Aylesbury Vale Area

MM088

Showing comments and forms 1 to 28 of 28

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2759

Received: 07/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Jim Ellis

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

There are a number of inconsistencies in the modified Local Plan regarding proposals for Wendover and post-RAF Halton relating to the closure date and capacity of the site.


Change suggested by respondent:

I had assumed it would be standard council policy to undertake copy editing and proof reading of major documents such as these before release.

Full text:

There are a number of inconsistencies in the modified Local Plan regarding proposals for Wendover and post-RAF Halton.

P38, Box S2, para e: "Wendover will accommodate around 1,132 new homes with 1,000 new homes at Halton Camp which is now confirmed to be closing in 2022".

P124, para 4.108: "In terms of Wendover, approximately 1,000 homes will come forward during the Plan period at RAF Halton Camp after its closure in 2022"

P143, Para 4.128: "The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) has confirmed that RAF Halton is to close finally in 2025" [correct, I believe]

P143, Para 4.129: "As Halton Camp is not due to close until 2022"

P144, Para 4.135: "At least 1,000 homes during the Plan period"

These may appear to be petty editorial comments but the details in question may impact on my immediate local area and your document cannot be considered legally sound if it contains fairly obvious inconsistencies, errors and potential loopholes that developers (or others) could exploit.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2815

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Joanna Shepherd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I notice with real concern on reading the Modified Plan that housing numbers for several large developments have been raised. Both Aylesbury Garden Town and RAF Halton have been amended from around 1000 to at least 1000. The Plan shows no evidence to any updated transport assessment based on these new figures which I feel is woeful. The congestion is appalling and worsening. To increase the planned housing numbers is utter lunacy. (officer summary)

Full text:

I notice with real concern on reading the Modified Plan that housing numbers for several large developments have been raised. Both Aylesbury Garden Town and RAF Halton have been amended from around 1000 to at least 1000. The development south west of Stoke Mandeville has been raised from 1550 to at least 1590, Woodlands from around 1660 to 1757 and Hampden Fields from around 3111 to at least 3358. The Plan shows no evidence to any updated transport assessment based on these new figures which I feel is woeful. Anyone living in Aylesbury knows how congested the area is. At peak times the roads are virtually gridlocked. Whenever there is an accident anywhere around Aylesbury the whole road network grinds to a halt as witnessed last week when there was an accident by Aylesbury College. To get to the town centre from where I live on Hampden Hall took me 40 minutes. In the same week temporary lights on the Wendover Road and Bedgrove meant that my husband took 45 minutes to get from the Wendover bypass to home, a journey which should take 5 minutes. The congestion is appalling and worsening. I was talking to someone who lives by the police station and works at Elm Farm vetinary practice. She can walk to work in 7 minutes. By car this journey takes her 20 minutes in the morning. Given the current chaos on the roads I fail to see that anyone who actually lives in Aylesbury would feel that the Plan has been positively prepared and seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements. To increase the planned housing numbers is utter lunacy. Households now invariably have a minimum of 2 cars, often more given that children remain at home much longer. Aylesbury will simply grind to a halt. I beg someone to wake up to this and see that VALP is flawed. I cannot see why anyone would want to live in Aylesbury when the traffic is so bad now. A Plan that shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment yet an increase in housing numbers should not go unchallenged. I challenge those responsible for looking at the Modified Plan to visit Aylesbury at rush hour times. If they did that and then allowed this Modified Plan to be sanctioned when it fails to provide any updated transport assessment I would have to assume that the world has gone made. Aylesbury will have housing but no one will want to live here because the road network will simply collapse under the pressure.

Joanna Shepherd, Weston Turville, (who already cannot get out onto the Wendover Road in the morning unless someone lets her into the stream of solid traffic)

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2821

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burnett

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) has been modified from "around 1,000" to "at least
1,000"
I strongly disagree with increasing the housing density in this area. The roads are already over-congested. the continued loss of countryside to housing development is destroying the rural character of the area, and the distinctness of communities close to Aylesbury is being lost.
Infrastructure is already inadequate to meet the needs of existing housing density and this plan will make it worse. (officer summary)

Full text:

Housing numbers

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have
been raised.
.D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has
been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
.D-AGT2 (south west of Stoke Mandeville) from "around 1,550" to "at
least 1,590".
.D-AGT3 (includes Woodlands) from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
.D-AGT4 (includes Hampden Fields) from "around 3111" to "at least
3358"
.D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least
1,000"

I strongly disagree with increasing the housing density in this area. The
roads are already over-congested, and the plans do nothing which will solve
this. In addition, the continued loss of countryside to housing development
is destroying the rural character of the area, and the distinctness of
communities close to Aylesbury is being lost.

I do not agree that this plan, as modified, " seeks to meet objectively
assessed development and infrastructure requirements". Infrastructure is
already inadequate to meet the needs of existing housing density and this
plan will make it worse.

Best Regards
Andrew Burnett



Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2876

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Makepeace

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government.

Full text:

Dear Sir,

Having studied the revised Vale of Aylesbury plan I have the following comments

Oxford to Cambridge expressway

The plan appears to have downgraded the plan so as to now take little or no account of this proposal. In particular its effects have been removed from the Spatial Vision and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring cooperation. It is only considered in a vague manner as possibly being considered in the future.

This strategy does not seem to be one which has taken reasonable consideration of this agains of any other strategies into account.

