Aylesbury Vale Area

MM101

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 96

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2862

Received: 08/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Gaelle Hull

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I strongly object to the fact that in MM101, Maids Moreton has now been deemed suitable for "at least" 170 houses. With MM283 allowing for a further 12 houses, the total number of new settlements will be "at least" 182. This increase is hugely disproportionate compared to other villages of similar size as illustrated by VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148). I would furthermore argue that the classification of Maids Moreton in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 as a medium size village is questionable, considering that the bus service to Aylesbury has been cancelled.

Change suggested by respondent:

MMO006 should be removed from the VALP to make VALP legally sound and compliant.

Full text:

I strongly object to the fact that in MM101, Maids Moreton has now been deemed suitable for "at least" 170 houses. With MM283 allowing for a further 12 houses, the total number of new settlements will be "at least" 182. This increase is hugely disproportionate compared to other villages of similar size as illustrated in the table below, based on VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148). I would furthermore argue that the classification of Maids Moreton in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 as a medium size village is questionable, considering that the bus service to Aylesbury has been cancelled.

Village

Cuddington - Current no. of houses 264, Proposed Increase 23, Increase in % is 8.71

Ickford - Current no. of houses 288, Proposed Increase 30, Increase in % is 10.42

Maids Moreton - Current no. of houses 387, Proposed Increase 170, Increase in % is 43.93

Marsh Gibbon - Current no, of houses 434, Proposed Increase 9, Increase in % is 2.07

Newton Longville - Current no. of houses is 814, Proposed Increase 17, Increase in % is 2.09

Quainton - Current no. of houses is 545, Proposed Increase 37, Increase in % is 6.79

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2865

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Tim Jones

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

This entire process is crooked. You are cheating, lying and deceiving the people you purport to represent. Maids Moreton is a small village, not a medium sized village, despite your cynical attempts to fiddle how the village is viewed in this report.

Whatever designation you give this village, the Vale report identifies a need for 20% more homes in the entire region, so how or why can a 50% increase in a single village be justified? It cannot.

The AVDC online consultation portal excluldes two questions - Do you consider the plan sound? Do you consider the plan legally compliant? Why?

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MM0 006 Should be deleted from the VALP for it to be considered sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

This entire process is crooked. You are cheating, lying and deceiving the people you purport to represent. Maids Moreton is a small village, not a medium sized village, despite your cynical attempts to fiddle how the village is viewed in this report.

Whatever designation you give this village, the Vale report identifies a need for 20% more homes in the entire region, so how or why can a 50% increase in a single village be justified? It cannot.

The AVDC online consultation portal excluldes two questions - Do you consider the plan sound? Do you consider the plan legally compliant? Why?

The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v 4 is not based on any evidence and us 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. I do not agree with the modifications - 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. * There was no 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 also falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2. I do not agree with the modifications - 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. * The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. In particular, the designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, it also falls short of PPG para 3-019. Therefore this whole allocation is not legally compliant, and these modifications serve to exacerbate this. * The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the false 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 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 unsound and not legally compliant, and it 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 because this has not been the case in Maids Moreton. 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 alone is 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 not legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2875

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Foscote and Maids Moreton Action Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

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:

Please see attachment.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2883

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Denis Dunkley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Inadequate consideration has been given to highways and public transport so allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 and is also in line with assertion in the Inspectors Interim Findings para 36 which he ways makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. A further allocation of 12 houses has been made in the MM283 which now raises the number of new dwellings to 182.

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 the VALP para 9.51.

Full text:

Inadequate consideration has been given to highways and public transport so allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 and is also in line with assertion in the Inspectors Interim Findings para 36 which he ways makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. A further allocation of 12 houses has been made in the MM283 which now raises the number of new dwellings to 182.

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 the VALP para 9.51.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2885

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Ms Pamela Viccars

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

This development suitability evidence is unreliable and legally questionable Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as medium and AVDC has not formally addressed interested parties outlining why they reversed their decision to drop MMO006 from VALP.
There has been a lack of consultation with interested parties so valid objections have not been examined

Change suggested by respondent:

The above points should be closely scrutinized with reference to VALP, NPPF and HELAA as clearly there are some contradictions in terms of interpretation.
Policy MMO006 should be deleted from VALP as originally agreed by AVDC so ensuring that VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

Development suitability evidence is not reliable due to the many unsatisfactory answers given following Submission of the Freedom of Information I requested. This is contrary to VALP para 4.1 and therefore in breach of the NPPF paras 158 &182.
I am opposed to extending this green land plot into further wet land areas and
allowing in excess of 170 houses being built which I also initially opposed. In fact I would question whether the whole allocation is legally compliant ref HELAA methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 & 215.

It also falls short of PPG para 3-019. The suitability of the proposed development involved no consultation with interested parties despite the huge number of objections - local views have been ignored/dismissed.

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a medium sized village having falsely been assessed as having key criteria when in/act only 4 exists. The allocation of 170 houses would be excessive for even a medium sized village.

The modifications in MM101 which allows for even more houses to be built along with the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy, make the allocation of the site in MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

Interested parties have been deceived during the examination of this matter since they were informed that the site MO006 would be dropped from VALP only to learn later that AVDC had changed its position - why? No explanation has been forthcoming from them. Are they hoping it will soon be too late to object? This lack of Response is not respectful and lends further evidence of unsound judgments being made and no legal compliance.

