Aylesbury Vale Area

4.158

Showing comments and forms 1 to 21 of 21

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 231

Received: 22/11/2017

Respondent: Dr Audrey Coatesworth

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object on the following grounds :-
1) Little employment in and around Maids Moreton. Hence MM will be used simply as a convenience for MK and also, with MK or Bicester rail links, to southern areas and will become a dormitory village.
2) Using pasture and farmland - not a brown fill site
3) Traffic is already a continual problem with existing population in MM - this will worsen dramatically as exit/entry roads can not be widened at critical points.
4)Increase in demand for medical services and school places - these are already overstretched.

Full text:

I object on the following grounds :-
1) Little employment in and around Maids Moreton. Hence MM will be used simply as a convenience for MK and also, with MK or Bicester rail links, to southern areas and will become a dormitory village.
2) Using pasture and farmland - not a brown fill site
3) Traffic is already a continual problem with existing population in MM - this will worsen dramatically as exit/entry roads can not be widened at critical points.
4)Increase in demand for medical services and school places - these are already overstretched.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 242

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Harman

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the VALP Proposal to increase the population of Maids Moreton by 61%.
I object as the proposed VALP will destroy the natural environment and reduce open vistas.
I object as the proposed VALP intends to build on pasture & farmland, not brownfield sites.
I object as the proposed VALP will destroy the specific feeling of a village community.
I object as the proposed VALP as it will increase demand for medical/social services that are already overstretched.
I object as the proposed VALP will compromise the clearly defined boundary and individual character of the village.

Full text:

I object to the VALP Proposal to increase the population of Maids Moreton by 61%.
I object as the proposed VALP will destroy the natural environment and reduce open vistas.
I object as the proposed VALP intends to build on pasture & farmland, not brownfield sites.
I object as the proposed VALP will destroy the specific feeling of a village community.
I object as the proposed VALP as it will increase demand for medical/social services that are already overstretched.
I object as the proposed VALP will compromise the clearly defined boundary and individual character of the village.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 243

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Ms Vanessa Nagy

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

A 61% increase in the village population will be the death of the village, it will become a dormitory of Buckingham.
The road infrastructure is creaking already with the new houses on Moreton Road.
There are no jobs or employment opportunities in the vicinity with work being south of county and Milton Keynes.

Full text:

I object to the local plan as there is very little employment and work opportunities in this area, the jobs are in Milton Keynes or the southern areas of the county. Building in this area will just create a commuter belt with poor infrastructure (it already takes 55 minutes to drive to MK station in rush hour, a journey that should be 19 minutes!). Surely it makes sense to build closer to work and in locations with existing infrastructure.

The development proposes a 61% increase to the village population where the average for other villages is 14%. It is also proposed for green field sites when there are brownfield sites available in the county, It will also be the death of the village as it will just become a dormitory of Buckingham.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 244

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Daniel Nagy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Too many houses for a small village: 61% increase on the population will more than double the size of the village when the existing infrastructure is already creaking. The rest of the counties villages have an average increase of 14% so this is incredibly disproportionate especially with the work is not in this area.

Full text:

Too many houses for a small village: 61% increase on the population will more than double the size of the village when the existing infrastructure is already creaking. The rest of the counties villages have an average increase of 14% so this is incredibly disproportionate especially with the work is not in this area.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 245

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Max Nagy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

61% increase on the population of the village will be its death. There are no jobs in the area so all of these people will be commuting out of the village to Milton Keynes or the south of the county and the infrastructure is already creaking.

Full text:

61% increase on the population of the village will be its death. There are no jobs in the area so all of these people will be commuting out of the village to Milton Keynes or the south of the county and the infrastructure is already creaking.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 346

Received: 04/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Russell Tobin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to this development because:
1. Traffic problems: no work here so more cars travelling and more pollution.
2. The village has insufficient parking space.
3. Main street is a bus route.
4. Walnut Drive would be a bottleneck; Foscote Road is too narrow and broken in places.
5. The farmland will be lost for ever.

