Aylesbury Vale Area

FMM058

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3703

Received: 30/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Gary Silver

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

If the Shenley Park development goes ahead, there must absolutely be no road access to the H6 Childs Way. This grid road is already full of queing traffic in the mornings and cannot take any more load. The playing field between Kingsmead & Oxley Park is the only one for these two estates. It would be devasting for the local community to run a link road through that field and would be exceptionally dangerous for the children that play there and there is absolutely no way that this could be supported. Another route must be found. Red way is sensible.

Change suggested by respondent:

If road access to MK is required, then it would be far more sensible through H7 Chaffron Way as there is no playing field and less traffic on H7. Or alternatively the A421.

Please remove H6 Childs Way from Criteria Point P as it would be irresponsible to allow this to happen from a safety perspective

Full text:

If the Shenley Park development goes ahead, there must absolutely be no road access to the H6 Childs Way. This grid road is already full of queing traffic in the mornings and cannot take any more load. The playing field between Kingsmead & Oxley Park is the only one for these two estates. It would be devasting for the local community to run a link road through that field and would be exceptionally dangerous for the children that play there and there is absolutely no way that this could be supported. Another route must be found. Red way is sensible.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3734

Received: 05/02/2021

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

D-WHA001 Shenley Park
Due to the areas of ancient woodland (irreplaceable habitat), deciduous woodland (priority habitat) and ‘no main habitat but additional habitats present’ (priority habitat) on the site, we advise wording is put in to ensure habitats are not damaged or destroyed. In addition, we advise removal of ‘where practicable’ in regards to retention of habitats.

Change suggested by respondent:

we advise wording is put in to ensure habitats are not damaged or destroyed. In addition, we advise removal of ‘where practicable’ in regards to retention of habitats.

Full text:

Dear Sir or Madam,
Planning Consultation: Aylesbury Vale Local Plan – Further Main Modifications
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 15 December 2020 which was received by Natural England on the same day.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
We would like to thank you for taking our comments from the previous consultation on board. We have reviewed the modifications and in particular Policies NE1-9 and I1, and have no further comments to make.
We have included some advisory comments, which should constitute best practice. Most are minor changes concerned with wording of certain policies.
ADVISORY
Policy D1 - Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
As the main Policy for the Garden Town, we recommend addition to D1 to require all associated development to conserve the biodiversity on site and provide a biodiversity net gain through multifunctional green infrastructure. this is supported within the NPPF (paras. 170, 175 (d). and will bring the Policy in line with Policies NE1-9 and I1.
D-WHA001 Shenley Park
Due to the areas of ancient woodland (irreplaceable habitat), deciduous woodland (priority habitat) and ‘no main habitat but additional habitats present’ (priority habitat) on the site, we advise wording is put in to ensure habitats are not damaged or destroyed. In addition, we advise removal of ‘where practicable’ in regards to retention of habitats.
D-HAL003 RAF Halton
Wording should be added to the site specific description to highlight the neighbouring sites of ecological value, and to ensure they are not encroached onto.
The 50% green infrastructure on site should focus on providing a similar experience to the adjacent Ancient Woodland to keep people on-site. Mitigation options for recreational disturbance can include
offsite works such as signage, fencing and footpath creation within the protected sites to minimise recreational disturbance such as trampling of vegetation, dog fouling, and disturbance of wildlife.
Site Allocations
Several of our points can be applied across all of the site allocation policies;
• We recommend removal of all mentions of ‘where practicable’ in reference to the retention of existing habitats, woodland and hedgerows, and creation of linkages of surrounding wildlife assets. In order to comply with the NPPF, para. 175, ‘if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused’. The NPPF also stresses the importance (para 171) of taking a ‘strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure’. By including the words ‘where practicable’ you allow for the possibly of destruction of priority habitats and the loss of biodiversity.
• It is Natural England’s opinion that the vast majority of the site allocations should require an ecological management plan and subsequent ecological mitigation to be provided. Unless you know there is mitigation required, then remove the ‘as required’. The discrepancy on how biodiversity is considered between site allocations is currently inconsistent with NPPF para. 170 and Policy NE1.
• All site allocations should require the provision of a measurable net gain in biodiversity, to remain consistent with para. 170 (d) of the NPPF.
Habitats Regulations Assessment
Natural England provided a response on the 18th November 2020 agreeing with the conclusions reached in the Addendum Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Appropriate Assessment.
We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.
For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Ellen Satchwell
Sustainable Development Lead Adviser
Thames Solent Team

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3750

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Whaddon Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Serious doubts are raised, and reasons given as to why and how the projected house completion rate - stating that 50 new homes will be delivered between 2020 to 2025 - is unrealistic, wildly optimistic and wide of the mark.
Clarification of WPC’s position on the Objection or Support to the six criteria points, which would change depending on the final conclusion of proper process being followed.

Change suggested by respondent:

FMM058 should be changed to read that 1150 homes will be delivered between 2025 and 2033 ...... and not before.

