Aylesbury Vale Area

MM101

Showing comments and forms 61 to 90 of 96

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3095

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Louisa Macey

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 an 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 contradict
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 adequate/y 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 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 a/located 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 a/location is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3098

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lydia Macey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Designation of site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development in HELAA v4 is not based on any evidenceand 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 an 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 contradict
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 adequate/y 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 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 a/located 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 a/location is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3103

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Percival

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I am totally against the modification of the Plan, actually increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the houses to 170. However, this now appears to be the minimal. This is in my view legally compliant or sound.

Change suggested by respondent:

Re MMO006 Policy
This needs to be deleted from the VALP including to ensure the VALP is legally sound and complaint. New modifications should be removed. Everything should be removed.

Full text:

The designation of the MMO006 site as suitable for development in HELAA V4 is not based on any evidence that has been level or received with the FOIR's and I firmly believe that this site is indeed been designated contrary to the VALP para 4.120(new para 4.1). Therefore, to rely on this as a source of evidence for the allocation of this site as suitable would I believe breach of NPPF Para 158/182. I am totally against the modification of the Plan, actually increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the houses to 170. However, this now appears to be the minimal. This is in my view legally compliant or sound.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3106

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Percival

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Officer's summary)
This final consultation includes consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. The allocation of site MMO006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 (now 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. Therefore allocating this site MMO006 in the VALP breaches NPPF para 151 and 165, and renders para. 4.152 ( now para 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Policy MMO006 must be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant. The New modifications should be removed.

Full text:

This final consultation includes consultation on the Sustainability Appraisal. The allocation of site MMO006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 (now 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. Therefore allocating this site MMO006 in the VALP breaches NPPF para 151 and 165, and renders para. 4.152 ( now para 4.147) of VALP factually incorrect.
The allocation of this site does not give adequate consideration to the problem of heritage buildings that are listed in the village and contrary to NPPF para 17, 129 and 132. The allocation is also inconsistant with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3119

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Lady Rima E. Scott

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's Summary)
It follows that I do not agree with the modifications to VALP MM 101 to increase the size of the plot of MMO006 and to no longer limit the number of houses to 170. The allocation of the site MMO006 is neither legally compliant or sound and in breach of NPPF para 158 and 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO006 should be deleted from the VALP in order to make the VALP sound, positively prepared, justified and consistent with national policy.

Full text:

There is no evidence that the decision to include site MMO006 was found on legally complaint procedures and is therefore contrary to VALP para 4.120 (now para 4.1) in breach of NPPF para 158 & 182. It follows that I do not agree with the modifications to VALP MM 101 to increase the size of the plot of MMO006 and to no longer limit the number of houses to 170. The allocation of the site MMO006 is neither legally compliant or sound and in breach of NPPF para 158 and 182.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3122

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Dandy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. Maids Moreton does not meet all the criteria for a medium village and has been wrongly categorized due to a false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has six key criteria, when in fact it only has four, making it a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 (I refer to ED228). This makes the allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

Given the above it is clear that there has been a clear breach in process and that guidelines and regulations have been obviously ignored. Therefore Policy MMO006 needs to be deleted from the VALP in order to ensure that the VALP is sound and is legally compliant.

Full text:

At least 170 houses' is not appropriate for the size of the village. The categorization of Maids Moreton as a 'medium' village is incorrect due to the false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has six key criteria, when in fact it only has four. Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement hierarchy para 5.18 (I refer to ED228). This makes the allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' settlement unsound and not legally compliant. It is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings. With a further allocation of 12 dwellings for Maids Moreton (MM283) the total number of dwellings is raised to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. 182 houses for a small village is hugely disproportionate to the size of the 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 allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally complaint.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3124

Received: 14/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Wharton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:


*This is a rural setting so breaches NPPF paras 17 and 112, allocation of the site is inconsistent with VALP para 9.51. Ref, 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 incorrect if site MMO006 remains an allocated site in the VALP, keeping site MMO006 in the VALP makes the VALP unsound.

Change suggested by respondent:

This current plan should be abandoned and relocated to another more suitable site on the Northwest side of the A413 at the junction of Duck Lake, Bycell Road & Buckingham Road.