MMO006 contradicts VALP para 4.147. The Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows this site being the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this therefore breaches NPPF paras 151 & 165 so VALP para 4.147 is not correct. Little consideration has been given to highways and public transport or the the rural setting if MMO006 again breaking NPPF paras 17 & 112, inconsistent again with VALP 9.51. Again the protection of heritage buildings has been ignored and is contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129 & 132.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2917

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Aron Whitbread

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Recent modification has put in the words at least 170 houses, Maids Moreston is incorrectly defined as medium village due to the false assertion in the settlement hierarchy para5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it is only has 4. Maids Moreton is smaller village as defined in the settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (ref. to ED 228). The allocation of site MMO in a small village is unsound and not legally complaint and not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspectors Interim Findings.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

Recent modification has put in the words at least 170 houses, Maids Moreston is incorrectly defined as medium village due to the false assertion in the settlement hierarchy para5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it is only has 4. Maids Moreton is smaller village as defined in the settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (ref. to ED 228). The allocation of site MMO in a small village is unsound and not legally complaint and not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspectors Interim Findings.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2918

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lilian Mcdonald

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the lack of consideration that has been given to the highways and traffic flow through Maids Moreton from Milton Keynes, Bicester, Northampton, Aylesbury directions including local heavy/wide farm vehicles. Maids Moreton is not a medium village when at least 170 houses have been allocated in the plan. I object to this.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP to make it true and legal.

Full text:

I object to the lack of consideration that has been given to the highways and traffic flow through Maids Moreton from Milton Keynes, Bicester, Northampton, Aylesbury directions including local heavy/wide farm vehicles. Maids Moreton is not a medium village when at least 170 houses have been allocated in the plan. I object to this.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2923

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs & Mr Tamara & John Kimpton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

As Regulation 19 Objector-disagree with modifications on site MMO006-Allocation unsound and not informed of hearing-not legally complaint. No consulation development HELAAV4-breach OF nppf PARA 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 & 1.21 and the PPG para 3-008 and falls foul of HELAA V4 appendix 2.
Sustainability Appraisal MMO006-least sustainable site-contradicts VALP para 4.147 factual incorrect breaches NPPF paras 151 Aand 165.

Maids Moreton allocation of 182 houses-excessive even for a medium village modification at least in MM101-inaccuracy in Settlement Hierarchy -Allocation on site MMO006 unsound and legally complaint.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to be able to make VALP sound and legally complaint

Full text:

I was informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from VALP(Regulation 19 Objectors). Now I learn that this decision has been overturned without being able to respond. I do not agree with the modifications, but neither is the allocation sound or legally compliant. There is no evidence for making changes to HELAA 3 to make the site now suitable for development and so is contrary to VALP para 4.120(now para 4.1). Relying on the designation of the site MMO006 as suitable for development in HELAA v4 as evidence would be in breach of NPPF paras 158 and 182.
The consultation for HELAA 3 showed overwhelming support for the site being unsuitable for development, yet there was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA V4-breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA methodology paras 1,20 and 1.21 and PPG 3-008. It also falls of HELAA V4 appendix 2.
Maids Moreton is incorrectly categorised as being a medium village-due to the false assertion in the settlement hierarchy para 5.18(ED 228).

I do not agree with the modification at least in HELAA V4-no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 which is already excessively high-even for a medium village and with the further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in mm283. All this will impact the village in so many detrimental ways with inadequate consideration given to: highways and public transport, protection of heritage buildings, and the rural settings of site MMO006.
The final consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal contradicts VALP PARA 4.147 which claims the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. The technical Annex to this shows site MMO006 AS BEING LEAST SUSTAINABLE SITE. It breaches NPPF paras 151 and 165, making the above factual incorrect.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2992

Received: 06/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Lucy Wood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

VALP is in breach of NPPF para 151 & 165, para 4.152 is factuallly incorrect.
Maids Moreton should be categorised legally(Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18) as a smaller village-so the modification is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

I would like MM101 to be taken out, and the entire site (MMO006), taken out of the VALP.

Full text:

Consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal is included in this final consultation. VALP para.4.152(now para 4.147) claims the most suitable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. However, the Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows site MMO006 as being the least suitable of five in Maids Moreton. Allocating site MMO006 in the VALP is therefore in breach of NPPF paras 151 and 165, and para. 4.152(now para 4.147) of the VALP factually incorrect. Furthermore, Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised as medium village due to the false assertion in the settlement hierarchy para 5.16 that this village has 6 key criteria, when in fact it has 4 Maids Moreton is a smaller as defined in Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (1 refer to ED228). So the modification to include at least 170 houses is unsound and not legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3003

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Harman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows site MO006 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 the VALP factually incorrect.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

* 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. The Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows site MO006 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 the VALP factually incorrect.
* Allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to protection of heritage buildings so is contrary to NPFF paras 17, 129 and 132. Allocation also inconsistent with NPFF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3007

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Jane Harman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but on the basis that it is breach of the NPFF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

*Inadequate 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 Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but on the basis that it is breach of the NPFF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

*Allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to protection of heritage buildings so is contrary to NPFF paras 17, 129 and 132. Allocation also inconsistent with NPFF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3009

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Anne Greenhough

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

You have not considered the impact on highways and transport.
The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF paragraph 34 and the inspectors' interim findings paragraph 36.
The inspector said this makes the VALP unsound.
I do not agree with the modifications increasing the size to more than 170 houses.

