Aylesbury Vale Area

MM101

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 96

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2755

Received: 12/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Lydern Buhagiar

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

MM101 inserts the words 'at least' 170 houses and increases the size of the allocation. Maids Moreton has been categorized as a medium village in the settlement hierarchy. With only 4 key criteria it is a small village (I saw ED228 which sets out the error in CD/MIS/003). MM283 allocates a further 12 houses to Maids Moreton. 12 houses is sufficient, 182 houses is way too many for a small village. Because of the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy, site MMO006 is not legally compliant or sound. It is not consistent with the para41 of the Inspector's Interim findings which assumes a soundness in the Council's approach to identifying allocations.

Change suggested by respondent:

Site MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP so that the VALP is legally compliant and sound

Full text:

MM101 inserts the words 'at least' 170 houses and increases the size of the allocation. Maids Moreton has been categorized as a medium village in the settlement hierarchy. With only 4 key criteria it is a small village (I saw ED228 which sets out the error in CD/MIS/003). MM283 allocates a further 12 houses to Maids Moreton. 12 houses is sufficient, 182 houses is way too many for a small village. Because of the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy, site MMO006 is not legally compliant or sound. It is not consistent with the para41 of the Inspector's Interim findings which assumes a soundness in the Council's approach to identifying allocations.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2757

Received: 20/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Bloss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly designated as a "Medium Village". I refer you to Examination Document 228 which clearly demonstrates that Maids Moreton meets 4 of the criteria. There is therefore a false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in reality it has 4. The allocation of such a large site in what is a "Small Village" is unsound and not legally compliant. It is not aligned with the Inspector's Interim Findings, reference paragraph 41 that this allocation has widespread support. We now have 12 further houses in MM283 which on its own is adequate.

Change suggested by respondent:

MMO006 should be removed from the VALP and recognised as unsuitable

Full text:

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly designated as a "Medium Village". I refer you to Examination Document 228 which clearly demonstrates that Maids Moreton meets 4 of the criteria. There is therefore a false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in reality it has 4. The allocation of such a large site in what is a "Small Village" is unsound and not legally compliant. It is not aligned with the Inspector's Interim Findings, reference paragraph 41 that this allocation has widespread support. We now have 12 further houses in MM283 which on its own is adequate.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2768

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith Lewcock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I object to the VALP Proposed Main Modifications because of Non-Compliance or Issues with the following (all references contained in my full representation):-
1. HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21, 2.15; Appendix 2.
2. PPG paras 3-008, 3-019.
3. Settlement Hierarchy (para 5.16).
4. Inspector's Interim Findings paras 36, 41.
5. NPPF paras 17, 34, 112, 129, 132, 141, 151, 155, 158, 165, 182.
6. VALP paras 4.120 (now para 4.1), 4.152 (now para 4.147), 4.153 (now para 4.148) 9.51.
I consider that the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to ensure that the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

I object to the VALP Proposed Main Modifications for the following reasons:-

1. The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not completely follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15. Furthermore, it does not meet the factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of a site for development (PPG para 3-019). The whole allocation is not legally compliant.

2. The v4 modification has added the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton is not a 'medium village' due to the incorrect assumption in the Settlement Hierarchy (para 5.16) that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria - it only has 4. Maids Moreton is, therefore, a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18: see ED228. The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not legally compliant, and is not compatible with the statement in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings that the Council's capacity-led approach to identify of allocations has received widespread support, because this has not been the case in Maids Moreton. In addition, a further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in MM283, which raises the total number of proposed dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. For a 'small' village the allocation of 182 houses is hugely disproportionate to the size of the settlement. The allocation in MM283 of 12 houses alone is adequate for a small settlement. I do not agree with the modifications in MM101 of increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170, and the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy renders the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

3. The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 as inadequate consideration has been given to highways and public transport, which also concurs with the assertion in the Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. On the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

4. There has been a complete lack of public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as 'suitable' for development, and neither was there any consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Buckingham Town Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. The consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as 'unsuitable' for development. The only consultation thereafter was the public consultation on the Submission VALP, which consulted on the allocation of the site in the Submission VALP not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA. Relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence would therefore be in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. It is also inconsistent with HELAA v4 appendix 2. I do not agree with increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 and the allocation itself is unsound and not legally compliant.

5. The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v 4 is not based on any evidence, and is therefore contrary to VALP para 4.120 (now para 4.1). If reliance on this source of evidence was used for the allocation of the site, it would be in breach of NPPF paras 158 and 182.

6. This Final Consultation includes consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. The allocation of site MMO006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 (now para 4.147), which claims the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. In fact, the Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows site MMO006 as being the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. Allocating site MMO006 in the VALP is in breach of NPPF paras 151 and 165, and makes para 4.152 (now para 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect.