Full text:


*No consideration for roads, traffic and Public Transport contrary to NPPF para 34, in line with the assertion in the Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. increasing the size of the plot beyond 170, is unsound and not legally compliant.

*Maids Moreton is incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' 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).

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3128

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Sian Brown

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
I do not agree with the modifications which no longer limit the number of houses to 170. This is in breach of the NPPF making the entire allocation unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

I do not believe the main modifications for site MMO006 are legally sound or compliant. I would like to see the site MMO006 removed fro the VALP.

Full text:

There has not been adequate consideration given to highways and public transport and therefore 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 which no longer limit the number of houses to 170. This is in breach of the NPPF making the entire allocation unsound and not legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3130

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr David Goodger

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The entire allocation of site MMO006 is unsound and not legally compliant due to the modification in MM101, increasing the plot and inserting the words at least 170 houses, notwithstanding the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant site MMO006 must be deleted from the VALP.

Full text:

The entire allocation of site MMO006 is unsound and not legally compliant due to the modification in MM101, increasing the plot and inserting the words at least 170 houses, notwithstanding the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy. A false assertion in CD/MIS003 gives Maids Moreton 6 Key criteria-in fact it only has 4 (refer ED 228), leading Maids Moreton to be incorrectly categorised as a medium village in he SH. Furthermore, in MM283 as allocation of 12 more houses (quite adequate for a small village) increases the total to at least 182, a highly disproportionate number for small village.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3132

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Sheila Goodger

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework para 34. Inadequate consideration has been given to the highways and also to public transport - furthermore it is contrary to the Inspector's Interim Findings paras 35 - 37. The entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant due to the fact it is in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. Therefore, I do not agree with the modification in MM101.

Change suggested by respondent:

Please remove site MMO006 from the VALP.

Full text:

The allocation of site MMO006 is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework para 34. Inadequate consideration has been given to the highways and also to public transport - furthermore it is contrary to the Inspector's Interim Findings paras 35 - 37. The entire allocation is unsound and not legally compliant due to the fact it is in breach of the National Planning Policy Framework - increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses to 170. Therefore, I do not agree with the modification in MM101.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3133

Received: 29/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Marie Gurney

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised as a medium village in accordance with the settlement hierarchy para 5.16. This is incorrect as Maids Moreton does not satisfy the requisite number of key criteria. This miscategorisation means that the modification to "at least 170 houses" is hugely disproportionate for its size.Not only will this wreck the old village feel but the road infrastructure is completely inadequate for what would be a massive increase in the volume of traffic. In fact the categorisation of Maids Moreton as a medium sized village renders all subsequent planning policy decisions as incorrect and invalid.

Change suggested by respondent:

The modification needs to be corrected so that Maids Moreton is classified as a small village incapable of sustaining this size of development.

Full text:

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised as a medium village in accordance with the settlement hierarchy para 5.16. This is incorrect as Maids Moreton does not satisfy the requisite number of key criteria. This miscategorisation means that the modification to "at least 170 houses" is hugely disproportionate for its size. Not only will this wreck the old village feel but the road infrastructure is completely inadequate for what would be a massive increase in the volume of traffic. In fact the categorisation of Maids Moreton as a medium sized village renders all subsequent planning policy decisions as incorrect and invalid.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3142

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Dawson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
If this site is increased so does the numbers of houses, and 2/3 cars per home. We can not cope with the traffic now. I have it listed that is Conservation area, inadequate consideration has been given to the rural setting.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

Aylesbury Vale have not been transparent or legally complaint in consulting local residents. There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA V4. No consultation with the Parish Council or Foscote or Buckingham. If this site is increased so does the numbers of houses, and 2/3 cats per home. We can not cope with the traffic now. I have it listed that is Conservation area, inadequate consideration has been given to the rural setting. This application still has not been adequately and openly scrutinised. It is unfair the way this has been done.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3144

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith Dawson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I strongly object to the designation of MMO006 as suitable for development and to amendment MM101 to add an indeterminate number of houses "at least 170" to the site. Maids Moreton fails to meet most of the criteria required for a greenfield site1 .Development increases the village population by 50% 2.Does not meet significant sustainability criteria 3.Access to the site is via unclassified roads through a conservation area. 4.170+ houses out of 286 allocated to 18 villages are proposed for Maids Moreton. 5 Proposals fail to meet a number of
the inspectors interim findings. 6.