HS2

D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2. This project is under major review and as such no plan can or should be based on this highly contentious plan going ahead as there is a clear possibility of there being cancellation and in this important respective the plan doesn't meet objectively assessed development and infra structure requirements.


Housing needs

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government.

In this respect I believe the plan does not seek to meet objectively the assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Yours faithfully

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2882

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Susan Makepeace

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure.

Full text:


Dear Sir,

Having studied the revised Vale of Aylesbury plan I have the following comments

Oxford to Cambridge expressway

The plan now take little or no account of this proposal. It is only considered in a vague manner as possibly being considered in the future.
In particular its effects have been removed from the Spatial Vision and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring cooperation.

This strategy does not seem to be one which has taken reasonable consideration of this agains of any other strategies into account.


Housing needs

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure.

In this respect I believe the plan does not seek to meet objectively the assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

HS2

D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2. This project is under major review and as such no plan can or should be based on this highly contentious plan going ahead as there is a clear possibility of there being cancellation now or in the future and in this important respective the plan doesn't meet objectively assessed development and infra structure requirements.

Yours faithfully

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2891

Received: 08/12/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Shirley & Raymond Cox

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised. D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000". The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested, yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.
The modified Plan fails to address the traffic congestion these new houses would generate. We are also concerned about the level of air pollution that would be generated.
We do not believe AVDC and BCC have planned fairly for the effects of traffic.
(officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sirs
Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

In the modified Plan, the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway is referred to several times. We would have expected the Council to build this major road infrastructure project fully into their plan at this stage. They have deleted the reference from their Spatial Vision (para 2.4d) and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring co-operation (para 3.39) and they state (para 3.81) only that they may potentially consider it at some unspecified point in the future. They have also deleted their declared support for the project (modified policy T3 at paragraph 7.21).
We do not believe this is the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.

Housing numbers

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
* D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested, yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.
The modified Plan fails to address the traffic congestion these new houses would generate. We both have to leave for work for work much earlier to avoid traffic delays. When there are any roadworks, water leaks, accidents etc. Aylesbury literally grinds to a halt. We are also concerned about the level of air pollution that would be generated.
We do not believe AVDC and BCC have planned fairly for the effects of traffic and strongly disagree that this seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

HS2

The area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet no decision as to this project has been taken. The Plan cannot be approved until that final decision.
We feel work relating HS2 should not commence until the project has been finally approved, thus avoiding unnecessary devastation to the countryside, not to mention wasting vast amounts of money.

If HS2 does not go ahead, AVDC and BCC will not have the ability to fund their desired road system and we strongly disagree that this seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Yours faithfully

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2897

Received: 08/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Damian Campbell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

As was evidenced in the last inspectors report the road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

Full text:

Attn: The Planning officer for the VALP

Sir / Madam

In addition to my earlier comments about the VALP I would like the following point to the amendments to the VALP to be taken into consideration:

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards




Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

In the modified Plan, the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway is referred to several times. One would have expected the AVDC and BCC to include this major road infrastructure project fully into their plans. However, not only have they have deleted the reference from their Spatial Vision (para 2.4d) and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring co-operation (para 3.39) but In para 3.81 the Council has seen fit to merely state that they may "Potentially consider it at some unspecified point in the future". They have also deleted their declared support for the project (modified policy T3 at paragraph 7.21).

I am not only disappointed but truly dismayed at this lack of professionalism. The Vale of Aylesbury Plan is the most important planning document to be worked on for the coming years. For it to have parts deleted and not to include cooperation with the only other infrastructure project in the county beggars belief. The new plans hardly demonstrate the most "Appropriate" strategy when there are other reasonable alternatives available.




Housing numbers

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

As was evidenced in the last inspectors report the road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

Again this demonstrates shoddy work and a woeful lack of respect for the planning process. It seems that the AVDC and BCC are not taking this process at all seriously. As a concerned resident I would welcome new housing if it's on the basis of a well thought out plan but this demonstrates no respect at all for the existing residents' quality of life, especially as regards increased traffic levels. In fact I would go so far as to say this in no way meets "Objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements" which I thought was a prerequisite for any plan.


HS2

AVDC and BCC have stated that much of the funding for the new roads for the VALP would come from HS2. Indeed area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet as I understand it, no final decision on the HS2 project has been taken. Surely the plan cannot be finalised until HS2 has been finally approved? Attempting to push through the plan WITHOUT the funding would show unacceptable disregard regard for the impact this would have on residents who will surely then be expected to fund any shortfall through taxes.

Again this in no way attempts to meet "Objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements."

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2903

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Jennifer kruppa

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I have noticed that the housing numbers have been increased for several large developments (eg D-AGT1, 2, 3, 4 and D-HAL003) and also the wording ''at least'' has been used which means the Local Plan in these areas actually gives no meaningful figures as they can be increased on a whim. In addition, the road network is Aylesbury is not fit for purpose... at all. Where is the evidence of an updated transport assessment based on the higher 'at least' figures. Infrastructure is needed now before the building of more houses goes ahead. (officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Planning Department

I am writing with regard to the newly modified Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. I have various comments/concerns, which I have detailed below:

1). I am mystified as to why you state that you may potentially consider the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway at some point in the future. Surely this must be looked at and planned for NOW! The Expressway is a major project for the UK that requires joined up thinking and a large amount of new infrastructure in the Vale of Aylesbury. The Local Plan is an opportunity to lay down plans for this. You have skirted around the issue in your modifications and it looks as if you are unable to plan in a cohesive, forward thinking way. I do not agree that this is justified as the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
2). I have noticed that the housing numbers have been increased for several large developments (eg D-AGT1, 2, 3, 4 and D-HAL003) and also the wording ''at least'' has been used which means the Local Plan in these areas actually gives no meaningful figures as they can be increased on a whim. For example the local plan uses the caveat ''at least 3358'' houses for D-AGT4. Does this mean that the planning department do not actually know how many houses they are planning for/building? If so, it cannot be called a 'plan' as the wording leads one to conclude the housing numbers are as yet still unknown and therefore unplanned.