7. The allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to the protection of heritage buildings specifically in Main Street, so is contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129 and 132. The allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

8. Inadequate consideration has been given to the rural setting of site MMO006, which breaches NPPF (paras 17 and 112), and allocation of the site is inconsistent with VALP para 9.51. In particular, VALP para 9.51 has been informed by HELAA v3 (2016) whilst site allocations in the VALP have been informed by HELAA v4 (2017). Para 9.51 is therefore factually incorrect if site MMO006 remains as an allocated site in the VALP, and keeping site MMO006 in the VALP makes the VALP unsound.

9. There is no evidence that a Groundwater Run-Off Assessment has been undertaken. As our driveway and path have been inundated on a number of occasions, the most recent being 14th November, the lack of an Assessment of the impact of 170 houses demonstrates further that the whole process is unsound.

10. There has been unfairness during the Examination Stage whereby regulation 19 objectors were initially informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP, but were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position with regard to the allocation of this site prior to holding a hearing session. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized and remains procedurally unfair. On this basis, I do not agree with the modifications but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2771

Received: 24/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Mandy Lewcock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I object to the VALP Proposed Main Modifications because of Non-Compliance or Issues with the following (all references contained in my full representation):-
1. HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21, 2.15; Appendix 2.
2. PPG paras 3-008, 3-019.
3. Settlement Hierarchy (para 5.16).
4. Inspector's Interim Findings paras 36, 41.
5. NPPF paras 17, 34, 112, 151, 155, 158, 165, 182.
6. VALP paras 4.120 (now para 4.1), 4.152 (now para 4.147), 4.153 (now para 4.148) 9.51.
I consider that the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to ensure that the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

I object to the VALP Proposed Main Modifications for the following reasons:-

 Insufficient consideration has been given to the rural setting of site MMO006, which is in contravention of NPPF (paras 17 and 112), and allocation of the site is inconsistent with VALP para 9.51. In particular, VALP para 9.51 has been informed by HELAA v3 (2016) whilst site allocations in the VALP have been informed by HELAA v4 (2017). Para 9.51 is therefore wrong if site MMO006 remains as an allocated site in the VALP, and retaining site MMO006 in the VALP makes the VALP unsound.

 The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 as inadequate consideration has been given to highways and public transport; refer to the assertion in the Inspector's Interim Findings para 36, which he says makes the VALP unsound. The unsuitability of the narrow lanes to take the additional traffic from this development is a major source of concern - there has been an RTA fatality in the recent past. On the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

 This Final Consultation includes consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. The allocation of site MMO006 is in conflict with VALP para 4.152 (now para 4.147), which claims that the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. In fact, the Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows site MMO006 as being the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. Why has this anomaly been allowed? Allocating site MMO006 in the VALP is in contravention with NPPF paras 151 and 165, and makes para 4.152 (now para 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect. This alone causes the allocation to be unsound and not legally compliant.

 There has been a total lack of public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as 'suitable' for development; neither was there any consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Buckingham Town Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. The consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as 'unsuitable' for development. The only consultation thereafter was the public consultation on the Submission VALP, which consulted on the allocation of the site in the Submission VALP not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA. Relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence would therefore be in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. It is also incompatible with HELAA v4 appendix 2. I do not agree with increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170, and I consider that the allocation itself is unsound and not legally compliant.

 During the Examination Stage regulation 19 objectors were initially informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP, but were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position with regard to the allocation of this site prior to holding a hearing session. This is manifestly wrong. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized and remains procedurally unfair. Because of this, I neither agree with the modifications nor accept that the allocation itself is sound and legally compliant.

 The designation of site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v 4 is not based on any evidence, and is therefore conflicting with VALP para 4.120 (now para 4.1). If this source of evidence was used for the allocation of the site, it would be in contravention of NPPF paras 158 and 182. The allocation itself is unsound and not legally compliant.

 I have been unable to find any evidence that a robust Groundwater Run-Off Assessment has been undertaken. As our driveway and path have been inundated on many occasions, the most recent being 14th November, the lack of an Assessment of the impact of 170 houses in the vicinity demonstrates further that the whole process is unsound.

 The v4 modification has added the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18: see ED228 - it only has 4 key criteria. The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not legally compliant. In addition, a further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in MM283, which raises the total number of proposed dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses are excessive even for a 'medium' village, which Maids Moreton is not. I do not agree with the modifications in MM101 of increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170, and the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy renders the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

 The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not properly follow HELAA Methodology (paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15). It does not meet the factors that should be considered when assessing the suitability of a site for development (PPG para 3-019). The whole allocation, therefore, is not legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2772

Received: 24/11/2019

Respondent: Ms Noeleen Grima

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I have read through the Sustainability Appraisal and Technical Annex in relation to site MMO006. I note that according to the Technical Annex, site MMO006 in fact the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. The evaluation of 'community sustainability' shows that it is still the least sustainable, even with the addition of a playpark. VALP para 4.152 is therefore not correct, and including the allocation of site MMO006 is therefore contrary to NPPF para 165.