Full text:

I object to this development because:
1. Traffic problems: no work here so more cars travelling and more pollution.
2. The village has insufficient parking space.
3. Main street is a bus route.
4. Walnut Drive would be a bottleneck; Foscote Road is too narrow and broken in places.
5. The farmland will be lost for ever.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 408

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Roberts

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the proposal to build 170 houses in Maids Moreton, making it more than half as large again.
- The village would be sacrificed in order to accommodate housing requirements identified for South Buckinghamshire.
- It borders open countryside and farmland - (not brownfield land) which would be destroyed under the new proposals, at a loss to the natural environment.
- Traffic problems are already untenable with access to the A421 and travel along it during peak periods seeing traffic at a standstill. This could only get worse.

Full text:

I object to the proposal to build 170 houses in Maids Moreton, making it more than half as large again.
- The village would be sacrificed in order to accommodate housing requirements identified for South Buckinghamshire.
- It borders open countryside and farmland - (not brownfield land) which would be destroyed under the new proposals, at a loss to the natural environment.
- Traffic problems are already untenable with access to the A421 and travel along it during peak periods seeing traffic at a standstill. This could only get worse.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 444

Received: 07/12/2017

Respondent: Ms Janet Rosemary Hawkins

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I disagree the main centre of the village is around the church, away from the development. I believe it is around the village hall, the Wheatsheaf and the small industrial units around Vitalograph. The proposed entrance to the site is in the same location. This is a busy and vibrant area and is the core of village life. The proposed entrance/exit onto an already very busy Main Street is ill conceived and the land is not suitable for development as it is prime farming land.

Full text:

I disagree the main centre of the village is around the church, away from the development. I believe it is around the village hall, the Wheatsheaf and the small industrial units around Vitalograph. The proposed entrance to the site is in the same location. This is a busy and vibrant area and is the core of village life. The proposed entrance/exit onto an already very busy Main Street is ill conceived and the land is not suitable for development as it is prime farming land.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 497

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Wilcox

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I am concerned that the introduction of more homes could impact the life that my family and I are building. I believe that the village will be unable to cope with the increase in traffic among other things.

Full text:

I am an individual that has recently purchased a property within Maids Moreton. When searching for a potential location to move to, I was drawn to Maids Moreton due to its small village status and the benefits that were associated with a small and quiet village. Upon hearing the news, I was absolutely devastated that this new development could potentially threaten the life that I was hoping to build for my family. My concern is that this small village doesn't hold the facilities and infrastructure to hold a greater number of homes. Should I have known this before making Maids Moreton my home, my decision certainly would have been different.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 502

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Leyland

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

To: the destruction of the natural environment and reduction of open spaces; the loss of pasture and farmland; the destruction of village community feeling and the identity of Maids Moreton; the increase in existing traffic problems. We find that overall the proposal does not meet the requirements of sustainable development.

Full text:

To: the destruction of the natural environment and reduction of open spaces; the loss of pasture and farmland; the destruction of village community feeling and the identity of Maids Moreton; the increase in existing traffic problems. We find that overall the proposal does not meet the requirements of sustainable development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 523

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Clare Krajnyk

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the recently published VALP as it proposes a 61% increase in population when the average growth for a medium village is 14%.
Maids Moreton should be categorised as a small village as it achieves only 4 /6 characteristics.
This is a patently unrealistic growth for Maids Moreton and will have a serious adverse impact on the village and its inhabitants.
It will destroy the specific feeling of a village community and the distinct identity of Maids Moreton.
It will exacerbate already dangerous traffic problems.
The proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

Full text:

I object to the recently published VALP as it proposes a 61% increase in population when the average growth for a medium village is 14%.
Maids Moreton should be categorised as a small village as it achieves only 4 /6 characteristics.
This is a patently unrealistic growth for Maids Moreton and will have a serious adverse impact on the village and its inhabitants.
It will destroy the specific feeling of a village community and the distinct identity of Maids Moreton.
It will exacerbate already dangerous traffic problems.
The proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 524

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Andy Hodgson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the recently published VALP as it proposes a 61% increase in population when the average growth for a medium village is 14%. Maids Moreton should be categorised as a small village as it achieves only 4 /6 characteristics. This is a patently unrealistic growth for Maids Moreton and will have a serious adverse impact on the village and its inhabitants.
It will further destroy the specific feeling of a village community and the distinct identity of Maids Moreton.
It will exacerbate already dangerous traffic problems.
The proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