In addition, the road network is Aylesbury is not fit for purpose... at all. Where is the evidence of an updated transport assessment based on the higher 'at least' figures. You have not presented anything that gives me confidence with regard to both future development of the area or the much needed infrastructure. (The latter is needed now before the building of more houses goes ahead).


3). Part of your planning proposals are dependent on HS2 going ahead (e.g. the development S/W of Stoke Mandeville). As of today HS2 is under review. I trust that both AVDC and BCC can afford to fully fund their own planned developments and are not reliant on HS2 handouts.



Kind regards


Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2909

Received: 10/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Tattam

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Lately in the Aylesbury area, the traffic situations have become intolerable with Aylesbury becoming totally gridlocked.
The AVDC and BCC have no suitable infrastructure plan to cope with the existing traffic, let alone the traffic that will be generated by the building of the original proposed housing numbers, without the proposed increase in those numbers, D-AGTl to 4 and D-HAL003.
Power supplies on limit and drainage overloaded. Building houses on flood plains, "the water run-off has been calculated". That is a nonsense.
(officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sir,

Comment on the VALP Main Modifications

In connection with the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, I fail to understand the reasoning behind the AVDC and BCC
deleting their declared support for this project. There would appear NO strategic thinking or planning is behind this
decision. I do not believe this is "justified as the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable
alternatives".
Lately in the Aylesbury area, the traffic situations have become intolerable with Aylesbury becoming totally gridlocked.
The AVDC and BCC have no su itable infrastructure plan to cope with the existing traffic, let alone the traffic that will be
generated by the building of the original proposed housing numbers, without the proposed increase in those numbers,
D-AGTl to 4 and D-HAL003.
I totally disagree that this "has been positively prepared, by seeks to meet objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements". Until a suitable road infrastructure is place, Aylesbury will cease to function. The AVDC
and BCC appear to have no ability to plan effectively (certainly not up till now) for the traffic impact of housing around
Aylesbury.
Power supplies on limit and drainage overloaded. Building houses on flood plains, "the water run-off has been
calculated". That is a nonsense.
It appears that Transport for Bucks (BCC) leaves the ownership of connecting new estate roads to existing main roads in
the hands of the developers, who have no idea how to manage this, as on the A41 mid-July 2019, bringing Aylesbury to a
standstill for 3 days. AVDC and BCC need to take ownership of t heir planning from beginning to end. Not leave it to
others.
It doesn't work now, and certainly won't in the future!
Finally, HS2. The plan for D-AGT2 cannot be decided until HS2 has been delivered so I totally disagree that this "has been
positively prepared, seeking to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements" as the AVDC
and BCC cannot possibly know what is going to happen!
Your Faithfully,

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2915

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr David Locke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified plan, the housing numbers for several of the proposed developments have been changed.
This indicates that the housing numbers cannot possibly have been objectively assessed against
infrastructure and development requirements. I cannot see any updated transport assessments that I
would have thought must required if the housing numbers have increased.
The developments concerned are:
D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

Full text:

Dear Sirs

Comment on the VALP main Modifications

Having read through the main modifications to the VALP, there are several areas which I think really do not make any sense:

Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

This is a huge government-funded infrastructure project, which we are told will be the catalyst for development of housing between the two cities.
Surely there must be a duty on local authorities to factor such projects into their local plans?
However, the modifications to the VALP have deleted reference to the Expressway from its Spatial Vision (para 2.4d) and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring co-operation (para 3.39).
The Plan says only that the Expressway may possibly be considered at some point in the future.
The plan no longer declares its support for the Expressway project (modified Policy T3 at paragraph
7.21).
How can this possibly be a sensible attitude to take? A great deal of taxpayers' money will be spent on this project, yet AVDC is turning away from the opportunities that it brings for properly planned development. This demonstrates a complete lack of joined-up strategic thinking.
The modified Plan can't be justified as the most appropriate strategy when you compare it to reasonable alternatives - which must include a consideration of the Expressway.

Housing numbers

In the modified plan, the housing numbers for several of the proposed developments have been changed. This indicates that the housing numbers cannot possibly have been objectively assessed against infrastructure and development requirements. I cannot see any updated transport assessments that I would have thought must required if the housing numbers have increased.
The developments concerned are:
 D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
 D-AGT2 (south west of Stoke Mandeville) from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
 D-AGT3 (includes Woodlands) from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
 D-AGT4 (includes Hampden Fields) from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
 D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

HS2

Area D-AGT2 depends on HS2 going ahead (para 4.44 and other mentions as well). A large portion of AVDC's proposed road system is totally dependent on HS2.
HS2 is currently under review. It may be cancelled. Where would that leave AVDC's plans? The Oakervee report has not been published and no decision has been taken on HS2 yet.
It cannot be possible to approve the Plan unless and until there is a decision on HS2.