Change suggested by respondent:

Site MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP so that the VALP is legally compliant and sound

Full text:

I have read through the Sustainability Appraisal and Technical Annex in relation to site MMO006. I note that according to the Technical Annex, site MMO006 in fact the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. The evaluation of 'community sustainability' shows that it is still the least sustainable, even with the addition of a playpark. VALP para 4.152 is therefore not correct, and including the allocation of site MMO006 is therefore contrary to NPPF para 165.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2799

Received: 15/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Greg Sheed

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The HELAA methodology has not been properly followed in determining the sustainability of site MMO006 - in particular there is no evidence that Grade 1, 2 & 3 agricultural land quality has been considered in accordance with para 2.15 of the methodology. Extending the size of the plot further exacerbates the non-compliance. But the whole plot is not sound or legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

Site MMO006 must be deleted from the VALP

Full text:

The HELAA methodology has not been properly followed in determining the sustainability of site MMO006 - in particular there is no evidence that Grade 1, 2 & 3 agricultural land quality has been considered in accordance with para 2.15 of the methodology. Extending the size of the plot further exacerbates the non-compliance. But the whole plot is not sound or legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2807

Received: 21/11/2019

Respondent: Mr David Flegg

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

This modification has included "at least" 170 houses. Maids Moreton is incorrectly listed as a medium village. It is falsely asserted in the Settlement Hierarchy (5.16) that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria. Maids Moreton is a small village meeting only four. It is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings. I ref to ED228. VALP para 4.153 illustrates that 170 houses is excessive.

Change suggested by respondent:

We want MMO006 to be deleted for the VALP to be sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

This modification has included "at least" 170 houses. Maids Moreton is incorrectly listed as a medium village. It is falsely asserted in the Settlement Hierarchy (5.16) that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria. Maids Moreton is a small village meeting only four. It is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings. I ref to ED228. VALP para 4.153 illustrates that 170 houses is excessive.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2808

Received: 20/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Catherine M Flegg

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The VALP has not adequately looked at transport in relation to MMO006. This is contrary to NPPF para 34. This is in line with the assertion in the Inspectors Interim Finding para 36 which he said make the VALP unsound. Increasing the size of the plot and not limiting to the houses of 170 is not sound or legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

I would like to see policy MMO006 deleted from the VALP

Full text:

The VALP has not adequately looked at transport in relation to MMO006. This is contrary to NPPF para 34. This is in line with the assertion in the Inspectors Interim Finding para 36 which he said make the VALP unsound. Increasing the size of the plot and not limiting to the houses of 170 is not sound or legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2809

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Ms Lyn Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

A) The allocation of site MMO 006 does not provide sufficient provisions for the
protection of heritage buildings
B) The designation of the site MMO 006 as suitable for development in HELAA v4 is not
evidence based
C) The HELAA methodology was not carried out correctly.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Policy MMO 006 must be deleted from the VALP to make VALP sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

A) The allocation of site MMO 006 does not provide sufficient provisions for the protection of heritage buildings and therefore is contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129, and 132.The allocation is at odds with NPPF para 141.

B) The designation of the site MMO 006 as suitable for development in HELAA v4 is notevidence based and is therefore contrary to VALP para 4.120 (Now para 4.1)
Reliance on this source of non evidence for the allocation of the site is contrary to NPPF
paras 158 and 182.
I do not agree with the modifications of increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting
the number of houses to 170. However note that the allocation of the site is not sound or
legally compliant.
C) The HELAA methodology was not carried out correctly.
The designation of the site MMO 006 in HELAA v4 does not properly follow HELM
methodology paras 1.20 , 1.21, and 2.15 . It also falls short of PPG para 3-019.
Therefore the whole allocation is not legally compliant.
The modifications make the situation worse.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2818

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Mr K B Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I do not agree with the changes in MM 101 that increase the size of the plot size and no longer limit the number of houses to 170(Officer's summary).

1 )MMO 006 is incorrectly catagorised as a medium village.
2) AVDC deciding unilaterally to place MMO 006 into VALP
3) Lack of attention devoted to Highways and Public transport.
4) Sustainability conflicting positions by AVDC
5) Rural Setting statements at odds with VALP para 9.51
6)HELAA v4 designation of site MMO 006 as suitable for development.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO 006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to be able to make VALP
sound and legally compliant

Full text:

Representation follows:-
1) Subject : categorised incorrectly as a medium village I do not agree with the changes in MM 101 that increase the size of the plot and no longer limit the number of houses to 170.
The errors in the Settlement Hierarchy make the
allocation of site MMO 006 unsound and not legally compliant .
Maids Moreton (MM) has been categorised incorrectly as a medium village because the false statement in the Settlement Hierarchy Para 5.16 stating that MM has 6 key criteria. The truth is that MM only has 4 key criteria. Therefore MM is a smaller village as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy Para 5.18 ( I refer to ED 228)
Therefore the housing allocation of MMO 006 is unsound and not legally compliant and does not agree with the statement in Para 41 of the Inspectors Interim findings .MM did not support the allocations.
VALP para 4.153 ( now para 4.148 ) shows that 170 houses is excessive for a medium village.

