Aylesbury Vale Area

MM186

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2952

Received: 11/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Bulpett

Representation Summary:

Planning must recognise the impacts of out of town developments on the local centres and the need to limit them

Full text:

Planning must recognise the impacts of out of town developments on the local centres and the need to limit them

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3273

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Our previous representations related to the appropriateness of a 400 sq m impact assessment threshold, and the consistency of policy E5 with national planning guidance. The policy has now been significantly simplified from the previous version and we welcome this change. We set our comments on the two criteria of the policy below.

Change suggested by respondent:

Criterion A.
We consider that a threshold of 2,500 sq m would be more
appropriate for Aylesbury in line with the NPPF. There is no evidence to suggest that developments under the NPPF threshold would have a significant adverse impact on Aylesbury town centre. We consider an increase to 2,500 sq m would be appropriate for the reasons set out in our previous Hearing Statement.
Criterion B.
The Policy needs to be amended for consistency with the NPPF. We therefore suggest the following revised wording to clarify the policy:
"Where an impact assessment is required under criterion a./ of this policy, the proposal does not have a significant adverse impact..." (Lichfields bold).

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam
Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan - Representations to the Main Modifications
Consultation
On behalf of our client, Coal Pensions Properties Limited, we write in relation to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Main Modifications consultation.
Coal Pensions Properties Limited is an important stakeholder in Aylesbury. Its interest relates to Broadfields Retail Park, which performs an important shopping role within Aylesbury. Our comments relate to retail uses and other main town centre development in out of centre locations (Policy E5). We previously submitted
representations in relation to this draft policy, prepared a Hearing Statement and attended the Examination in Public in July 2018 on our client's behalf.
Policy E5 - Development outside Town Centre
Our previous representations related to the appropriateness of a 400 sq m impact assessment threshold, and the consistency of policy E5 with national planning guidance. The policy has now been significantly simplified from the previous version and we welcome this change. We set our comments on the two criteria of the policy below.
Criterion A
We note that within the main modifications (ref. MM185) Policy E5 has been amended to increase the
requirement for an impact assessment threshold to 1,500 sq m for schemes that are likely to affect Aylesbury town centre. Whilst we support the differentiation between Aylesbury and the rest of the District and the increase in the impact threshold for the former, we consider that a threshold of 2,500 sq m would be more
appropriate for Aylesbury in line with the NPPF. There is no evidence to suggest that developments under the NPPF threshold would have a significant adverse impact on Aylesbury town centre. We consider an increase to 2,500 sq m would be appropriate for the reasons set out in our previous Hearing Statement.
Criterion B
We consider that the wording of this part of the policy is unclear as it seems to suggest that all out of centre proposals will need to assess their impact on existing, committed and planned public and/or private investment, regardless of scale. The impact assessment threshold within Criterion A relates to the assessment of impact on vitality/viability and investment. The Policy needs to be amended for consistency
with the NPPF. We therefore suggest the following revised wording to clarify the policy:
"Where an impact assessment is required under criterion a./ of this policy, the proposal does not have a significant adverse impact..." (Lichfields bold).
We trust that the above comments will be of assistance prior to the adoption of the Local Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my colleague Peter Wilks if you require further information regarding these
comments.
Yours faithfully
Zahra Waters
Senior Planner
Enc. Hearing Statement dated 18 June 2018

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3419

Received: 17/01/2020

Respondent: Wendover Parish Council

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

VALP Main Modifications consultation
Response from Wendover Parish Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 NE4 - AONB is more protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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