Conclusion

The whole thing just looks as though it has been cobbled together by amateurs in an attempt to get round the Inspector's very valid concerns. It ignores the existence of one major infrastructure project and relies on the delivery of a second one that may yet be cancelled. It's a very poor piece of work. Aylesbury deserves better than this.

Yours faithfully,

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2950

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Bulpett

Representation Summary:

Openess and green infrastructure are to be commended together with appropriate housing density as the rest of the site

Full text:

Openess and green infrastructure are to be commended together with appropriate housing density as the rest of the site

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3002

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Branwen Evans

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The provision of 'at least' 1,000 homes is not supported by appropriate planning infrastructure. The plans need to be developed taking into account green belt and AONB rules.

Change suggested by respondent:

Realistic provision of housing with appropriate infrastructure respecting local landscape and AONB designation.

Full text:

In the main VALP, Wendover is identified as a strategic settlement, as is the need to avoid coalescence. Despite that, the plan then identifies Halton for the provision of new homes in Wendover - a small separate settlement with very limited transport links and infrastructure. To say 'at least 1,000 homes' should be provided with no specific details on how schools, medical facilities, shops, transport improvements etc etc would be provided is not a plan at all. The provision of one minor junction improvement is inadequate in response to the very real issues. These roads are already gridlocked at some times of day, Wendover doctors, schools and parking facilities for shops are already over capacity. Before land is taken out of the green belt, especially that of high quality adjacent to the AONB it should be clear that these issues can be addressed and that appropriate development at this scale can be realised. Housing need alone, especially where there are significant issues, does not justify green belt release.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3021

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Mr James Brewer

Representation Summary:

Support subject to minor revisions to housing trajectory and number of homes to be delivered within the plan period.

Full text:

Please see attached document 32735 Crest Nicholson Section 4 and the comments below that set out Crest Nicholson's support, subject to minor changes, to MM088.

Crest Nicholson would recommend that, in line with our comments in Section 4, the policy for RAF Halton be revised to accurately reflect the delay in delivery due to the base not closing until 2025, rather than 2022 as originally envisaged by the DIO during the VALP examination in public. Various aspects of the policy wording need revising:

'At least 625 homes during the Plan period'

No homes to be delivered 2018-2027 and at least 625 homes to be delivered 2027-2033

a. Provision of land for at least 625 dwellings during this plan period'

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3064

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Stuart Holcroft

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Within the VALP, there are many comments about the need for leisure facilities, with some specifically for Halton, Wendover and Aylesbury. However, the map showing plans for the RAF Halton site shows "housing allocation" where there are currently at least 3 grass pitches, a floodlit training area, a sports pavilion and an astroturf multi-sport pitch. These facilities are currently used by several local sports clubs from Aylesbury, Wendover and Tring as well as for charitable and other fund-raising events.
Allocating sports facilities as "housing allocation" is in direct contrast to the Inspector's comments about the need to retain sports facilities.

Change suggested by respondent:

The shaded area showing "housing allocation" should be refined to exclude current sports facilities and pitches.

Full text:

Within the VALP, there are many comments about the need for leisure facilities, with some specifically for Halton, Wendover and Aylesbury. However, the map showing plans for the RAF Halton site shows "housing allocation" where there are currently at least 3 grass pitches, a floodlit training area, a sports pavilion and an astroturf multi-sport pitch. These facilities are currently used by several local sports clubs from Aylesbury, Wendover and Tring as well as for charitable and other fund-raising events.
Allocating sports facilities as "housing allocation" is in direct contrast to the Inspector's comments about the need to retain sports facilities.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3105

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Sue Barber

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

the map shows building on sports facilities land. These are used a great deal by groups outside the area as well as local.
There is a great deal of green space in the village along Halton Lane.

Change suggested by respondent:

retain all sports facilities, land and buildings for community use. Retain green space, green belt, for community use and to preserve outstanding views

Full text:

the map shows building on sports facilities land. These are used a great deal by groups outside the area as well as local.
There is a great deal of green space in the village along Halton Lane.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3153

Received: 19/12/2019

Respondent: Mr R H Garside

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Housing numbers (Ref D-
AGT1 through D-AGT4 and D-HAL003) appear to have been significantly increased
In spite of these increases,
there does not appear to be any updated transport assessment relating to the
new figures. The transport aspect of the VALP has always been in question - now
it just got worse.

Full text:

1)
Housing and Infrastructure; especially road
networks


I am perplexed by the
modifications regarding housing. In particular, the housing numbers (Ref D-
AGT1 through D-AGT4 and D-HAL003) appear to have been significantly increased
or, at the very least, there is now provision for significant increases. (Some,
eg D-AGT4 are actual significant increases.)


In spite of these increases,
there does not appear to be any updated transport assessment relating to the
new figures. The transport aspect of the VALP has always been in question - now
it just got worse.


It is difficult to understand
how this can be regarded as positively prepared planning. What is proposed
seems to demonstrate a complete lack of objective assessment.


2)
Modified Plan Reliant on HS2


It appears that at least some
of the housing development proposals (specifically that defined as D-AGT2) is
contingent upon the HS2 project proceeding, and proceeding to plan in its
present from. This is still far from certain. It is unclear how a key part of
the plan can be dependent on something outside AVDC and BCC control and as such
it does not seem that this aspect of the Plan demonstrates positive preparation
and objective assessment of development and infrastructure.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3166

Received: 05/12/2019

Respondent: Halton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The provisions of the policy should include local retail and small business premises.