2) Subject: AVDC deciding unilaterally to place MMO 006 into VALP
The process adopted by AVDC in changing the status of MMO 006 in VALP is
obviously unsound and not legally compliant ( See ED 227)
Background : During the examination stage , the regulation 19 objectors were informed that site MMO 006 would be deleted from the VALP. Then AVDC changed its position on the allocation of MMO 006 prior to the hearing session and the objectors were not made aware that the hearing session was to be held.
AVDC tried to cover this unfairness by stating in an e mail to the inspector dated 25/3/19 that MMO 006 had been erroneously included on the agenda for Session Hearing 34. The allocation of MMO 006 has not been openly discussed.

3) Subject: Lack of attention devoted to Highways and Public transport.
The allocation of site MMO 006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 .
The statements made in the Inspector's interim findings para 36 state that the VALP is unsound . I do not agree with the modifications of increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the no. of houses to170 on the grounds that it contradicts the NPPF in detail and the whole allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

4) Subject: Sustainablity
Technical Annex to the VALP sustainability appraisal states that site MMO 006 is
the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. This document is contained in the Final
consultation . The allocation of site MMO 006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 ( now para 4.147) by claiming that the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. Allocating site MMO 006 in the VALP contradicts NPPF paras 151 and 165, and makes para 4.152( now 4.147) totally contradictory.

5) Subject : Rural setting of site MMO 006
Insufficient attention has been given to the rural setting of site MMO 006 in allocating the site into VALP. The NPPF paras 17 and 112 are at odds with VALP para 9.51. VALP para 9.51 has been determined by HELAA v3(2016) and the site allocations in the VALP have been determined by HELAA v4(2017) .
Para9.51 has incorrect facts if MMO 006 is in VALP. Therefore VALP is unsound.
6) Subject : HELAA v4 designation of site MMO 006 as suitable for development.
There was no public or parish or town council consultation on this topic.
Therefore this designation is in breach of NPPF para 155 and HELAA methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21 and the PPG para 3-008. It also breaches of HELM v4 appendix 2.
I do not agree with the modifications of increasing the size of the plot and no longer
limiting the number of houses to 170 , and more importantly the allocation of the site is not sound or legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2823

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Celia Thorne

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The modification has at least 170 houses. According to ED228 Maids Moreton only has 4 key criteria and not 6. The allocation of site MMO006 in a small village is unsound and not legally compliant. I do not agree with the modification in MM101.

Change suggested by respondent:

I feel that MMO006 on the VALP should be removed from the VALP

Full text:

The modification has at least 170 houses. According to ED228 Maids Moreton only has 4 key criteria and not 6. The allocation of site MMO006 in a small village is unsound and not legally compliant. I do not agree with the modification in MM101.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2824

Received: 16/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Julia Roberts

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Inadequate consideration has been given to highways, public transport, contrary to NPPF para 34, and in line with Inspector's Interim Findings para 36. Inadequate consideration has been given to the rural setting of site MMO006 contrary to NPPF paras 17 and 112

Full text:

Site MMO006 is NOT suitable for development as described HELAAv4.
HELAAv3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as 'unsuitable' for development.
There was no public consultation with any of the local councils MMPC, BCC, FPM contrary to NPFF para 155 HELAA Methodology paras 1.20/21 and PPF para 3-008. I do not agree with the modifications.

Inadequate consideration has been given to highways, public transport, contrary to NPPF para 34, and in line with Inspector's Interim Findings para 36.

Inadequate consideration has been given to the rural setting of site MMO006 contrary to NPPF paras 17 and 112

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2825

Received: 16/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Roberts

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Site MMO006 is not suitable for development in HELLAv4 and contrary to VALP para4.120(now para4.1). Allocation of this site is in breach of NPPF paras 158/182. Modifications to plot size and number of houses is neither sound or legally compliant.

There was no public consultation on amendment to HELAAv4, changing site from 'unsuitable' to 'suitable' for development, or consultation with Maids Moreton and Foscote Parish Council or BCC . HELAAv3 showed total support for site being 'unsuitable' for development in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20/1.21 and PPG para 3-008. Proposal is neither sound or legally compliant

Change suggested by respondent:

The development of this site should be removed from HELLA v4, as the change from the HELAA v3 represented overwhelming support for the site being designated as unsuitable for development.

Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in the settlement hierarchy para 5.18, and not suitable for a housing development of this size.