Full text:

These comments are made on the understanding that WPC have legitimate objections to this site being included in the VALP, and elected councillors expect and hope the Inspector will reopen the hearing sessions to properly examine Shenley Park’s inclusion, after comparison with the alternative sites.
PHASING.
It is totally unrealistic for Buckinghamshire Council (BC) to predict delivery of 50 homes on this site within 2020 - 2025 - a period end date which is already under 4 years away.
AECOM are wrong to say in the SAA (bullet 3, para.5.3.8) that Salden Chase is a committed site - it is not yet, and it's access is dependent on an appeal that does not open until May 2021. Realistically a decision will not be made till later this year, and that decision may or may not pave the way for FMM058 to follow because it's access is fundamentally the same, being dependent upon existing over capacity on the A421 being resolved (at peak times). Only if the Salden Chase site is finally approved can Shenley Park be considered safe to include in the emerging VALP, which realistically will not be adopted until end 2021, if the further Hearing Sessions are required. Thereafter BC have made it abundantly clear that further traffic and transport investigations are required , both for potential dualling to the A421 and rat-running through Whaddon village which, depending on monitoring results, may require lengthy consultation with third parties including residents - especially if road closures are anticipated - which would appear to be the case. Before a reserved matter/detailed planning application can be submitted, Whaddon and others have been assured that a detailed Development Design Brief will be submitted for consultation. These are not simple or straightforward issues, involving many specialist subjects, some of which may have commenced (archaeological investigations?), but others not. The question of road connections into Milton Keynes has yet to be agreed, as have the detailed discussions on CIL/Section 106 payments, which are yet to be finally negotiated - a tricky and difficult subject that has already put elected members of both local authorities 'on their serious guard', so as not to be left 'out of financial pocket'..... not forgetting the agreement to be reached on the ownership and maintenance agreements, in perpetuity on POS etc. Once all these issues have been approved and adopted, the planning application process can realistically commence. Approval will inevitably follow some months later and only thereafter can the advance infrastructure commence leading to the construction of drainage, roads, balancing lakes, biodiversity areas, etc. Thereafter the first houses will begin to rise - a process in itself that will take a full year to complete 50 homes.
CRITERIA : h : f : o : p : q & v
Until the outstanding Objection to this site is finally determined, preferably following proper debate and examination at a future 'Hearing Session', WPC believes their Objection on these points must remain in place.
However it should be said that if FMM058, Shenley Park remains within the VALP after proper process has been followed, then the suggested revisions to the site specific requirements, as detailed in these six criteria make absolute sense, and would be fully supported by this council on the understanding that the community is fully involved in the shaping of future planning decisions both through consultation on both the design brief and detailed planning application.

Support

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3753

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Crest Nicholson continues to support the proposed site allocation D-WHA001 Shenley Park, as being a sustainable and appropriate location for residential-led development.
We consider it is appropriate to identify that the site has the ability to deliver at least 1,580 dwellings, of which some might be delivered beyond the end of period proposed for the VALP i.e. beyond the year 2033.
We have no objections to the changes to the criterion proposed under MM076. We have just a minor query in respect of the bridleway reference under criterion q.

Full text:

Crest Nicholson continues to support the proposed site allocation D-WHA001 Shenley Park, as being a sustainable and appropriate location for residential-led development.

Crest Nicholson is a leading residential housebuilder operating in the Southern half of England and the Midlands with an emphasis on creating well designed, high quality homes in sustainable communities.

The Group prides itself on the delivery of new places which have sustainability at their heart. This creates new communities which are desirable places for first time buyers and larger family homes, including a mixture of houses and apartments as well as some commercial premises as part of the larger developments.

Crest Nicholson, working with the landowners and relevant stakeholders, is the promoter of land known as Shenley Park on the south west edge of Milton Keynes. Within the VALP the site has reference: D-WHA001.

The land at Shenley Park was originally included in the draft VALP published for consultation in 2016, but was then omitted from the submission version in 2017 when the overall housing provision was proposed to be reduced.

As set-out in the Inspector’s Interim Findings and the Main Modifications in 2019, additional residential development is required adjacent to Milton Keynes, in order to help meet the identified housing requirements of the VALP in a strategic manner.

Representations to the main modifications in 2019 were submitted by Savills on behalf of Crest Nicholson. These were generally supportive of then proposed main modifications and included suggestions for revisions to the emerging policy allocation. In accordance with the guidance for this further main modifications consultation we have not repeated or attached a copy of these representations. In the main these representations remain relevant and we trust they are available for the Planning Inspector to consider. A further copy can be provided if required.

This site has good provenance having previously been proposed for development over four years ago. We consider it is entirely appropriate to include this site within the VALP. The site has been the subject of testing through the examination process to date including sustainability appraisal and it has been the subject of public consultation.

We consider the site is a deliverable site for years one to five of the plan period and beyond. Crest Nicholson has a full consultant team in place to take the site forward to a planning application, subject to the outcome of examination into the VALP.

Shenley Park is available now for housing-led development, it offers a suitable location for development now, with delivery of development achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.