Preceding paragraph 4.108 includes the incorrect closing date for RAF Halton and identifies the Wendover as the location when it should be Halton.

Change suggested by respondent:

Add new criteria to policy:

k. Provision of some Retail and small business premises to support the new community as a garden village

Revise para 4.108 to say:

In terms of Halton, approximately 1,000 homes will come forward during the Plan period at RAF Halton Camp after its closure in 2026

Full text:

See attachment

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3286

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Jones Lang LaSalle

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We suggest and propose the following replacement wording:
i. Be planned in a manner which responds to the historic significance of the site, using a heritage-led approach to preserve the significance of heritage assets and their settings, whilst ensuring viable uses consistent with their conservation.
j. Provision of sufficient quantity and quality of sport and recreation provision commensurate to the need generated by the new development.

There is no distinction between the treatment of designated and non-designated heritage assets. There is no statutory requirement to enhance special interest, in respect of listed buildings (officer summary)

Change suggested by respondent:

We suggest and propose the following replacement wording:
i. Be planned in a manner which responds to the historic significance of the site, using a heritage-led approach to preserve the significance of heritage assets and their settings, whilst ensuring viable uses consistent with their conservation.
j. Provision of sufficient quantity and quality of sport and recreation provision commensurate to the need generated by the new development.

Full text:

See attached document which is submitted on behalf of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3341

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Paul Sypko

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

* D-AGT1 has been modified from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"


Based on my experience of the increasing traffic problems in and around the town, and based on the lack of an updated transport assessment based on the increased housing figures, no confidence that Councils planned effectively for the traffic effects Disagree that the modified plan meets objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Full text:

1. Inadequacy of plan to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements

I see that, in the modified Plan, the housing numbers for several large developments have been increased:
* D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

Despite this, the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already heavily congested, and the town centre is prone to gridlock and massive knock-on effects whenever there is a small issue in another nearby area (as recent experiences with burst water mains have shown - see articles at https://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/updated-thames-water-apologises-after-aylesbury-traffic-gridlock-following-burst-water-main-749861 or https://www.mix96.co.uk/news/local/2159450/burst-water-main-causes-aylesbury-gridlock/ for examples). The A41 Aston Clinton Road in particular now has enormous tailbacks for traffic travelling in an westerly direction virtually every weekday morning. This is not an issue of capacity on the A41 itself; it is indicative of too much traffic reaching bottleneck junctions at they enter the town centre (caused in no small part by all the traffic light controlled junctions that have been added in recent years, which I understand were put in place so as to accommodate heavy traffic from Arla lorries which would have been unable to pass effectively through the otherwise efficiently-functioning roundabouts that had until that point been in place and working well for many years).

Based on my experience of the increasing traffic problems in and around the town, and based on the lack of an updated transport assessment based on the increased housing figures, I do not have confidence that AVDC or BCC have planned effectively for the effects on traffic of housing in this area. I would disagree that the modified plan seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

2. Unreasonable expectations of the public during the consultation process

While I don't doubt that the consultation process itself probably complies with the statutory obligations, I would query whether there really has been a true effort to engage the public in this important local matter. Specifically, there appears to have been very little publicity relating to the revised plan and, speaking personally, had I not heard about it via the Hampden Fields Action Group newsletter this December with 15 days to go until the expiry of the consultation period, I'm not sure I would have heard about it at all.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded the two main consultation documents, converted them to Microsoft Word format, and performed a word count. The results were as follows:
* Local plan (proposed submission): 107,808 words spanning 313 pages.
* Local plan (proposed main modifications): 111,874 words spanning 222 pages.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3350

Received: 06/12/2019

Respondent: Keith Ware

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Housing numbers for developments have been raised.
D-AGT1 has raised housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.


Have they been properly considered. Aylesbury is already gridlocked with current traffic, these developments will have a massive negative impact on the roads, congestion, and pollution. Increased demand for Chiltern Railways unmanageable.
Plan cannot be approved until that final decision is made on HS2.

Full text:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
* D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 (south west of Stoke Mandeville) from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 (includes Woodlands) from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 (includes Hampden Fields) from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

What do you make of this?
What are BCC's and AVDC's plans to manage the vast increase in the traffic impact of housing will have in this area? Have they been properly considered. Aylesbury is already gridlocked with current traffic, these developments will have a massive negative impact on the roads, congestion, and pollution. On top of this, the increased demand for Chiltern Railways will be unmanageable. The station car parks are already full and the trains cannot cope with current demand.

I strongly disagree that these plans have been positively prepared, or seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

HS2

The area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet no decision as to this project has been taken. The Plan cannot be approved until that final decision is made.

Again, I strongly disagree that these plans have been positively prepared, or seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

I wish for my objections to be recorded and duly considered.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3411

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

ADVISORY
D-HAL003 RAF Halton
Wording should be added to the site specific description to highlight the neighbouring sites of ecological value, and to ensure they are not encroached onto.
The 50% green infrastructure on site should focus on providing a similar experience to the adjacent Ancient Woodland to keep people on-site. Mitigation options for recreational disturbance can include offsite works such as signage, fencing and footpath creation within the protected sites to minimise recreational disturbance such as trampling of vegetation, dog fouling, and disturbance of wildlife.