Full text:

Site MMO006 is not suitable for development in HELLAv4 and contrary to VALP para4.120(now para4.1). Allocation of this site is in breach of NPPF paras 158/182. Modifications to plot size and number of houses is neither sound or legally compliant.

There was no public consultation on amendment to HELAAv4, changing site from 'unsuitable' to 'suitable' for development, or consultation with Maids Moreton and Foscote Parish Council or BCC . HELAAv3 showed total support for site being 'unsuitable' for development in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20/1.21 and PPG para 3-008. It also breaches HELAAv4 app2. Proposal is neither sound or legally compliant

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2826

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Mr R Thorne

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

There hasn't been adequate consideration given to public transport or highways for the site MMO006 and is contrary to NPPF PARA.34 and is also contrary to the inspectors interim findings in para 35 to 37. I don't agree with the modifications as it is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Site MMO006 should be removed from the Plan

Full text:

There hasn't been adequate consideration given to public transport or highways for the site MMO006 and is contrary to NPPF PARA.34 and is also contrary to the inspectors interim findings in para 35 to 37. I don't agree with the modifications as it is unsound and not legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2827

Received: 19/11/2019

Respondent: Ms Pauline Kneafsey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I do not agree with the modifications of MM101 - increasing the size of the plot and taking away the limit of 170 houses. The inaccuracy of calling the village a 'medium village' in the Settlement Hierarchy makes the allocation of site MMO006 totally unsound.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

Maids Moreton is not a 'medium village'. Only 4 key criteria exist in Maids Moreton not 6 as incorrectly categorised. As defined in the Settlement Hierarchy,para 5.18 (ED 228), Maids Moreton is in fact a 'smaller village'.

The Council's capacity-led approach in identifying allocations, attempts to swamp Maids Moreton with a proposed excessive increase of 50.8%. Listed 'medium' villages' proposed increase range from 9%-37%. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates this fact. Maids Moreton should be categorized as a 'smaller village'. The allocation in MM283 of 12 houses is more fitting for a small settlement of 358 houses.

I do not agree with the modifications of MM101 - increasing the size of the plot and taking away the limit of 170 houses. The inaccuracy of calling the village a 'medium village' in the Settlement Hierarchy makes the allocation of site MMO006 totally unsound.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2830

Received: 01/12/2019

Respondent: Foscote Parish Meeting

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The allocation of site MMO006 (and MM101) is: not positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development; not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives or based on justifiably accurate and proportionate evidence; and not consistent with National Policies - NPPF paras 34, 112, 151, 155 and 158, and PPG para 3-008.

Therefore the allocation is UNSOUND. It falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15 so is not legally and procedurally compliant, which is further exacerbated by the procedural unfairness that has arisen during the course of the examination process.

Change suggested by respondent:


The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications - both MM101 and the
modifications in the proposed VALP - must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

( Full text see attached)

The inclusion of site MMO006 in the VALP is based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and the allocation of the site for development is not legally and procedurally compliant or sound in accordance with NPPF para 182.

To increase the size of this site from 7.7 hectares to 8.8 hectares in MM101, and to insert the words "at least" before "170 dwellings" under site provision (a) in the Proposed Modified VALP without including this change as a Main Modification is not 'justified' or 'consistent with national policy for enabling the delivery of sustainable development' as defined in NPPF para 182. These changes are
therefore unsound.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2831

Received: 01/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Helen Pryke

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

MM101 seeks to extend the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton on the false assertion that Maids Moreton does not have Recreational Facilities when it does, in fact, have extensive open playing fields and play facitilies. Therefore the whole allocation of MMO006, and MM101's attempt to extend the site, are both unsound because they breach NPPF paras 155 and 151.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM101 must be retracted, and site MMO006 must be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

NPPF 151 says: "Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development." According to VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147), the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been selected for development. However, in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal, site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. AVDC allocates the least sustainable site in breach of NPPF 151 on the basis that it "delivers outdoor playing space and Equipped Play Facilities responding to the concern raised by the 2017 'Open Space, Sports and Recreation Needs for Aylesbury Vale' audit, which found there to be a lack of suitably sized central public open space as well as no Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP) in Maids Moreton". Maids Moreton has playing fields situated at the end of Avenue Road with a well-equipped playpark (small and big swings, slide, climbing frame, seesaw, roundabout and ball wall) together with a rugby pitch and cricket pitch. This recreational facility and open space is recognised as one of Maids Moreton's 'key criteria' in AVDC's own Settlement Hierarchy, without which Maids Moreton would only have 3 key criteria. Site MMO006 scored the lowest in 6 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in only 1 of the 12 sustainability criteria. In the remaining 5 sustainability criteria all sites were ranked equal. Overall, site MMO006 ranked the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton by a considerable margin, performing particularly badly in 'pollution' and 'travel/transport' so the allocation of this site for development and extending this site under MM101 are unsound because they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and is not consistent with NPPF para 151.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2832

Received: 30/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Myers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is neither sound or legally compliant and is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings.
Finally, a further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in MM283, which raises the total number of dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as 'suitable' for development and there was no consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Buckingham Town Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. Also, the consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as 'unsuitable' for development and this has clearly been ignored. The only consultation I am aware of was the public consultation on the Submission VALP, which consulted on the allocation of the site in the Submission VALP not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA. Therefore relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence is in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. It also contravenes HELAA v4 appendix 2. I do not agree with the modifications and increasing the size of the number of houses to 170 as this allocation is neither sound or legally compliant.