Change suggested by respondent:

That 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 site MM0006 as suitable for development is not based on any evidence. There were 450 objectors to the initial planning application16/0051/AOP and this current amendment to add an indeterminate number of houses, "at least 170", along with a vague reference to density, to the already grossly excessive number adds insult to injury. The clandestine way the amendment from HELAA v3 to HELAA v4 re-designated this site from unsuitable for development to suitable for development and subsequently limiting public discussion to the Submission VALP, not on the designation of the site for development, is in breach of NPPF
para 155, HELAA methodology para 1.20 and 1.21 and PPG paragraph 3-008.
Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a medium village as it only has 4 of the 6 key criteria required for a medium village and should be classified as a smaller village (ref Settlement Hierarchy 5.16 & 5.18). HELAA v4 has not allocated any developments to smaller villages.
Of the 18 villages classed as medium villages in HELAA v4 the remaining 17 villages have 95 houses allocated in 5 locations whereas the new allocation in Maids Moreton is now proposed to be in excess of the original 170 houses. The assertion in paragraph 41 of the inspectors interim report that the councils capacity led approach has received widespread support is not the case. in Maids Moreton re 450 objections to the proposal. HELAAv4 does not adequately follow Central Buckinghamshire HELAA methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21 and 2.15 where there has been minimal involvement of the local community and the initial
disproportionate allocation and the modifications to further increase it in size cannot be sound or legally compliant.

The inspectors interim findings para 38 refers to the policies relating to villages and para 4.154 refers to medium villages which singles out Maids Moreton and Newton Longville, the inspector
refers to inconsistencies and I would suggest that a major inconsistency is allocating 60% of the total allocations for "medium" villages to one small village.
Statement 4.152 in the proposed VALP compares Maids Moreton( pop 840) with another "medium village" Newton Longville (pop 1800) which has an allocation of 17 houses. Newton Longville has good access to dual carriageway roads with good connecting roads and is close to Bletchley main line station.
In comparison to Maids Moreton where the development site is to be situated on fields north of Maids Moreton and can only be accessed via an unclassified country road or via a small estate road both routes to the site are through the village conservation area.
A statement from 16/00151 /AOP David Wilson Homes (where quality counts) Design and Access statement 22nd Jan 2016 page 3 Site context " The village has good connectivity lying a mile north of Buckingham Station with good links to Banbury and London. THERE IS NO BUCKINGHAM
STATION!!! and no connectivity.
Amenities in Maids Moreton are limited to a pub, playing fields with a children's play area and an oversubscribed infants school; access to shops, supermarkets and senior schools will require a journey of one to two miles through the already congested town centre in Buckingham.
The final consultation includes a technical annex pages 76 - 81 the sustainability appraisal of development sites in Maids Moreton author AECOM which throughout shows MM0006 being theleast sustainable site. However the annex states that the council supports MM0006 because it
delivers a childrens play area - one of the few amenities we already have in Maids Moreton!
The site is also remote from the areas of main employment namely Milton Keynes and Aylesbury.
Paragraph 37 of the inspectors findings refers to paragraph 34 of NPPF which advises that sites
which generate significant movement should be located to minimise travel. There is a further
recommendation that this balance should be redressed by "increasing allocations in close proximity
to Milton Keynes".
The site MMO006 at Maids Moreton fails to meet these key requirements whereas Newton
Longville meets most criteria.
The Maids Moreton site also fails to meet most of the criteria of section 2.2.1 the VALP Objectives
of the Sustainability Appraisal of the VALP published in Oct 2019. In particular the requirement for
development to be distributed across Aylesbury Vale taking a capacity led approach, and to protect
and enhance the districts towns, local centres and villages. This clause also gives a commitment to
limiting development on prime agricultural land.
With the above in mind I strongly object to the modification in M101 and to the original allocation of
170 houses which is out of all proportion to the size of the village and would increase the
population by over 50%. Bearing in mind the impact this site will have on the village it has been
manoeuvred through the planning process with minimal discussion and circumvents most of the
safeguards established to prevent speculative development.
This site has been selected for a purely commercial motives. It is situated on prime farmland with
an elevated position overlooking open countryside, a nature reserve and reservoir away from major
highways. The development will command premium prices for the units but the cost will be paid by
the village by the increase in traffic through the conservation area brought about by the large increase in population. In addition the the destruction of the local habitat in the construction period and the need to supply services to the large volume of housing in an area beyond the boundary of the village makes this site one of the least ecologically sustainable sites in the proposed Vale of Aylesbury Local plan and should be removed from VALP submission document.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3148