Full text:

Planning Consultation: Aylesbury Vale Local Plan - Main Modifications and Sustainability Appraisal Addendum
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 05 November 2019
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
We would like to thank you for taking many of our comments from previous consultations on board.
Natural England is of the opinion that as it stands this Local Plan does not meet all of the tests of soundness. Natural England's primary concerns centre around Policy NE1 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity, as well as some of the new wording regarding Green Infrastructure.
Once this is addressed we would be happy to review our advice with regards to soundness of the plan.
We have also included some advisory comments, which should constitute best practice. Most are minor changes concerned with wording of certain policies.
QUESTIONS OF SOUNDNESS
Policy NE1 - Biodiversity and Geodiversity
The amalgamation of the biodiversity policies has resulted in a policy and supporting text which is currently unclear and open to interpretation. We are supportive of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership's (NEP) representations on this policy and supporting text. In particular;
* In (a), clarity needs to be provided that sites of national and international importance are being referred to here, as well as protected species. This section currently only mentions Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Inconsistent with NPPF para. 170.
* In (d), greater clarity on implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy is required, to ensure on-site avoidance, mitigation and compensation is implemented prior to off-site. Ineffective and inconsistent with NPPF paras. 32, 174.


* In (e), definition of what is meant by 'regional' or 'local sites' - designated Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and Local Geological Sites (LGS). Inconsistent with NPPF para 171.
* In (g), we require further information about expectation for planning when a development is proposed on a Priority Habitat. When this is the case, any mitigation should not be off-site. Where no Priority Habitat is involved, mitigation is expected to follow the mitigation hierarchy (as outlined in (d)). Several of the site allocations include or are directly adjacent to areas of Priority Habitat, so it is vital that this policy provides greater clarity which is less open to interpretation. NPPF para. 174.
* In (g), Natural England would like to see removal of section detailing where advantages to the local community outweigh adverse impacts to habitats and species. This is inconsistent with the NPPF and plays no role in protecting and enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity. NPPF para 175.

Unsound on the basis that it is ineffective and inconsistent with national policy.
Green Infrastructure (p.256) and Policy I1
In addition to the below comments on Green Infrastructure (GI), we are also supportive of the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes NEP's additional representations on reinstating support for the NEP's GI Vision and Principles 2016 document.
Natural England does not agree with the VALP's modified definition of GI to include market squares and other hard surfaced areas as GI. This inclusion is contradictory to national policy and recognised definitions and practice of GI - including but not restricted to Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) definition of GI (July 2019), European GI Strategy, ANGSt guidance of 'natural' greenspace, and local definitions - including the Aylesbury Vale Green Infrastructure Strategy (2011) and the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Natural Environment Partnership's 2016 definitions.
Inclusion of areas of hardstanding as 'green infrastructure' will lead to GI requirements being fulfilled without any sign of real green space. It will allow interpretation of the policy to lead to less green areas being provided, and therefore less ecosystem and natural capital services brought forward.
Further to the above, the inclusion of transport links (in Policy T6) such as existing walking and cycle routes as GI is similarly incompatible with generally accepted definitions of GI. Natural England recognises that these routes could have the potential to provide GI connectivity, through such measures as tree or hedge planting along the route, but are not generally considered GI in their own right.
Unsound on the basis that the modifications are unjustified, ineffective and inconsistent with national policy.
ADVISORY
D-WHA001 Shenley Park
Due to the areas of ancient woodland (irreplaceable habitat), deciduous woodland (priority habitat) and 'no main habitat but additional habitats present' (priority habitat) on the site, we advise wording is put in to ensure habitats are not damaged or destroyed. In addition, we advise removal of 'where practicable' in regards to retention of habitats.
D-HAL003 RAF Halton
Wording should be added to the site specific description to highlight the neighbouring sites of ecological value, and to ensure they are not encroached onto.
The 50% green infrastructure on site should focus on providing a similar experience to the adjacent Ancient Woodland to keep people on-site. Mitigation options for recreational disturbance can include offsite works such as signage, fencing and footpath creation within the protected sites to minimise recreational disturbance such as trampling of vegetation, dog fouling, and disturbance of wildlife.
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
As the main Policy for the Garden Town, we recommend addition to D1 to require all associated development to conserve the biodiversity on site and provide a biodiversity net gain through multifunctional green infrastructure. this is supported within the NPPF (paras. 170, 175 (d). and will bring the Policy in line with Policies NE1-9 and I1.
Site Allocations
Several of our points can be applied across all of the site allocation policies;
* We recommend removal of all mentions of 'where practicable' in reference to the retention of existing habitats, woodland and hedgerows, and creation of linkages of surrounding wildlife assets. In order to comply with the NPPF, para. 175, 'if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused'. The NPPF also stresses the importance (para 171) of taking a 'strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure'. By including the words 'where practicable' you allow for the possibly of destruction of priority habitats and the loss of biodiversity.
* It is Natural England's opinion that the vast majority of the site allocations should require an ecological management plan and subsequent ecological mitigation to be provided. Unless you know there is mitigation required, then remove the 'as required'. The discrepancy on how biodiversity is considered between site allocations is currently inconsistent with NPPF para. 170 and Policy NE1.
* All site allocations should require the provision of a measurable net gain in biodiversity, to remain consistent with para. 170 (d) of the NPPF.