The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the incorrect assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has 4. Maids Moreton is in fact a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hieararchy para 5.18 (I refer to ED228). The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is neither sound or legally compliant and is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings that the Council's capacity-led approach to identify of allocations has received widespread support. This has certainly not been the case in Maids Moreton.
Finally, a further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in MM283, which raises the total number of dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. For a 'small' village the allocation of 182 houses is hugely disproportionate to the size of the settlement. The allocation in MM283 of 12 houses is quite adequate for a small settlement. I do not agree with the modifications in MM101 - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - and the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy renders the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and illegal.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2834

Received: 03/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Howard

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I am extremely concerned with the amount of houses allocated for Maids Moreton which is 182. Its excessive for a medium village, which Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as in the false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when it only has 4.

It is a 'Smaller Village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18. Its not in line with the assertion in para41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings that the Council's capacity-led approach to identify allocations has received widespread support not true in Maids Moreton.

Change suggested by respondent:

To ensure that the VALP is sound and legally compliant Policy MMO006 needs deleting from the
VALP.

Full text:

I am extremely concerned with the amount of houses allocated for Maids Moreton which is 182. Its excessive for a medium village, which Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as in the false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when it only has 4.

It is a 'Smaller Village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18. Its not in line with the assertion in para41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings that the Council's capacity-led approach to identify allocations has received widespread support not true in Maids Moreton.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2835

Received: 03/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Gary HUGHES

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Failure to comply with requirements to evidence sites suitability, consult publicly on site designation, categorise village correctly, maintain, inform reg 19 objectors of AVDC position changes, recognise technical annex entry resite unsuitability, consider impact of highways, public transport or rural setting or consider heritage building protection.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be removed from the VALP to ensure that the Plan is both sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

There has been a failure;
-to provide evidence that the site is suitable for development nor suitable for subsequent modification in increase of plot size and house numbers. Contrary VALP para4.120.

-to consult publicly on the designation of the site as being deemed suitable for development. Contrary NPPF para 155, HELAA methodology correctly. Contrary HELAA Methodology para 3-008.
-to conduct HELAA Methodology correctly. Contrary HELAA Methodolohy paras 1.20.1.21 7 2.15.
-to categorise the village correctly as s smaller village (4 key criteria not 6). Contrary to Settlement Hierarchy para.5.18.

-to keep to Regulation 19 objectors informed of changes in AVDC position resite allocation.

-to recognise that the Technical Annex to the VALP sustainability Appraisal shows the site as being the least (not most) sustainable site in the village. Contrary to NPPF para.151 and 165.

-to consider impact impact on highways and public transport. Contrary to NPPF para.34.

-to consider the rural setting of the site. Contrary to NPPF paras 17 & 112.
-to give adequate consideration to the protection of heritage buildings, Contrary NPPF paras NPPF paras 17,120 and 132.

-For the above listed reasons the site allocation is neither sound nor legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2836

Received: 30/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sheilagh Rawlins

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Maids moreton has been incorrectly categorised as a medium village, having only 4 of the 6 key criteria and thus the allocation of 'at least 170 houses' is in breach of of VALP paragraph 5.153 and is not legally compliant.

Failure to follow due process by avdc has resulted in a VALP which is not legally compliant and which includes allocations for development for which there is insufficient evidence of suitability.

AVDC has avoided questions and objections regarding site MMO006 by misleading residents, councils and parish councils.

Change suggested by respondent:

The site MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP

Full text:

As a regulation 19 objector (ref id 499), i was informed that AVDC had decided that the site mmo006 would be deleted from the VALP and hence, they were not required to answer all the objections and questions pertaining to it raised by the inspector or the residents.
We were further informed that the site had been erroneously included on the agenda for session hearing 34 and we were not notified that AVDC had altered their position on this.

The inexplicable alternation in hela v4 designating mmo006 as suitable for development is not based on any evidence since avdc were not able to give satisfactory details (minutes/dates/times of meetings) via our freedom of information requests, and have, therefore, contravened nppf paragraphs 158 and 182.
Further, there was no public consultation on the change to mmo006 in Hela v4 - avdc therefore failed to follow due process and have contravened Hela methodology paragraph 1.21

Maids moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a medium village, having only 4 of the 6 key criteria and thus the allocation of 'at least 170 houses' is in breach of of valp paragraph 5.153 and is not legally compliant.

failure to follow due process by avdc has resulted in a valp which is not legally compliant and which includes allocations for development for which there is insufficient evidence of suitability.