Full text:

I object to the recently published VALP as it proposes a 61% increase in population when the average growth for a medium village is 14%. Maids Moreton should be categorised as a small village as it achieves only 4 /6 characteristics. This is a patently unrealistic growth for Maids Moreton and will have a serious adverse impact on the village and its inhabitants.
It will further destroy the specific feeling of a village community and the distinct identity of Maids Moreton.
It will exacerbate already dangerous traffic problems.
The proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 537

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Miss Shirley Webb

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Overall, this proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

Full text:

Maids Moreton is categorised as a "medium village" based on population size and 6 out of 10 defining characteristics. I believe Maids Moreton only achieves 4 out of the 6 characteristics and should be categorised as a "small village".

This development would mean an increase in population of over 60% when the average for even a medium size village is only 14%.

The existing traffic problems would be greatly increased.

It will compromise the clearly defined boundary and individual character of the village.

There is little employment here, and medical/social/educational services are already overstretched.

Maids Moreton is being used to accommodate the housing needs of the south of the county.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 559

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Mark Ballantyne

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This idea will cause too much traffic in a small village and increase risk to pedestrians on either side of the main thoroughfare.

You allow 5 cars to park at bottom of the hill (Buckingham approach) that already causes problems.

The facilities and infrastructure in Maids Moreton do not allow any more builds.

Maids Moreton needs to remain as-is

Full text:

This idea will cause too much traffic in a small village and increase risk to pedestrians on either side of the main thoroughfare.

You allow 5 cars to park at bottom of the hill (Buckingham approach) that already causes problems.

The facilities and infrastructure in Maids Moreton do not allow any more builds.

Maids Moreton needs to remain as-is

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 782

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs David & Sheila Goodger

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposal to increase Maids Moreton on this scale is grossly unfair.
Does not have the infrastructure.
Existing traffic problems would only be worsened.
Proposal to road system would be hazardous & also cause hardship to existing small business & to householders.
Better suited sites in the area.
More appropriate site for Maids Moreton is Towcester Road.
Question that Maids Moreton is a small village & not a medium village.
Plan should be withdrawn.

Full text:

I vehemently object to this development proposal as stated in my objection submitted in March 2016. The location is totally inappropriate for any development & would destroy the village & the natural environment surrounding it. The proposed site is on pasture & farmland & is not a brownfield site. Maids Moreton already has existing traffic problems particularly at certain times when traffic needs to go through & round the village to schools in other villages & work. Any alterations to the road system would only cause an increase to the existing problems & be hazardous particularly the proposed mini roundabout in Main Street. Many of the properties including the much used village hall, do not have parking facilities therefore on street parking is vital. Maids Moreton has very little employment opportunities & any existing small businesses would be affected severely if the proposed road system was implemented.
This large proposed development would mean an increase of at least 61% in the population of Maids Moreton. The village is categorised as a medium village. The average increase for all medium villages in the plan is just 14%.
Although Maids Moreton is categorised as a medium village, it does not appear to have all the characteristics to meet that criteria & should be categorised as a small village.
Maids Moreton does not have the infrastructure to cope with such a large development. The amenities are limited. There is no health surgery in the village. The nearest at present is over a mile to Buckingham & with a plan to move the facilities from there to out of town the distance would be greater & cause difficulties as the current bus service is limited.

There are other more appropriate sites for large development in the area with infrastructure, road systems in place & employment opportunities close by. If Maids Moreton does need an increase in housing in line with all the other villages in the plan a more suitable site would be on the edge of the village, namely Towcester Road, where the traffic could flow on to the A413.

This proposal is totally unfair & should be withdrawn.

Sheila Goodger

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 814

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Immanuel Ashokaraj

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object for the following reasons:

1)Increasing the population of maidsmoreton by 60% based on incorrect classification as medium village.
2)There is no employment in Maidsmoreton and so will become a commuter village &destroy the feeling of village community .
3)Will worsen existing traffic problem (i.e. only one lane is useable in the village main road)
4)Is a safety issue for school children when going to school due to increased traffic in narrow roads and insufficient street lighting.
5)Road to buckingham is a bottle neck &the other serpentine road is a safety hazard with accidents every day especially in winter.