Shenley Park will employ high-quality design principles and use the natural features of the site and landscape setting as the framework for masterplanning. A strong ‘sense of place’ will be delivered through the use of traditional local building styles, with distinctive street scenes that run through the site and provide a succession of evolving vistas and glimpsed views to open countryside. A mixed-use local centre, village green, other accessible public open space, and connections to Milton Keynes by sustainable modes of transports will also be integral features of the development. Please refer to our representations to the main modifications for more detail in this regard.
We support the proposed further main modifications in respect of 50 homes to be delivered in the period 2020-2025. This reflects the ability for delivery earlier than the previous main modifications suggestion of delivery starting in the year 2024.
Crest Nicholson intends to prepare a planning application for submission before the end of 2021, depending on the subject to the outcome of examination into the VALP.
We support the identification of D-WHA001 Shenley Park within Appendix A: Aylesbury Vale Area Housing Trajectory for 2013-2033 - based on VALP housing requirement. In particular, we support identification of delivery of 50 new homes by 2024/25. However, we would ask that the column headings are repeated on each page of this document so that it is easier to read the table.
We agree that 1,150 new homes can be delivered during the period 2025-2033, as identified in the housing trajectory. However, we consider the site is capable of delivering more than 1,150 dwellings. We have undertaken site assessment work and masterplanning (see representations from December 2019) which show that at least 1,580 dwellings can be accommodated on the site.
We consider it is appropriate to identify that the site has the ability to deliver at least 1,580 dwellings, of which some might be delivered beyond the end of period proposed for the VALP i.e. beyond the year 2033.
FMM058 proposes changes to the wording for some of the criterion proposed under MM076. The changes relate to criterion: f, h, o, p, q and v. We have no objections to the proposed changes to these criterion.
We have a query as to whether the reference under criterion q should be to Shenley Brook End BW 007?
D-WHA001 Shenley Park, is a sustainable, viable and available site that fully accords with the sustainable development principles embedded in national planning policy guidance. Crest Nicholson is committed to the delivery of a sustainable new community taking matters forward from policy in the VALP through to a planning application and delivery on site. We look forward to attending all relevant examination hearings in respect of this site and our representations to the main modifications and further main modifications.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3755

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Kingsmead Residents Group

Agent: Mr Robert Wilson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The detail case is set out in the attached representation. In summary the previous comments and objections made by the Kingsmead Residents Group have not been resolved and the further modifications raise new serious concerns as set out in the full document attached.

Change suggested by respondent:

The change requested are as made at the Main Modifications stage: Delete Shenley Park and replace with Eaton Leys extension from the Milton Keynes's site into Buckinghamshire's administrative area.

Full text:

The detail case is set out in the attached representation. In summary the previous comments and objections made by the Kingsmead Residents Group have not been resolved and the further modifications raise new serious concerns as set out in the full document attached.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3969

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Willis Dawson Holdings Ltd

Agent: Willis Dawson Holdings Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Planning Officer Summary

Object to the allocation of Shenley Park on the basis that the revisions to the policy to address traffic impacts are inadequate and do not address the concerns raised at Main Modification stage. The SA Addendum has also not been conducted properly.

Fails soundness tests - Not justified or effective

Change suggested by respondent:

Pegasus seek the deletion of policy D-WHA001 Shenley Park and therefore the relevant PMMs and FMMs relating to
this policy and instead promote the inclusion of Land West of Newton Leys, Milton Keynes.
Policy D2 Delivery site allocations in the rest of the district - should be amended to include Land West of Newton
Leys (this can be in addition to the other additional sites in recognition of the need to provide a range and
choice of sites to ensure delivery in the plan period and acknowledging that there are already delays to the
Salden Chase strategic allocation following the refusal to grant permission for highway access by Milton Keynes
Council).
As a consequence other sites do not have to deliver as many dwellings in the plan period, such an approach reduces
the risk of the strategic site not coming forward as soon as anticipated, spreads the risk and supports housing
delivery.

Full text:

Please see attached document for full response

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 4001

Received: 23/02/2021

Respondent: Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium

Agent: Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Planning Officer Summary
An additional allocation should be made to the south west of Milton Keynes at Site Ref. NLV020. A development at Site Ref. NLV020 could be accommodated without significant landscape and visual effects and would provide an appropriate transport mitigation package to enhance strategic and local transport infrastructure. It is considered that Site Ref. NLV020 is a better site than WHA001 in landscape and transport terms, and should be allocated accordingly.

Change suggested by respondent:

No changes are requested for FMM058. The SWMK Consortium maintains an objection to MM074 and changes to WHA001: Shenley Park are requested in those representations.

Soundness failed - not justified or consistent with national policy

Full text:

See attached documentation

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 4060

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Milton Keynes Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Milton Keynes Council continues to object to the allocation of Shenley Park in the VALP. We welcome the Inspector’s decision to hold a hearing session on sites D-WHA001 Shenley Park and D-NLV001 Salden Chase and several changes made to Policy D-WHA001, principally via FMM058.
Our objections relate to Shenley Park becoming a successful part of the city, concerns are raised about the failure to require a grid road and associated grid road corridor incorporating Redways and the provision of a large enough primary school. Concerns are also raised about traffic modelling and the impact on the local highway network.

Change suggested by respondent:

Please see attached letter

Full text:

Please see attached letter relating to FMM058