from this access. Reasoned justification in the next must acknowledge that this link is a pre-condition and that the Churchway link alone will not satisfy the policy.
The VALP strategic policies support this place-making and active travel promotion, which is so fundamental to promoting behavioural change and climate change objectives and improving quality of life. These small textual changes reinforce the point that the airfield link is a fundamental policy requirement.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3104

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Dr Michael Stubbs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

As the examination process will have to take a fairly broad brush approach to density, this site is constrained by the GI + biodiversity aspirations above + SUDS engineering but is also constrained by the setting of a Grade II building, a conservation area, the settlement boundary with a wychert wall and the need to promote development nested within its landscape setting. For these reasons and looking at the evidence put before the Inspector a more appropriate allocation should be lower but no higher than 269

Change suggested by respondent:

269 is a ceiling figure and not a baseline figure, in view of the site constraints and as demonstrated by a current (undetermined) planning application

Full text:

At least 269 is misleading and infers a 'bottom line' requirement whilst 315 has been mooted by the site's promoter. To deliver the necessary green infrastructure and biodiversity promotion and creation on this land, together with the necessary SUDS that will be required, then 269 is a ceiling figure and not a baseline figure.

As the examination process will have to take a fairly broad brush approach to density, this site is constrained by the GI + biodiversity aspirations above + SUDS engineering but is also constrained by the setting of a Grade II building, a conservation area, the settlement boundary with a wychert wall and the need to promote development nested within its landscape setting. For these reasons and looking at the evidence put before the Inspector a more appropriate allocation should be lower but no higher than 269

AVDC officer note: changed to MM085 as this representation concerns only changes to policy D-HAD007.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3293

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Rosemary Lane Action Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We object to the proposed increase in the size of the allocation. This compounds our previous objections because more land is allocated for unsound development in an unsustainable location.
The only justification for the proposed changes is stated in the Sustainability Appraisal to be to ensure consistency with the submitted planning application. The Rosemary Lane Action Group contends that this is an unjustified basis for making changes to a plan when the planning application has not been considered by committee and could well be refused permission. We have objected to the planning application on various grounds including its prematurity in advance of the Local Plan being adopted. (officer summary)

Full text:

I am submitting objections on behalf of the Rosemary Lane Action Group to Main Modifications 085 and 081. We consider that the allocations are unsound because they are not adequately justified, not effective and inconsistent with national policy.

MM085 Haddenham site allocation
The Rosemary Lane Action Group objected to this proposed site allocation and gave evidence at the examination-in-public. The Group contends that the allocation is unsound because it is not adequately justified, not effective and inconsistent with national policy. Our objection is based on conflict with the neighbourhood plan, adverse impact on heritage assets, adverse landscape impact, an unsustainable location not well related to shops and services in Haddenham, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land and concerns over flooding and traffic impact.
The Rosemary Lane Action Group objects to the proposed increase in the size of the allocation site from 10ha to 13.5ha. This increase in size compounds the force of our objections because more land is allocated for unsound development in an unsustainable location with all of the adverse impacts set out in our earlier representations.
The only justification for the proposed changes is stated in the Sustainability Appraisal to be to ensure consistency with the submitted planning application. The Rosemary Lane Action Group contends that this is an unjustified basis for making changes to a plan when the planning application has not been considered by committee and could well be refused permission. We have objected to the planning application on various grounds including its prematurity in advance of the Local Plan being adopted.
MM081, paragraph 4.124
The Rosemary Lane Action Group objects to the consequential changes proposed to paragraph 4.124 which is amended to reflect the proposed increase in site size and change to the number of proposed dwellings. The text asserts that VALP reflects the need for housing delivery whilst not undermining the aims of neighbourhood plans. The proposed site allocation scored poorly in the site selection exercise for the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan and is unsound and unjustified.