Change suggested by respondent:

I do not believe the Main Modifications to be legally compliant or sound.
I would therefore like to see that the removal of MM101 and site MMO006 from the VALP.

Full text:

You have not considered the impact on highways and transport.
The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to NPPF paragraph 34 and the inspectors' interim findings paragraph 36.
The inspector said this makes the VALP unsound.
I do not agree with the modifications increasing the size to more than 170 houses.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3026

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Aaron Hales

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Designation of site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v4 is not based on any evidence and is contrary to VALP and would be in breach of NPPF. Maids Moreton is a 'smaller' village but has been falsely asserted in the Settlement Hierarchy as 'medium' with 6 key criteria - but it only has 4.

I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170- but on the basis that it's in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

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:

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 para 158 and 182. I do not agree with the modifications (increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound nor legally compliant.

There was no 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 afterwards was the public consultation on the Submission VALP, which consulted on the allocation of the site in the Submission VALP and NOT the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA.

Relying on the description 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 also contradicts HELAA v4 appendix 2.

I do not agree with the modifications (increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound nor legally compliant.

The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21. and 2.15. It also falls short of PPG para 3-019 particularly towards access to/from the site. Therefore, the whole allocation is not legally compliant and these modifications show this.

The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the false 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 a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (I refer to ED228). The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not 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 allocations has received widespread support - this has not been the case in Maids Moreton.

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 alone is 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 rendering the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

There has been unfairness during the Examination Stage whereby regulation 19 objectors were informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP. They were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position regarding the allocation of this site prior to the hearing session so were not made aware that the hearing session would be held. In a covering email to a joint letter from various objectors - including Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council and Foscote Parish Meeting- to the Inspector dated 25th March 2019, it was asserted that site MMO006 had been erroneously included on the agenda for Session Hearing 34. It is only through information subsequently disclosed via a series of Freedom of Information Requests that the unfairness has become apparent. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized and remains procedurally unfair. The Council has not set out its position in writing and now will not set out its position in writing until it is too late for objectors to respond to it. On this basis, I do not agree with the modifications, but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

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. 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.

Inadequate 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 Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but on the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

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.

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: 3027

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Stefan Ciemala

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:


I do not agree with the site modifications-Increasing site of plot and no limit to number of houses, the allocation is neither sound or legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not provided

Full text:

No public consultation on amendment HELAA V4 which designated site as suitable for development. No consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council,Buckingham Town Council or Foscote Parish Meeting. HELAA V3 showed overwhelming support for site to be designated unsuitable for development. Relying on this site to be designated as in HELAA as a source of evidence will be in breach of NPPF para 155. HELAA Methodology
para 1.20 and 1.21 and para 3-008. It also falls foul of HELAA V4 appendix 2. I do not agree with the site modifications-Increasing site of plot and no limit to number of houses, the allocation is neither sound or legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3036

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr David Culley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The access to Site MMO006 is down a narrow village lane. There is no direct access to the Site from a main road, and there are no public bus links into Buckingham or beyond. It is no good relying on the planning application by David Wilson Homes to answer this problem because including this Site in the Plan breaches NPPF para 34, and is in line with the Inspector's assertion in his interim Findings (para 36), that the spatial strategy in the north leads to increased commuting traffic to and from Milton Keynes. Local roads cannot support more cars.

Change suggested by respondent:

This Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP, with it the VALP is not legal.

Full text:

The access to Site MMO006 is down a narrow village lane. There is no direct access to the Site from a main road, and there are no public bus links into Buckingham or beyond. It is no good relying on the planning application by David Wilson Homes to answer this problem because including this Site in the Plan breaches NPPF para 34, and is in line with the Inspector's assertion in his interim Findings (para 36), that the spatial strategy in the north leads to increased commuting traffic to and from Milton Keynes. Local roads cannot support more cars.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3037

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Eric Culley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's Extract)
Maids Moreton is not a medium sized village. Para 5.16 of the Settlement hierarchy says the village has 6 key criteria, when intact it only has 4. So Maids Moreton is hence a small village. I have read ED228 which shows this in detail & in any event, para 4.153 of VALP clearly shows that 182 new houses would be way too many for a medium village. Hence the 12 houses allocated by MM283 are sufficient for this small village.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Policy MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP, otherwise the VALP is not legally compliant.

Full text:

Maids Moreton is not a medium sized village.
Para 5.16 of the Settlement hierarchy says the village has 6 key criteria, when intact it only has 4. So Maids Moreton is hence a small village. I have read ED228 which shows this in detail & in any event, para 4.153 of VALP clearly shows that 182 new houses would be way too many for a medium village. Hence the 12 houses allocated by MM283 are sufficient for this small village.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3041

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Hinton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (reference ED228), although classified incorrectly as 'medium' due the false assertion in Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria whereas it only has 4, and not in line with the Inspector's Interim Findings para 41 that AVDC's approach to identify allocation has received widespread support. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) states 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. No longer limiting total dwellings to 170 and inaccuracy in Settlement Hierarchy makes allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

1) The main modification proposed should be taken out of the VALP.
2) The entire site MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP.