Received: 10/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Eleanor Bailey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, and also falls short of PPG para 3-019. The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. This whole allocation is therefore not legally compliant, and these modifications serve to exacerbate this.

Inadequate consideration is given to the protection of heritage buildings, contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129 and 132 and the allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

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:

The designation of the site in HELAA v4 does not adequately follow HELAA Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, and also falls short of PPG para 3-019. The HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. This whole allocation is therefore not legally compliant, and these modifications serve to exacerbate this.

Inadequate consideration is given to the protection of heritage buildings, contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129 and 132 and the allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3154

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Maids Moreton Conservation Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Unsound and not legally compliant due to assertion in settlement hierarchy that Maids Moreton is a medium village when it isn't. and the allocation of 182 houses at least is disproportionate. Inadequate consideration to the protection of Heritage buildings inconsistent with MPPF para 141.

Change suggested by respondent:

We think MMO006 needs to be removed from the VALP in order to ensure the VALP is sound and legally compliant.

Full text:

This representation is made on behalf of Maids Moreton Coservation Group, a community group representing villagers. Site MMO006 is modified to state 'at least' 170 houses however, we are not, as stated, a medium village and should be classed as a small village. There is a false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that we have 6 key criteria when infact it only has 4. Referring to ED228 we should be classed as a smaller village as defined by the Settement Hierarchy para 5.18. For instance our school is only a half junior school.
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 Inspectors Interim Findings in that the Council's capacity-led approach to identify allocations has found wide spread support. This is not the case in this Smaller Village.
MM263 is an allocation of 12 dwellings in this smaller village which raises the total number of proposed 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 of the 12 houses in MM238 alone is adequate for a small settlement.
Further the Maids Moreton Conservation group does not agree with the modifications in MM101 - increasing the size of the plot in MMO006 and no longer limiting the number of dwellings to 170.
We feel that the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierachy renders the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant.
In addition the allocation of this site does not give sufficient consideration to the protection of heritage buildings and so is contracy to NPPF paras 17, 129 ans 132. The allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3157

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Hamilton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Maids Moreton has been wrongly identified 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) To call the site MMO006 "small" is not acceptable and it is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the inspector's Interim Findings. To find out another 12 houses has been made in MM283 which makes the total number 182 VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses is too many even for a medium village. For a village the size of Maids Moreton 182 dwellings is excessive.

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 has been wrongly identified 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) To call the site MMO006 "small" is not acceptable and it is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the inspector's Interim Findings. To find out another 12 houses has been made in MM283 which makes the total number 182 VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses is too many even for a medium village. For a village the size of Maids Moreton 182 dwellings is excessive.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3158

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Hamilton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

To find out another 12 houses has been made in MM283 which makes the total number 182 VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses is too many even for a medium village. For a village the size of Maids Moreton 182 dwellings is excessive.

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 has been wrongly identified 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) To call the site MMO006 "small" is not acceptable and it is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the inspector's Interim Findings. To find out another 12 houses has been made in MM283 which makes the total number 182 VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) shows that 170 houses is too many even for a medium village. For a village the size of Maids Moreton 182 dwellings is excessive.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3167

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Diana Owen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

There are many inconsistencies and site MMO006 highlights that AVDC not followed the procedure between HELAA V 3 ( 2016) and HELAA v4 (2017) and as such an objector, I strangely felt that VALP modifications are unsound and unjust.

Change suggested by respondent:

MMO006 should not have been in the VALP a a suitable site.