Full text:

I object for the following reasons:

1)Increasing the population of maidsmoreton by 60% based on incorrect classification as medium village.
2)There is no employment in Maidsmoreton and so will become a commuter village &destroy the feeling of village community .
3)Will worsen existing traffic problem (i.e. only one lane is useable in the village main road)
4)Is a safety issue for school children when going to school due to increased traffic in narrow roads and insufficient street lighting.
5)Road to buckingham is a bottle neck &the other serpentine road is a safety hazard with accidents every day especially in winter.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 817

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jacinth Appadurai

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I would like to object for the following reasons:

1)Incorrect classification as medium village and therefore increasing the population of the village by 60% (whereas the national average of population increase due to plan is 14%) is unfair and will destroy the feeling of a village community.
2)There is no road infrastructure and it is a safety issue for the infant school children who have to walk to school due to narrow roads.
3)Current homeolders will loose the parking space as the village main street is very narrow.
4) Will destroy the environment, visual aspect and distinct identity of Maidsmoreton.

Full text:

I would like to object for the following reasons:

1)Incorrect classification as medium village and therefore increasing the population of the village by 60% (whereas the national average of population increase due to plan is 14%) is unfair and will destroy the feeling of a village community.
2)There is no road infrastructure and it is a safety issue for the infant school children who have to walk to school due to narrow roads.
3)Current homeolders will loose the parking space as the village main street is very narrow.
4) Will destroy the environment, visual aspect and distinct identity of Maidsmoreton.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 865

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Kelly Ingle

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

- I object to the scale of the development because it proposes a 61% increase in the village population, way above the average of 14% for all 'medium' villages. Therefore, the development would overwhelm the village both physically and in terms of community life.
- I object because village could not cope with the increased traffic - entry and exit roads for the village are already used as rat runs for neighbouring developments, and roads are narrow (Mill Lane) or full of parked cars (Main St, South Hall) making them dangerous.

Full text:

- I object to the scale of the development because it proposes a 61% increase in the village population, way above the average of 14% for all 'medium' villages. Therefore, the development would overwhelm the village both physically and in terms of community life.
- I object because village could not cope with the increased traffic - entry and exit roads for the village are already used as rat runs for neighbouring developments, and roads are narrow (Mill Lane) or full of parked cars (Main St, South Hall) making them dangerous.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1488

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: The Fingask Association

Agent: Rural Solutions

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

As drafted at present we consider the allocation of the land at Walnut Drive is not positively prepared. As well as the impact on the landscape, the delivery of a number of smaller sites will offer a much more sensitive pattern of development for the village of Maids Moreton rather than one large allocation. Organic growth of village will be more sympathetic and in keeping with the local character of the village. The policy is not justified as there are alternative sites capable of delivering dwellings to meet the need of Maids Moreton.

Full text:

Please find attached representations prepared by Rural Solutions Ltd, on behalf of The Fingask Association.

The Fingask Association control and manage the site known as 'Land north of Avenue Road' in Maids Moreton.

The following documents comprise our representations:

- Representations report prepared by Rural Solutions;
- Appendix 1 - Comparative sites review of potential landscape, visual and ecological issues assessment (Anthony Jellard Associates);
- Appendix 2 - Suitability of land north of Avenue Road, Maids Moreton (Ref:MMO001) (Rural Solutions);
- Appendix 3 - Heritage Statement (Graham Frecknall Architecture and Design);
- Appendix 4 - Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey inc. Hedgerow Survey (John Campion Associates Ltd); and
- Appendix 5 - Landscape and Visual Assessment (Anthony Jellard Associates).

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2041

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Agent: Savills Southampton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Option 5 is therefore clearly identified in the SA as the worst-performing of the alternatives at Maids Moreton, and yet despite this, is selected to be taken forward into the VALP. In effect, then, the only justification for the selected site relates to the provision of housing per se. However, with the redistribution of housing across the plan, particularly towards Milton Keynes, the same level of development can be achieved without the adverse effects identified in the Council's own SA.