AVDC has avoided questions and objections regarding site mmo006 by misleading residents, councils and parish councils.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2843

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Limited

Representation:

We note that changes are proposed in relation to site specific requirements relating to surface water management for site allocation MM0006 to remove reference to the public sewerage network for surface water flows.

This change would address our previous comments relating to site allocation MM0006 and are fully supported.

Full text:

We note that changes are proposed in relation to site specific requirements relating to surface water management for site allocation MM0006 to remove reference to the public sewerage network for surface water flows.

This change would address our previous comments relating to site allocation MM0006 and are fully supported.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2846

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ian & Lillian McDonald

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I object to inadequate consideration being given to local Maids Moreton roads and public transport in the build up of traffic to and from Milton Keynes as well as designating Maids Moreton as a "medium" village with at least 170 house allocation.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 to be deleted from the VALP to make the VALP true or legal.

Full text:

I object to inadequate consideration being given to local Maids Moreton roads and public transport in the build up of traffic to and from Milton Keynes as well as designating Maids Moreton as a "medium" village with at least 170 house allocation.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2850

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Claire Morby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Poor consideration has been given to highways and public transport, so the allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34, and is also in line with the assertion in the Inspectors Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I strongly object to the modifications increasing the plot size and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. This is unsustainable in a village like Maids Moreton.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

Poor consideration has been given to highways and public transport, so the allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34, and is also in line with the assertion in the Inspectors Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I strongly object to the modifications increasing the plot size and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. This is unsustainable in a village like Maids Moreton.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2852

Received: 21/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Gadd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

I do not agree with this modification as it not been made on a legally compliant basis due to incomplete consultation and the proposed development does not meet the defined site criteria.

Change suggested by respondent:

I believe that Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

The consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site MMO006 being designated as 'unsuitable' for development.

Maids Moreton Parish Council, Buckingham Town Council and Foscote Parish Meeting were not consulted on the amendment in HELAA v4 which changed the designation of this site to be 'suitable' for development. The subsequent public consultation on the Submission VALP excluded consultation on the change of designation of this site to be 'suitable for development'.

I believe the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence is in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21, PPG para 3-008, and HELAA v4 appendix 2.

MM101 Site Criteria a states Provision of 170 dwellings at a density that takes account of the adjacent settlement character and identity of the edge of countryside location. A development of 170 houses, which in their plan states should be primarily houses for 4-6 persons, would therefore accommodate approximately 680-850 persons. Based on AVDC information, Maids Moreton has a population of 847 (2011 census). So this single development would double the population. It certainly seems unreasonable for there to be any expectation for the village to be able to retain much of its identity in such circumstances. Smaller developments over a long period of time, as has happened in the past, would be far more appropriate for the village. So I believe that MM101 Site Criteria a cannot be met given the scale of the proposed development.

I do not agree with this modification as it not been made on a legally compliant basis.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2853

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Lauren Rawlins

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The proposed VALP contravenes too many planning guidelines and has not been been prepared in accordance with NPPF paragraph 182.Further, the proposal to amend the wording in MM101 to 'at least 170 houses' contravenes VALP paragraph 4.153 (now paragraph 4.148) and leads to an excessive and disproportionate increase in village size, thereby also contravening NPPF paragraph 17.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove site MMO006 from the proposed VALP document.

Full text:

AVDV have not carried out the appropriate processes to ensure that all parties affected by the development of site MMO006 have been heard and their objections and questions formally and properly responded to.
There was no public consultation when site MMO006 was 'suddenly' amended from unsuitable to suitable for development and appropriate councils were not informed. Therefore, the inclusion of the site in HELA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA methodology paragraphs 1.20 , 1.21 and 2.15, also falling short of PPG paragraph 3-019.
It is evident, therefore, that the proposed VALP is not legally compliant.

Further, the proposal to amend the wording in MM101 to 'at least 170 houses' contravenes VALP paragraph 4.153 (now paragraph 4.148) and leads to an excessive and disproportionate increase in village size, thereby also contravening NPPF paragraph 17.

In addition, VALP sustainability Appraisal Technical Annex states 'higher growth at Maids Moreton (Option 5 - site MMO006) is not necessarily to be supported, in particular from a pollution perspective, recognising capacity constraints at the Buckingham Wastewater Treatment Works.' VALP paragraph 4.152 also states that 'the most suitable sites have been selected at these locations' and this is clearly not the case.