Full text:

I have to ask myself whether AVDC can be seen as pulling the modification together in the hope hope as an original objectors that no further written comments would be forthcoming as many points in the VALP have been contradicted -Thus due to incompetent or as an act by not following due procedure. An example being the fact that the site MMO006 was originally deleted from the VALP as it breached the NPPF para 17 and 112 then between HELAA v 3 (2016 and HELAA V 4 (2017). The reasons have been put aside and MMO006 is suddenly viable without any further consultation on the modification to any parties. As such this has also make para.9.51 within the VALP as factually incorrect if MMO006 remains in the VALP and therefore VALP is unsound.

Justification in the increase of the size of the plot and no longer limiting the number of houses contravenes para 34 of NPPF and para 36 of the inspectors own interim findings on/in that it makes the VALP unsound.The modifications overlook the advice in the NPPF para 129 with particular reference to the houses on Main Street.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3173

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Mandy Moorhead

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The above is based on the incorrect categorization of Maids Moreton as a "medium village" in that the Settlement Hierarchy Paragraph 5.18 states that the village has 6 key criteria, whereas in reality it only has 4, and should therefore be categorized as a small village. Taking into consideration another development of 12 houses as outlined in MM283, this increased the development of Maids Moreton to 182 houses at least, which is incredibly excessive (the VALP states that the parish has a population of 847, and that there have already been numerous housing developments in recent times).

Change suggested by respondent:

I have no revised wording to put forward. In order to ensure that the VALP is sound and legally compliant, Site reference: MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road must be deleted.

Full text:

There is no evidence that the designation of the Site, reference: MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road is suitable for development, as recorded in the Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) v4 that informed the writing of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP). This is at variance with Paragraph 4.120 (currently Paragraph 4.1), and reliance on this source of evidence for the allocation of the site would be in breach of the NPPF, Paragraphs 158 and 182. It is disturbing to see the modification has increased the size of the plot which now no longer limits the number of houses to 170, and I very strongly disagree with this. The allocation of the site is not sound nor legally compliant.

With reference to the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated the site as suitable for development, there was no public consultation, nor consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish, nor Buckingham Town Council. It is noted that the consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as unsuitable for development. As far as is known, the only subsequent consultation was the public consultation on the Submission VALP which consulted on the allocation of the site, not the designation of the site, as suitable for development. Relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence is therefore in breach of NPPF, Paragraph 155, and the PPG, Paragraph 3-008. I am reliably informed that this also falls foul of HELAA v4, Appendix 2. As above, I very strongly disagree with the modifications which increased the size of the plot so that it no longer limits the number of houses to 170, and again the allocation of the site is not sound nor legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3175

Received: 03/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian King

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I do not agree with the modification on the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF making the allocation unsound and not legally compliant.
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.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

I do not agree with the modification on the basis that it is in breach of the NPPF making the allocation unsound and not legally compliant.
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.
The Inspector himself stated that "It is hard to escape the conclusion expressed by several representations that the spatial strategy in the north of the district would lead to increased lengths of commuting flows to and from Milton Keynes".

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3176

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Mandy Moorhead

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:









The above is based on the incorrect categorization of Maids Moreton as a "medium village" in that the Settlement Hierarchy Paragraph 5.18 states that the village has 6 key criteria, whereas in reality it only has 4, and should therefore be categorized as a small village. Taking into consideration another development of 12 houses as outlined in MM283, this increased the development of Maids Moreton to 182 houses at least, which is incredibly excessive (the VALP states that the parish has a population of 847, and that there have already been numerous housing developments in recent times).

Change suggested by respondent:

I have no revised wording to put forward. In order to ensure that the VALP is sound and legally compliant, Site reference: MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road must be deleted.

Full text:

There is no evidence that the designation of the Site, reference: MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road is suitable for development, as recorded in the Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) v4 that informed the writing of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP). This is at variance with Paragraph 4.120 (currently Paragraph 4.1), and reliance on this source of evidence for the allocation of the site would be in breach of the NPPF, Paragraphs 158 and 182. It is disturbing to see the modification has increased the size of the plot which now no longer limits the number of houses to 170, and I very strongly disagree with this. The allocation of the site is not sound nor legally compliant.