Full text:

There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4, which designated site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development. The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been classified incorrectly as a 'medium village' due the false 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 a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (I refer to ED228). Allocation of site MMO006 in a smaller village is flawed and not legally compliant. It is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings that AVDC's approach to identify allocation has received widespread support - this is not the case for Maids Moreton. Maids Moreton's residents overwhelmingly registered objection to the MMO006 development. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. MM283 has allocated a further 12 houses which increase the total number of dwellings to 182, which for a small village at around 50% of total houses is grossly disproportionate to the size of the settlement. Allocation of 12 houses alone is sufficient for a small settlement. I disagree with the modifications in MM101. Increasing the size of plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170, together with the inaccuracy in Settlement Hierarchy makes the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3042

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Stephen Andrew Holmes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
No logical or understandable justification has been given as to why MMO006 was chosen as the most sustainable site for development within Maids Moreton.
In deed the analysis completed and shown as part of the technical annexe to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows the site connected to MMO006 as being the least sustainable site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Removal of MMO006 from the VALP.

Full text:

No logical or understandable justification has been given as to why MMO006 was chosen as the most sustainable site for development within Maids Moreton.
In deed the analysis completed and shown as part of the technical annexe to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows the site connected to MMO006 as being the least sustainable site. This allocation of site MMO006 within the VALP therefore breaches NPPF paragraphs 151 and 165 and renders paragraph 4.152 (now paragraph 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3048

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Clare Hodgson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
I formally disagree with the modifications increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. I consider the allocation is both 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:

The consultation on HELAA v3 considered the site as unsuitable for development. There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which the stated that this site was suitable for development. Subsequently the only consultation that

I was aware of the public consultation on the Submission VALP which advised on the allocation of the site and not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA.

Reliance on the HELAA as evidence for designation of the site is I consider in breach of NPPF para 155, HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the PPG para 3-008. It is also in contravention of HELAA v4 appendix 2.
I formally disagree with the modifications increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. I consider the allocation is both unsound.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3050

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Dave Baxter

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out.

The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v 4 is not based on any evidence.

There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as 'suitable' for development.



Change suggested by respondent:

A right and proper assessment and evidence gathering needs to be carried out "on the ground", in relation to the actual surrounding infrastructure and access (or lack of it.)

Full text:

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. 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.

The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v 4 is not based on any evidence (you can refer to any unsatisfactory answers you may have received if you submitted a Freedom of Information Request) 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. I do not agree with the modifications - 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.

There was no 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 HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. In particular, the designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, it also falls short of PPG para 3-019. Therefore this whole allocation is not legally compliant, and these modifications serve to exacerbate this.

The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the false 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 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 unsound and not legally compliant, and it 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 because this has not been the case in Maids Moreton.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3052

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Sophie Krajnyk

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
I disagree with the modifications which increase the size of the plot and no longer limit the number of houses to 170. As such I consider it is in breach of the NPPF and the entire allocation is neither sound nor legally compliant.

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:

I consider there has been inadequate consideration given to highways and public transport with regard to the allocation of site MMO006. As such the allocation is contrary to NPPF para 34 and is also in line with the assertion in the Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound.
I disagree with the modifications which increase the size of the plot and no longer limit the number of houses to 170. As such I consider it is in breach of the NPPF and the entire allocation is neither sound nor legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3057

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Mallett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The decision to categorise MMO006 as "suitable for development" in HELAA (contradicting the earlier draft) appears to arise from the need to fulfil the Vale's housing quota rather than hard evidence. In performing this Uturn, the local authority cast aside their own sustainability assessment and neither consulted with or furnished supporting evidence to the parish council.

The classification of Maids Moreton as a medium village in the council's settlement hierarchy assessment was based on factually incorrect and out of date information. It follows that the "at least 170 homes" figure is grossly disproportionate to the size of the village.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove MMO006 from the VALP or change wording to 'MMO006 is unsuitable for development' Alternatively, subject MMO006 to a reduced number of homes such that the site is compliant with the Sustainability Appraisal.

Full text:

I object to MM101 for the simple reason that it supports the adoption of site MMO006 in the VALP, makes a grossly inflated number of houses on the site
inevitable and removes a safeguard against the impact this will have on local roads. As I will show AVDC have, in allocating MMO006, breached several policy guidelines, ignored their own evidence and failed to consult with the local parish councils. If MM101 is adopted, the VALP will not be sound or legally compliant.