Full text:

On behalf of Crest Strategic Projects (CSP), I enclose a suite of documents as formal representations on the above plan.

The lead representations statement (Savills) provides a detailed account of CSP's stance on the VALP as a whole. A range of inter-related objections are set out, relating to the amount and distribution of housing, site-specific allocations, and the consideration of alternatives within the Sustainability Appraisal. Particular objections are raised in respect of Shenley Park (site WHA001), which was included in the previous draft of the VALP, but is now omitted; and proposed allocation sites at RAF Halton, Buckingham and Winslow, which CSP objects to. The document should be read in conjunction with the following appendices:

* Appendix 1a - Shenley Park Vision Statement (Savills Urban Design Studio). This demonstrates and explains how the proposed development of Shenley Park can be delivered, not simply as a means to meet growth requirements for Aylesbury Vale in an optimal location and in a timely way, but to create a sustainable and integrated community with access to new facilities and nearby employment.
Please note that due to file size, the above is contained in my separate email ('email 2').

* Appendix 1b - Landscape and Green Infrastructure statement (The Landscape Partnership). This demonstrates that there are no landscape reasons why Shenley Park /WHA001 should not be included within the VALP. Concerns about the sensitive gap between Whaddon and Milton Keynes can be overcome by design and site planning. The north-west of the Site should include a permanent defensible buffer between built development on the Site and Whaddon comprising woodland planting and accessible semi-natural green space.
Please note that the above is accompanied by a series of figures and photographs in a separate file. Due to file size these are sent separately (in 'email 3').

* Appendix 1c - Technical note relating to highways and transport (RPS). This provides evidence on highways and transport matters, confirming that there are no significant transport constraints that would otherwise hamper the consideration of site WHA001 as a viable option for sustainable growth and timely delivery in the VALP.

* Appendix 2 - Draft Scoping Opinion (Aylesbury Vale District Council). This confirms that a formal EIA scoping report submitted by Savills on behalf of CSP satisfactorily sets out the likely environmental effects of the proposed development and determines the scope of the future assessment for the EIA

* Appendix 3 - Review of RAF Halton (Savills). This paper demonstrates that the VALP's allocation of RAF Halton is unsound, and should be removed and replaced with a site that is properly evidenced, available, deliverable and have a realistic prospect that it will deliver an appropriate number of dwellings within the plan period.

* Appendix 4 - Sustainability Appraisal Review (Savills). This shows that the Sustainability Appraisal of the VALP contains a number of flaws and inaccuracies, and that taking the SA as it is currently prepared may render the VALP being found 'unsound'. Correcting inaccuracies and appraising another alternative option for growth would offer a sound, sustainable way forward for the VALP.

* Appendix 5 - Technical report on housing need and local market absorption (Savills). This provides an analysis underlying CSP's view that a reduction in total housing targets (from the 2016 draft VALP to the current Submission Draft), is not justified, along with consideration of market issues.

* Appendix 6 - Review of housing land supply (Savills). This sets out an analysis to show that whilst AVDC is ostensibly able, in mathematical terms, to show a 5 year housing land supply in the Submission Draft VALP, there are number of substantial shortcomings in the intended approach relating to geographical distribution and overall levels of development.

* Appendix 7 - RAF Halton technical note relating to transport (RPS). This identifies that RAF Halton would not improve the proportion of travel by sustainable modes, by being remote from neighbouring areas or facilities, would not reduce the need to travel by relying on insufficient patronage to support a range of new facilities; and would not improve the efficiency of transport networks, by relying on lower order roads, including unsuited B-class and other rural roads and lanes for its outward connectivity.

* Appendix 8 - Representation forms (Savills). These are contained in AVDC's pro-formas, and set out CSP's representations on individual elements of the plan. There is a considerable element of overlap between these and the above-listed documents, and therefore the submission should be read as a whole.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2130

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

we welcome the reference to the historic buildings in the core of Maids Moreton in paragraph 4.158 as part of the positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of, and the clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by paragraphs 126 and 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Full text:

See attachment for full representation.