With reference to the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated the site as suitable for development, there was no public consultation, nor consultation with Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish, nor Buckingham Town Council. It is noted that the consultation on HELAA v3 showed overwhelming support for the site being designated as unsuitable for development. As far as is known, the only subsequent consultation was the public consultation on the Submission VALP which consulted on the allocation of the site, not the designation of the site, as suitable for development. Relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence is therefore in breach of NPPF, Paragraph 155, and the PPG, Paragraph 3-008. I am reliably informed that this also falls foul of HELAA v4, Appendix 2. As above, I very strongly disagree with the modifications which increased the size of the plot so that it no longer limits the number of houses to 170, and again the allocation of the site is not sound nor legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3185

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Deborah Read

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

* The allocation and development of this site does not give consideration to the protection of heritage buildings or Village environment contrary to NPPF paras 17, 129 and 132. This is also inconsistent with NPPF para 141.

Change suggested by respondent:

This current plan should be abandoned and relocated to another more suitable site on the Northwest side of the A413 at the junction of Duck Lake, Bycell Road & Buckingham Road.

Full text:

*No consideration for roads, traffic and Public Transport contrary to NPPF para 34, in line with the assertion in the Inspector's Interim Findings para 36 which he says makes the VALP unsound. increasing the size of the plot no longer limiting the number of houses to 170, is unsound and not legally compliant.

*Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village' 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).

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3186

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Bateman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of HELAA v4 in the VALP is not sound or legally compliant; it lacks evidence and is in breach of NPPF paras158 and 182; the modifications made bypassed previous points and offered no public/Council consultation. As Maids Moreton is a 'small' village as per Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18, categorising it as a 'medium' village in order to justify the modification of 'at least' 170 houses is incorrect - meaning the allocation of site MMO006 is unsound and not legally compliant. Combined with MM283, the allocation for Maids Moreton is hugely disproportionate to the size of a 'small' 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:

I do not believe the Local Plan to be sound or legally compliant for the following reasons:
HELAA v4 - which designates site MMO006 as 'suitable' for development - is not based on any evidence and is both contrary to VALP para 4.1 and in breach of NPPF paras 158 and 182.
HELAA v3 had already received huge support in designating the site as 'unsuitable' for development: however, HELAA v4 simply bypasses this, nor did it offer any public or Council level (Maids Moreton Parish or Buckingham Town) consultation with regard to the modifications made.
I strongly disagree with the modifications to increase the size of the plot and to remove the limitation of the number of houses to 170. Categorising Maids Moreton as a 'medium' village in order to justify the modification of 'at least' 170 is incorrect - Maids Moreton is in fact a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 - meaning the allocation of site MMO006 is both unsound and not legally compliant and it is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspectors Interim Findings suggesting there is widespread support for a capacity led approach in identifying allocations - this is not the case in Maids Moreton. Combined with MM283, where an allocation of a further 12 houses has been made, this leaves a total allocation of 182 for Maids Moreton which is hugely disproportionate to the size of the existing 'small' village.
I would also like noted that there has been a huge lack of transparency and fairness to Regulation 19 Objectors during the Examination Stage with erroneous and untimely communication regarding AVDC's change of position with regard to the ongoing inclusion of site MMO006.
I firmly believe these factors show the allocation is not sound or legally compliant.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3187

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Hancock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The village of Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised as a 'medium' village when it fulfils the criteria for a 'small' village only - and hence the allocation of 'at least 170' in MMO006 together with the 12 in MM283 is unsound and not legally compliant.

Change suggested by respondent:

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

Full text:

This consultation has included the words 'at least' 170 houses. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that this is an excessive amount of house for a medium village. I believe that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as 'medium' due to the false assertion in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.16 that Maids Moreton has 6 criteria when in fact it has only 4. Maids Moreton is a 'smaller village' as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18 which means the allocation of site MMO006 in it is unsound and not legally compliant and that it is not in line with the assertion in para41 on the Inspector's Interim Findings which indicates support. Not true. Furthermore the allocation of 12 further dwellings (MM283) would bring the total to 182 so the 'excessive' amount mentioned above has even more relevance. Therefore the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy makes the entire allocation of site MMO006 unsound and not legally compliant

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3188

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Village Resident

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The allocation is also inconsistent with NPPF para.
There has also been inadequate consultation concerning transport, highways and parking to support Moreton residences on the edge of the village.