In 2016, AVDC categorised the site in HELAA version three as "unsuitable for development". The reasons offered were (a) the glaring problem of access to
the local road network, (b) the intrusion of any such development into open countryside and (c) the lack of sympathy with the existing pattern of the village.
Unbelievably, when a new version of the HELAA was published a year later, MMO006 was re-categorised as "suitable for the development of 170 homes".
Information released under the FoI regulations include AVDC's justification for this 180 degree turn. Apparently, a submission from David Wilson Homes
was the sole evidence used and there is no other recorded or minuted information to support it. I have read the developer submission and in no way does it
mitigate (b) and (c). These are immutable facts - 170 homes on this site does intrude into open countryside and is a significant change to the pattern of village
development. The only possible mitigation would be a smaller, less obtrusive development on the same site but the developer proposes 170, so this is accepted
In reality, I believe by not offering any evidence to support their U-turn on (b) and (c), AVDC fall foul of NPPF paragraphs 158 and 165. Additionally, it
should be noted that VALP paragraph 4.152 (now 4.147) further undermines the case for MMO006 by stating a complete untruth i.e. that the village has "An
excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village...the most sustainable site has been selected". AVDC do not seem to have
noticed or maybe have chosen to flatly ignore that their own VALP Sustainability Appraisal shows MMO006 to be the least sustainable of all the assessed
sites.

Disgracefully, this 'about turn' was not accompanied by any discussion with Foscote or MM parish councils. As AVDC have admitted, the only way that any
councillor or indeed member of public could find out what had happened was by searching for the new version of HELAA online. Since most of us believed
that MMO006 had been rejected for development a year earlier, this is patently unfair.
This lack of discussion and co-operation with parish officers is in breach of several policy guidelines within the NPPF, PPG and HELAA Methodology, which
call for early and extensive consultations with the affected community. The relevant paragraphs are NPPF paragraph 155, PPG paragraph 008 (ID 3-008-
20140306) and the HELAA Methodology paragraph 1.20
I would also like to add that Maids Moreton's classification as a "medium village" flies in the face of good reason and contradicts Settlement Hierarchy paragraph 5.18. Maids Moreton does not have 6 of the key criteria (4 at most) and where did they get the "bus service operating hourly" from? Frankly, local public transport links are risible. This alone is reason enough to put a huge question mark over the 170 homes figure which MM101, if adopted, will explicitly
support.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3059

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Duncan Macey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Designation of site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HE LAA v4 is not based on any evidence and is contrary to VALP and would be in breach of NPPF. Maids Moreton is a 'smaller' village but has been falsely asserted in the Settlement Hierarchy as 'medium' with 6 key criteria - but it only has 4.

I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but on the basis that it's in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

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:

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 para 158 and 182. I do not agree with the modifications (increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound nor legally compliant.

There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as 'suitable or 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 afterwards was the public consultation on the Submission VALP, which consulted on the allocation of the site in the Submission VALP and NOT the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA.

Relying on the description of this site in the HE LAA 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 also contradicts HELAA v4 appendix 2.

I do not agree with the modifications (increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound nor legally compliant.

The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21. and 2.15. It also falls short of PPG para 3-01 articular/y towards access to/from the site. Therefore, the whole allocation is not legally compliant an these modifications show this.

The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the false 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 a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (I refer to ED228). The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not 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 allocations has received widespread support - this has not been the case in Maids Moreton.

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 alone is 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 rendering the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.

There has been unfairness during the Examination Stage whereby regulation 19 objectors were informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP. They were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position regarding the allocation of this site prior to the hearing session so were not made aware that the hearing session would be held. In a covering email to a joint letter from various objectors - including Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council and Foscote Parish Meeting- to the Inspector dated 25th March 2019, it was asserted that site MMO006 had been erroneously included on the agenda for Session Hearing 34. It is only through information subsequently disclosed via a series of Freedom of Information Requests that the unfairness has become apparent. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized and remains procedurally unfair. The Council has not set out its position in writing and now will not set out its position in writing until it is too late for objectors to respond to it. On this basis, I do not agree with the modifications, but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

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. 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.

Inadequate 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 Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but on the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

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.

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: 3060

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Joyce Mallett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Independent evidence commissioned by AVDC for VALP states that MMO006 is the least sustainable of five options available. It goes on to say that choosing 'nil options' would be perfectly reasonable. Despite this, AVDC claim that in MMO006 they have chosen the most sustainable site. MMO006 conveniently has a developer waiting in the wings with plans to build 170 homes but choosing it above the other four options flies in the face of their evidence base and is contrary to both NPPF paragraph 151 and 165. Therefore, the adoption of MM101 would render the VALP neither sound or legally compliant

Change suggested by respondent:

To make the VALP sound and legally compliant, the Inspector should refuse MM101 and remove MMO006. Alternatively, the wording could be changed to 'MMO006 is not suitable for development' or 'MMO006 is suitable for development, subject to a maximum of 40 mid-sized homes'.

Full text:

Guidelines state that, when preparing a local plan, councils must provide a Sustainability Appraisal Report. AVDC's version of this includes a Technical Annexe produced by AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. This document assesses sites for inclusion in the VALP, including five options within the parish of Maids Moreton (pages 73 to 78) Within these pages, site MMO006 (named as 'Option 5') is shown to be overwhelmingly the least sustainable option available. AECOM add
that, "..given the proximity of Maids Moreton to Buckingham, which will see considerable housing growth over the plan period, 'nil allocations' is
a reasonable 'do minimum' option". They also go on to say that, "Option 1 (nil allocations) stands out as performing well in terms of the most
objectives" and "The other main conclusion... is that higher growth at Maids Moreton (Option 5) is not necessarily to be supported, in particular
from a 'Pollution' perspective".