Habitats Regulations Assessment
Natural England provided a response on 3rd June 2019 agreeing with the conclusions reached in the HRA and Appropriate Assessment.
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact me at eleanor.sweet-escott@naturalengland.org.uk. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

Yours Sincerely,
Eleanor Sweet-Escott
Lead Adviser, Sustainable Development
Thames Solent Team

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3417

Received: 17/01/2020

Respondent: Wendover Parish Council

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

VALP Main Modifications consultation
Response from Wendover Parish Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 NE4 - AONB is more protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3460

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The proposed closure date of RAF Halton will need to be clarified, in order to inform the subsequent delivery timetable for development at the site. There are a number of tasks that need to be completed following closure before development can commence at the RAF Halton site. It is considered that a more realistic delivery timetable and annual delivery rate for development at RAF Halton would mean that only 425 dwellings would be delivered from the site during the plan period i.e. 575 dwellings fewer than currently predicted

Change suggested by respondent:

requested that the closure date for RAF Halton is confirmed, and that the identified date is consistent throughout PSVALP. It is requested that a more realistic delivery timetable and annual delivery rate is applied to development at RAF Halton, taking into account the number of tasks that need to be completed following closure and before development can commence; the redevelopment of the site is complex and will require specialist input and consultation with a range of stakeholders and statutory consultees.

It is considered that additional land needs to be identified to address the under delivery of housing from the RAF Halton site. It is requested that an additional allocation in North East Aylesbury Vale is made i.e. at Site Ref. NLV020.

Full text:

The SWMK Consortium's representations to Main Modifications MM016 seeks clarity and consistency on the proposed closure date of RAF Halton, and for that date to be consistent with the predicted housing delivery at the site in the housing trajectory.

It is predicted in Main Modification MM088 that 1,000 dwellings would be delivered at the RAF Halton site between 2023 and 2033. Appendix A (referred to in Main Modification MM023 and the VALP Housing Land Supply Document July 2018 [Doc Ref. ED 213] also include the RAF Halton site in the housing trajectory. It is predicted that housing would be delivered at the site from 2024/25, and that once established 125 dwellings per annum would be delivered from the proposed development.

Firstly, it is not realistic for housing to be delivered at the RAF Halton site before it has closed and operations have ceased. As set out above, the proposed closure date of RAF Halton will need to be clarified, in order to inform the subsequent delivery timetable for development at the site. Secondly, it is noted in the DIO's Matter 15r Hearing Statement (prepared by JLL June 2018) that housing would be delivered two years after the closure of the site i.e. two years from 2022 in 2024/25, and that approximately 100 dwellings per year would be delivered at the site from 2024/25. It should be noted that the previously stated annual delivery rates for development at the site are different to those now predicted. It is likely that the conversion of the buildings at RAF Halton will require some specialist input because they are heritage assets and as such construction will take longer to complete contracts, particularly for a complex and sensitive site such as RAF Halton.

As set out in the SWMK Consortium's Matter 15r Hearing Statement there are a number of tasks that need to be completed following closure before development can commence at the RAF Halton site. It will take time to complete technical surveys and the design and layout of the proposed development, discuss and agree the proposed development with statutory consultees, consult with residents, prepare and obtain approval for a masterplan, prepare and submit a planning application, submit reserved matters and discharge conditions, market the site to developers and housebuilders, and complete infrastructure
It is considered that, based on the above comments, a more realistic delivery timetable and annual delivery rate for the proposed development at RAF Halton is as follows: site closure and operations cease in 2025/26; pre-development planning tasks complete by 2027/28 i.e. two years after closure; site preparation, including decontamination and infrastructure works, complete by 2028/29; housing delivery to commence in 2028/29, and assume 25 dwellings completed; and, annual housing delivery rate of 100 dwellings per annum from 2029/30 i.e. housing delivery rate identical to that assumed by DIO in 2018. The outcome of these amendments are that only 425 dwellings would be delivered from the RAF Halton site during the plan period i.e. 575 dwellings fewer than currently predicted.

In these circumstances, it is considered that additional land needs to be identified to address the under delivery of housing from the RAF Halton site.

As set out in the SWMK Consortium's representations, it is requested that an additional allocation in North East Aylesbury Vale is made i.e. at Site Ref. NLV020.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3492

Received: 05/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Michaela Hutchins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Including 'at least' will mean more housing on RAF Halton which will have an impact on infrastructure which should be taken into account

Change suggested by respondent:

Include better infrastructure for RAF Halton

Full text:

With regards to modifications in the plan to housing numbers specifically D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

As a resident of Halton I am concerned that there is no mention of infrastructure considerations given this change. Wendover and Halton is already a heavily congested area (especially towards the High Street). What are you plans to accommodate? It isn't acceptable to simply adjust housing numbers without the required adjustments for the area infrastructure wise. Given the already high number of houses is this acceptable to raise it further?

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3514

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Clover

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Add following criteria to policy D-HAL003
* Look to encourage the provision of employment and training uses either on the site or on neighbouring MOD, or other land, where appropriate, utilising the existing or new buildings or facilities where possible
* Look to develop appropriate additional training and education facilities in tandem with other development of the site to relieve local pressures on existing facilities

Change suggested by respondent:

Add following criteria to policy D-HAL003
* Look to encourage the provision of employment and training uses either on the site or on neighbouring MOD, or other land, where appropriate, utilising the existing or new buildings or facilities where possible
* Look to develop appropriate additional training and education facilities in tandem with other development of the site to relieve local pressures on existing facilities

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3515

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Clover

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Add following to D-HAL003

As part of the work of the new Buckinghamshire Council, an up to date assessment of traffic needs, and parking provision, is made for both the site and the local communities of Wendover and Halton, and any other commuter station such as Tring, to enable local highway network and parking provision to be improved.