Change suggested by respondent:

In particular the phrase as suitable for at least 170 houses, should revised to the exact
proposed numbers of houses.

Full text:

-There was no public consultation with Maids Moreton residents on the amendment in HELAA V4 with the Parish Council, Buckingham Town Council or Foscote Parish Meeting that the site was unsuitable.
-The designation of the site MMO008 as suitable for at least 170 houses is ambiguous and open for the number to increase.
-It is a false assessment that Maids Moreton is a medium size village. According to the Settlement Hierarchy para.5.18(ED 228) it should be classified as a small village.
-The allocation of the site does not give adequate consideration of the protection of heritage buildings as is contrary to NPPF 129 and 132.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3189

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Dr Claire Simpson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

MMO006 has been included in the VALP on a legally unsound basis due to lack of consultation, through erroneous identification of the settlement hierarchy of Maids Moreton and with inadequate consideration of the rural setting of the site. It should be removed from the VALP

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 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 worse, 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. The current population of Maids Moreton is approx. 900, at least 170 houses would add a population estimated at 500, assuming 3 people per house, Increasing the village population by more than 50% this is wholely disproportionate.

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.


Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3202

Received: 10/12/2019

Respondent: Miss Anita Matthews

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

False assertion in the Settlement Hierachy 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 (ED228).

The allocation of site MMO006 is not in line with the assertion in para 41 of the Inspector's Interim Findings.

VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 houses is excessive even for a medium village. Further allocation of 12 dwellings made in MM283 brings total in Maids Moreton to 182.

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:

Due to the false assertion in the Settlement Hierachy 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), it has therefore been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village'.

The allocation of site MMO006 in a 'small' village is unsound, 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 of allocations has received widespread support because in Maids Moreton this has not been the case.

The modification has inserted the words 'at least' 170 houses. A further allocation of 12 dwellings has been made in MM283, raising the total to 182. VALP para 4.153 (now para 4.148) illustrates that 170 house is excessive for a medium village. 182 houses is massively disproportionate to the size of the settlement for a 'small' village - the allocation of 12 houses in MM283 alone is adequate. I do not agree with the modification in MM101 (the increase in plot size and no longer limiting to 170 houses). The entire allocation of site MMO006 is rendered unsound and not legally compliant by the inaccuracy in the Settlement Hierarchy.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3216

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Moffat

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I disagree with the modifications increasing the size of the plot and which no longer limit the number of houses to 170. In my opinion the allocation is 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 stated that the site as unsuitable for development. There was no public consultation on the amendment in HELAA v4 which considered that that this site was suitable for development. As a result the only consultation that I was aware of was 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 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 disagree with the modifications increasing the size of the plot and which no longer limit the number of houses to 170. In my opinion the allocation is unsound.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3218

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Tim Powell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly designated as a 'medium' village with it only having 4 key criteria and not the 6. Maids Moreton is actually defined as a 'smaller village' as defined by Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18. An allocation of over 182 houses is totally disproportionate for a village the size of Maids Moreton VALP para 4.153 or 4.148.

Further in adequate consideration has been given to the impact on roads and traffic given the small roads, lack of pavements and I believe this is contrary to NPPF para 34 which is also in line with the Inspector's Interim Finding para 36.

Change suggested by respondent:

Maids Moreton's designation as a medium village must be reviewed as it does not have the facilities or infrastructure or transport requirements for the significant increased housing the 'medium' classification results in.

Full text:

Maids Moreton has been incorrectly designated as a 'medium' village with it only having 4 key criteria and not the 6. Maids Moreton is actually defined as a 'smaller village' as defined by Settlement Hierarchy para 5.18. An allocation of over 182 houses is totally disproportionate for a village the size of Maids Moreton VALP para 4.153 or 4.148.

Further in adequate consideration has been given to the impact on roads and traffic given the small roads, lack of pavements and I believe this is contrary to NPPF para 34 which is also in line with the Inspector's Interim Finding para 36.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3224

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Roberts

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

HELAA Methodology was not correctly carried out. Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorized as a 'medium village'. For a 'small' village the allocation of 182 houses is hugely disproportionate to the size of the settlement. 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.

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:

* 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..

* 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 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.

* 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.