So it is quite clear from an independent evaluation, commissioned exclusively to underpin the VALP, that MMO006 is the most problematic site within the parish of Maids Moreton. Given the level of recent and forthcoming housebuilding in the area, it would be perfectly reasonable to choose 'nil allocations' for the village, as per NPPF paragraph 182 ("the plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives")
Despite all of this, AVDC claim (VALP paragraph 4.152 - now 4.147) that Maids Moreton has "...an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a
reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site has been selected". This is categorically untrue and clearly a breach
of NPPF paragraph 151 and 165 which state, respectively, that, "local plans must be prepared with the aim of achieving sustainable
development" and "local plans must be based on up to date information about the natural environment"
We know that site MMO006 has a developer with an option on the land and with prepared plans to build the 170 homes. AVDC have chosen
MMO006 simply because it is a convenient option for them and the 170 homes will help fulfil the targets they are legally obliged to meet. They
make this 100% clear in their response to the appraisal "On balance, the Council favours the larger scheme, recognising that this would
contribute significantly to achievement of the district-wide housing target". There is one further attempt at a justification that is pitiful: "It is difficult
to conclude that one site is more suitable than another, although one important factor is the potential for the site to deliver a new children's play
area". This is despite the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment showing that Maids Moreton already has 3 such facilities..
The claim made in HELAA version four that MMO006 is 'suitable for development' is based on a fragrant rejection of the available evidence. MM101 supports the allocation of MMO006 in VALP and, therefore, its approval means that the VALP would be neither sound or legally
compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3063

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Cheryl Mallett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

MMO006 was listed as Maids Moreton's least sustainable site in the VALP Sustainability Appraisal. Allowing the site in VALP contravenes paragraphs 151 and 165 of the NPPF

Maids Moreton PC were not consulted when the appraisal of MMO006 was changed to suitable for development. This contravenes NPPF paragraph 155, PPG paragraph 008 (ref ID 3-008-20140306) and HELAA Methodology section 1.20

Maids Moreton has been classified as a medium village in contravention of the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for VALP (paragraph 5.18)
If main modification MM101 is adopted, VALP will not be sound or legally compliant

Change suggested by respondent:

If Maids Moreton had been correctly classified as a small village, the number of houses suitable for site MMO006 would be significantly reduced. I would suggest this as a way to make its adoption in VALP sound and legally compliant. Failing that,
please withdraw MM101 and remove MMO006 from the VALP

Full text:

After the council looked at site MMO006 for HELAA, it was found to be unsuitable for development. Among the reasons given were "lack of access", "extends into open countryside" and "does not follow existing pattern of the village". Besides this,
MMO006 was found to be the village's least sustainable site when the VALP Sustainability Appraisal took place.

However, AVDC's stance on MMO006 changed when the land owner sold the fields and farm to a developer who announced
plans to finance and build 170 homes on it shortly after. This became apparent in a later draft of HELAA, when site MMO006
became "suitable for development of 170 homes subject to a highways access resolution". No mention was made of the other
matters which had previously been of concern
MM101 makes no mention of the two matters and even strips out the need for a transport assessment
It cannot be right that, within such a crucial document as HELAA, the suitability of a piece of land is judged based entirely upon
whether or not a developer is willing to develop it. This is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse. Including MMO006 in
the VALP when the council's own investigation rates its sustainability so poorly is a clear contravention of both paragraph 151 and 165 of the NPPF. Another concern I have is that there was no consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council when MMO006 was amended.
I happen to know that MMPC are unanimously opposed to this site being developed. Not involving them is a clear contravention of the following sections of NPPF, PPG and HELAA Methodology NPPF paragraph 155 PPG paragraph 008, ref ID 3-008-20140306 HELAA Methodology paragraph 1.20

Finally, the classification of Maids Moreton as a "medium village" is not correct as it contradicts Settlement Hierarchy paragraph 5.18. It clearly does not have 6 of the key criteria and most certainly does not have a "bus service operating hourly". The service named no longer operates an extensive schedule and making a connection to the county X5 service is unrealistic.

The adoption of MM101 underpins MMO006's presence in VALP which patently breaches several legal guidelines that AVDC should have followed. With MM101 included, the local plan is neither sound nor legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3065

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Simon Mallett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

MM101 supports the allocation of site MMO006 in VALP, rendering it neither sound nor legally compliant. The basis for the inclusion of MMO006 after it was deemed not suitable in draft HELAA seems to be the fact that a developer took an option on the land and came forward with plans to develop it. AVDC then retracted earlier concerns, disregarding evidence and ignoring statutory guidelines and procedures. No new evidence was provided in support of the decision and key stakeholders not consulted. My full representation details specific instances where breaches have
occurred, quoting the relevant texts from the regulations.