Amend (d) to read (i) "Provision of new bus routes (for Tring, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury, Amersham, and Princes Risborough) and expanded times of bus services (including more weekend and evening services)" and (ii) Provision of expanded rail services

Change suggested by respondent:

Add following to D-HAL003

As part of the work of the new Buckinghamshire Council, an up to date assessment of traffic needs, and parking provision, is made for both the site and the local communities of Wendover and Halton, and any other commuter station such as Tring, to enable local highway network and parking provision to be improved.

Amend (d) to read (i) "Provision of new bus routes (for Tring, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville, Aylesbury, Amersham, and Princes Risborough) and expanded times of bus services (including more weekend and evening services)" and (ii) Provision of expanded rail services

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3523

Received: 13/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Thompson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Inappropriate hints about lifting the Green Belt still remain in the plan (3.32 & 4.132) and should be deleted as per the Inspector's requirement.
RAF Halton is in Halton not Wendover and the plan should not say otherwise.
The proposed development is 1.4km to 2km from Wendover which is too far for walking to be practical so references to walking to Wendover from the site should be deleted.

Change suggested by respondent:

Hints about lifting the Green Belt (3.32 & 4.132) should be deleted.
RAF Halton is in Halton not Wendover and the plan should not say otherwise.
References to walking to Wendover from the site should be deleted.

Full text:

I have reviewed the Modified VALP with regard to the development at Halton and I have the following comments to make.

Pleased to see the revised wording in the VALP on protecting heritage and the existing sports facilities. There are still some errors that need correcting to make the plan sound.

 Hints about lifting the Green Belt at Halton. At the inspection hearing the developers made many comments that having hints that the green belt status of the land may be removed in the future would raise questions about its soundness. Their rationale was that developers would just landbank(not build any houses on) the land in the hope it was lifted and they could maximise their profit. AVDC agreed to remove all hints and innuendo's that the green belt status will be lifted in the next plan or subsequent plans.
This has not happened, and these hints should be removed. 3.32 'Whilst there are arguments for releasing the RAF Halton site, because of the change in circumstances and the future work to be done around how the site is developed after its closure, it is considered premature to release from the Green Belt.' This implies that its removal will happen in the future, I suggest the words in bold are deleted. 4.132 'Therefore it is considered that redevelopment and/or refurbishment of existing buildings in the first phase of development would be appropriate and not require that the site be removed from the Green Belt at this stage.' I suggest the bold words are deleted.
 The implication that the development on the RAF Camp is in Wendover' The implication that the developments at RAF Halton are to become a residential suburb of Wendover is factually wrong, could result in bad planning decisions and may lead to a lack of proper garden village infrastructure.. While the parish of Halton abuts the parish of Wendover this does not justify this contention. As the land being disposed of by the DIO surrounds Halton Village and is all in the parish of Halton The facts do not support this stance. It appears that the planners are ignoring the facts in order to justify Wendover's position. In para S2. e Wendover will accommodate around 1,132 new homes with 1,000 new homes at Halton Camp which is now confirmed to be closing in 2022 recognising the sustainability of Wendover and the railway station. I would suggest this is replaced by the following sentence: Wendover will accommodate 132 new homes and Halton will provide around 1000 new homes at the RAF Camp which is now confirmed to start being drawn down in 2022. 4.128 because it is in reasonable walking and cycling distance of Wendover's services and facilities, it is appropriate that it be redeveloped for housing and other associated uses.
Lying on the Wendover side of the boundary between Halton and Wendover parishes is the Princess Marygate development on the site of the old RAF hospital site. This development is at a minimum 150m closer to Wendover than any new homes delivered on the RAF Halton site could be. The inspector when reviewing the Princess Marygate development stated in Part 2 of his report para 8.1.26 The former hospital site is some 1.25 km from the centre of Wendover. Although within walking distance for most pedestrian trips, I fear the site may be beyond a reasonable limit for many residents wishing to make a return journeys especially the elderly, those with children or those returning with heavy shopping.. The RAF site itself where homes will be developed range from 150m to over a kilometre further away from the Princess Marygate development and are between 1.4km and 2.kms from the centre of Wendover with an even more hilly walk. I would suggest the words 'walking and ' are deleted as they are factually wrong.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3540

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. Although the narrative of the Jacobs Report (Countywide Local
Plan Modelling Support Phase 3 Final 160817) claims that 1,000
houses at Halton are included, Figure 3-A in the report shows
virtually no housing for Halton. As a result, the Inspector can have
no confidence that this part of the modified Plan with major
impact has been properly considered.
2. Paragraph 5.2.1.6 in that same report shows significant travel time
increases in and around Wendover. The acknowledged limitations
in the Countywide model mean that these have most likely been
underestimated. Once again, no mitigation is offered or been
modelled in Countywide model runs.
3. This is also relevant as the A413 from this site into Aylesbury is a
Priority Congestion Management Corridor, which threatens the
modified Plan aim of safeguarding "a network of cycling and
walking links to and from Aylesbury Town..." (MM088 para e)

Change suggested by respondent:

Full remedial action to correct the errors and gaps in the transport evidence base and modelling,
followed by a revised set of proposals including funding plans and timetable, with public consultation
on these modifications.

Full text:

see attachments