In conclusion, the proposed VALP is neither legally compliant nor consistent with national policy, and planning guidelines have not been followed.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2855

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Emily Pryke

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The changes made to HELAA v4 were not informed by the consultation during summer 2016, and the lack of consultation with Maids Moreton PC breaches NPPF 155 and PPG 3-008. Extending the site in MM101, and the allocation of site MMO006, are both not legally and procedurally compliant, and are unsound because they are not in line with National Policy

Change suggested by respondent:

MM101 must be retracted, and site MMO006 must be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

MM101 extends site MMO006 from 7.7 hectares to 8.8 hectares, and the proposed changes add the words 'at least' 170 houses, potentially increasing the size of the development.

In his Interim Findings, the Inspector has not questioned the general soundness of the Council's capacity-led approach to identifying allocations: "...without questioning the general soundness of the Council's capacity-led approach to identifying allocations (which received widespread support)..." (para 41)

There was overwhelming support for the designation of site MMO006 as 'unsuitable for development' in HELAA v3 in the Issues and Options Consultation and so the site was not allocated for development in the Draft VALP published for consultation during summer 2016.

HELAA v4 appendix 2 states: "During summer 2016, further comments were received, this time on the HELAA v3 report and these informed the preparation of HELAA v4"

However, contrary to the summer 2016 consultation HELAA v4 re-designated this site as 'suitable' for development so the allocation is not in line with the Inspector's assertion in para 41 of his Interim Findings that the capacity-let approach to identifying allocations has received widespread support. In fact, there has been a large number of objections to the allocation of site MMO006 which have never been addressed by AVDC due to AVDC's assertion during the VALP Examination that they were going to delete the site from the VALP.

In addition, AVDC did not inform or consult with the Maids Moreton Parish Council which is contrary to NPPF para 155 and PPG para 3-008

The allocation of site MMO006 and the proposed modifications to extend this site are informed by evidence that is not legally and procedurally compliant and unsound.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2856

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Evison

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

1. No public consultation on the amendment of HELAA v4 which made the site suitable for development, and neither was there consultation with either Buckingham Town Council, nor with either the Maids Moreton Parish Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. I object to the increase in both size of plot and on increasing the number of houses beyond the discussed number of 170.

2. Inadequate consideration given to highways and public transport. The entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

1. In my view the Policy MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

1. There wasn't a public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which, surprisingly, designated this site to be "suitable" for development. Also, there was no consultation with Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. The consultation on HELAA v3 showed complete support for the site being classed as "unsuitable" for development. The only consultation afterwards was the public consultation on the submission VALP which concerned the allocation of the site in the submission VALP not the designation of the site suitable for development in the HELAA. Relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence would therefore be in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology pars 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. In addition, it falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2. I am not in agreement with the modifications that include increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

2. More consideration should have been given to highways and public transport so the allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34, and is also in line with the assertion in the Inspectors Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I repeat my objections in "1" above regarding increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2858

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Evison

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

A. The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' is not based on any evidence.
The increase in plot size and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170
are contrary to earlier, submitted figures.

B. The Final Consultation claims the site MMO006 is the most 'sustainable' site in
Maids Moreton. The Technical Annex to the VALP has the site as 'least
sustainable'.

C. Inadequate consideration of the protection of heritage buildings.

Change suggested by respondent:

I suggest that Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP in order the ensure that the VLP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

A. The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v4 is
not based on any evidence and is therefore contrary to VALP para 4.120 (now
para 4.1). Reliance on this source of evidence for the allocation of the site would
be in breach of NPPF paras 158 and 182. The modifications do not appear sound
- increasing the size of plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 -
but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

B. This Final Consultation includes consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. The
allocation of site MMO006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 (now para 4.147), which
claims that the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for
development. The Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows
site MMO006 as being the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. Allocating site
MMO006 in the VALP therefore breaches NPPF paras 151 and 165, and renders
para 4.152 (now para 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect.

C. The allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to the protection
of heritage buildings so is contrary to NPPF paras 17.129 and 132. The allocation
is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2859

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Paula Culley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

From the documentation I have seen, I believe that Site MMO006 is the least sustainable construction site within Maids Moreton - as per technical annex to the Sustainability Appraisal.
The allocation of this Site is therefore contrary to VALP 4.147 (formally 4.152) & breaches NPPF paragraphs 151 and 165.
Increasing the size of the Site and inserting words "at least" exacerbates this further & means the entire allocation cannot be considered as legally correct.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 must be deleted from VALP, otherwise the VALP is legally unsound.

Full text:

From the documentation I have seen, I believe that Site MMO006 is the least sustainable construction site within Maids Moreton - as per technical annex to the Sustainability Appraisal.
The allocation of this Site is therefore contrary to VALP 4.147 (formally 4.152) & breaches NPPF paragraphs 151 and 165.
Increasing the size of the Site and inserting words "at least" exacerbates this further & means the entire allocation cannot be considered as legally correct.