Change suggested by respondent:

1. Reject the main modification MM101
2. Remove site MMO006 from the VALP

Full text:

The proposed main modification MM101 supports the allocation of site MMO006 in VALP. I believe this renders the local plan neither sound nor legally compliant. I have concluded that the sole basis for AVDC including MMO006 - after initially saying in HELAA v3 that it was not suitable for development - is the fact that a developer took an option on the land and came forward with plans to develop it. Once this had
happened, AVDC seem to have retracted earlier concerns about the site's sustainability and, in so doing, disregarded their own evidence and ignored statutory guidelines and procedures. Little or no evidence was provided in support of this decision and key stakeholders were not consulted. What follows is more detailed analysis, specifying the relevant regulations and guidelines that AVDC have
disregarded
Contradicting the VALP Sustainability Appraisal
VALP paragraph 4.152 (now 4.147) states that Maids Moreton has "...an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site has been selected". The site this statement refers to is clearly MMO006. In fact, this misrepresents the findings of the Technical Annex of the VALP

Sustainability Appraisal in which site MMO006 is named as 'the least sustainable' within the parish So, not only have AVDC ignored their own earlier findings, the allocation of MMO006 in VALP breaches both paragraph 151 of the NPPF ("local plans must be prepared with the aim of achieving sustainable development") and paragraph 165 ("local plans must be based on up to date information about the
natural environment")

MM101
Local consultation and evidence for amendments made in HELAA v4
HELAA v3, published in May 2016, stated that site MMO006 was not suitable for development, citing three key reasons including the fact that it would extend into open countryside and would not relate to the existing pattern of development
However, in HELAA v4 (published January 2017) site MMO006 was redesignated as 'suitable for development' without reference to the two concerns given in v3 which I cite above. When the amendment was made, AVDC did not include details of any public consultation or consultations with the three affected parish or town councils or any new evidence to show that their earlier concerns had been addressed
Furthermore I can confirm, from a series of FoI requests which I made this year, that

AVDC say they did not document the procedure used to make this amendment, cannot identify evidence used to support it and cannot supply details of any consultations. Bearing in mind the above, the use of HELAA as evidence for the inclusion of this site in the VALP is in clear breach of the NPPF, HELAA Methodology and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and is therefore
not 'sound' or 'legally compliant'
1) Paragraph 155 of the NPPF states that "...meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighborhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential...so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision for sustainable development of the area.
2) HELAA Methodology paragraph 1.20 states that, "...local authorities should work in partnership
with all interested parties in the production of the HELAA" and in paragraph 1.21 it directs the council to create a draft report for stakeholders to review individual sites prior to finalising the HELAA and that involvement of stakeholders is "vital in ensuring the assessment process is realistic and informed'
3) PPG paragraph 008, ref ID 3-008-20140306 states that both town and parish councils "should be involved from the earliest stages of plan preparation"
4) NPPF paragraph 158 states that "...planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area"

Transport sustainability
In HELAA v3, the third reason given for MMO006 being rejected as unsuitable for development was that "...there is no suitable access to the land" In HELAA v4, this was amended to "A satisfactory vehicular access, parking, cycle and walking
movement strategy needs to be proposed in a transport assessment and transport statement agreed by the Council"
The two statements could both, arguably, be said to be in line with NPPF paragraph 34 which states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located. where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised"

However, MM101 withdraws the need for a sustainable transport strategy backed up with a transport assessment, overriding these two vital safeguards by simply specifying that "A new means of access to Foscote Road and Walnut Drive...must be agreed by the Council, setting out necessary highways improvements"
MM101 is therefore in direct breach of NPPF paragraph 34 as quoted above

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3082

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Marcia Saunders

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The VALP Sustainability Appraisal Technical Annex and VALP (4152) upwards 4 147) sets out drawbacks to the allocation of site MMO006 citing concerns around surrounding development and questioning the validity of increase growth in the village.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP since it was been shown that the VALP para 4.152 (now 4.147) is not legally correct.

Full text:

The VALP Sustainability Appraisal Technical Annex and VALP (4152) upwards 4 147) sets out drawbacks to the allocation of site MMO006 citing concerns around surrounding development and questioning the validity of increase growth in the village. Pollution are due to extra demands thus would make on BUCKS Wastewater Treatment Works. The annex is in direct contradiction to VALP para 4.152 (now 4.147). That site MMO006 is the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton, suggesting rather that it is the least sustainable site and showing that the allocation of site MMO006 is as odds with the NPPF PARA 151 and 165 and also rendering para 4.152 (now 4,147 and VALP as being factually incorrect.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3083

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Georgina Christopher

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The HELAA has been carried out improperly and aspects of guidance and requirements of NPPF and PPG have been ignored. The District Council's own Settlement Hierarchy has also not been followed.

I do not agree with the proposed modifications (increasing the size of the plot & no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in the Housing &
Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) v4 does not appear to be based on any evidence and is therefore contrary to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) para 4.120 (now para 4.1 on page 66). Reliance on this source of evidence for the allocation of the site would be in breach of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paras 158 and 182 (Pages 38 & 43 respectively). I do not agree with the modifications (increasing the size of the plot & no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.
* My belief is that the change of the designation of this site from 'unsuitable' to 'suitable' was made without any supporting evidence. It is clear that there was neither public consultation nor consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting or Buckingham Town Council over the change of designation despite the fact that the consultation on HELAA v3 had shown 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 and 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, the Central Buckinghamshire HELAA allocation of the site in the Submission VALP and 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, the Central Buckinghamshire HELAA Methodology (May 2015) paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the Planning Practice Guidelines (PPG) para 3-008. It also falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2.
I do not agree with the modifications - 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.

* The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. In particular, the designation of the
site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow the Central Buckinghamshire HELAA
Methodology (May 2015) paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, it also falls short of the PPG para 3-019.
Therefore this whole allocation is not legally compliant, and these modifications serve to exacerbate this.
* The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy Page 16 para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has 4.
Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy Page 19 para
5.18. on Page 19. The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not legally compliant, and it 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 because this has not been the case in Maids Moreton. 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 alone is adequate for a small settlement. I do not agree with the modifications in MM 101 - 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.

* I understand that there has been unfairness during the Examination Stage whereby regulation 19 objectors were informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP.
They were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position with regard to the allocation of this site prior to the hearing session so were not made aware that the hearing session
would be held. In a covering email to a joint letter from various objectors - including
Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council and Foscote Parish Meeting - to the Inspector dated 25th March 2019, it was asserted that site MMO006 had been erroneously included on the agenda for Session Hearing 34. It is only through information subsequently disclosed via a series of Freedom of Information Requests that the unfairness has become apparent. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized and remains procedurally unfair. The Council has not set out its position in writing and now will not set out its position in writing until it is too late for objectors to respond to it. On this basis, I do not agree with the modifications but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally
compliant.
* 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.
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.
* Inadequate 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 Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170 - but on the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.
* 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.
* 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: 3087

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Christopher

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The HELAA has been carried out improperly and aspects of guidance and requirements of NPPF and PPG have been ignored. The District Council's own Settlement Hierarchy has also not been followed.
I do not agree with the proposed modifications (increasing the size of the plot & no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

The designation of the site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in the Housing &
Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) v4 does not appear to be based on any evidence and is therefore contrary to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) para 4.120 (now para 4.1 on page 66). Reliance on this source of evidence for the allocation of the site would be in breach of the 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paras 158 and 182 (Pages 38 & 43 respectively). I do not agree with the modifications (increasing the size of the plot & no longer limiting the number of houses to 170) but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.
* In my letter to The Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) dated 8th May 2019 I asked in
particular who had decided, and on what grounds, to change the assessment of site
MMO006 shown on page 219 of HELAA v3 to that shown on page 234 of HELAA v4. In the absence of a reply to that that question I conclude that the change of the designation of this site from 'unsuitable' to 'suitable' was made without any supporting evidence. It is clear that there was neither public consultation nor consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting or Buckingham Town Council over the change of designation despite the fact that the consultation on HELAA v3 had shown 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 and 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, the Central
Buckinghamshire HELAA Methodology (May 2015) paras 1.20 and 1.21, and the Planning
Practice Guidelines (PPG) para 3-008. It also falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2. I do not
agree with the modifications - 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.
* The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. In particular, the designation of the
site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow the Central Buckinghamshire HELAA
Methodology (May 2015) paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, it also falls short of the PPG para 3-019.
Therefore this whole allocation is not legally compliant, and these modifications serve to
exacerbate this.
* The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. Maids Moreton has been
incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' due to the false assertion in the Settlement
Hierarchy Page 16 para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has 4.
Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy Page 19 para
5.18. on Page 19. The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement is unsound and not
legally compliant, and it 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 because this has not been the case in Maids Moreton. 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 alone is adequate for a small settlement. I do not agree with the modifications in
MM 101 - 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.
* I understand that there has been unfairness during the Examination Stage whereby
regulation 19 objectors were informed that site MMO006 would be deleted from the VALP.
They were not made aware that AVDC had changed its position with regard to the allocation
of this site prior to the hearing session so were not made aware that the hearing session
would be held. In a covering email to a joint letter from various objectors - including
Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council and Foscote Parish Meeting-to
the Inspector dated 25th March 2019, it was asserted that site MMO006 had been
erroneously included on the agenda for Session Hearing 34. It is only through information
subsequently disclosed via a series of Freedom of Information Requests that the unfairness
has become apparent. The allocation still has not been adequately and openly scrutinized
and remains procedurally unfair. The Council has not set out its position in writing and now
will not set out its position in writing until it is too late for objectors to respond to it. On this
basis, I do not agree with the modifications but neither is the allocation itself sound or legally compliant.
* 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. 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.
* Inadequate 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
Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. I do not agree
with the modifications - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of
houses to 170 - but on the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF, the entire allocation is
unsound and not legally compliant.
* 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.
* The allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to the protection of heritage buildings so is contrary to N PPF paras 17, 129 and 132. The allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3089

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: AVDC Councillor

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Village facilities are not as assumed in the planning application or the HEELA submission. HELAA v4, which deemed site MMO006 as 'suitable' for 170 houses, was used as supporting evidence for the allocation of site MMO006 in the Submission VALP and this change from v3 is not evidence based, and calls into question the general soundness of the approach to identifying the allocation. The late addition in the errata document of "at least" 170 houses is also not evidenced.

Change suggested by respondent:

Omit allocation

Full text:

Village facilities are not as assumed in the planning application or the HEELA submission. HELAA v4, which deemed site MMO006 as 'suitable' for 170 houses, was used as supporting evidence for the allocation of site MMO006 in the Submission VALP and this change from v3 is not evidence based, and calls into question the general soundness of the approach to identifying the allocation. The late addition in the errata document of "at least" 170 houses is also not evidenced.