Aylesbury Vale Area

FMM072

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 119

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3707

Received: 10/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Bloss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 155 and PPG para 3-008 [2014] - there was no engagement with Local Councils when the HELAA was amended). It remains the case that relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006 or FMM072 is unsound under NPPF 182 because it is not consistent with NPPF 155 and PPG para 3-008, and in line with the Council’s approach in ED263 para 15

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.
We have the ridiculous situation of a Council using the VALP as justification to support planning application 16/00151/AOP and then using the planning application as justification for the VALP. This is not evidence of the Council having followed robust and sound procedures

Full text:

I object to this modification on multiple grounds. No matter how many times individuals and organisations raise serious issues with the allocation of the site, serious issues with the procedural weaknesses of the Council's approach to the VALP in relation to the site, we still have the kafkaesque situation that it appears the Council can ignore NPPF and ploughs on regardless. It is ludicrous that we have a VALP allocation that uses the planning application (16/00151/AOP) as the main basis for it to be retained in the VALP, and we also have the Council using the inclusion of the site in the VALP as the main basis to approve the planning application! The Council should hang its head in shame over its treatment of the local community and Parish Councils - and most of this rests with the defunct AVDC. To be specific I object to this modification :

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 34 - it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised)

In his Interim Findings, the Inspector states: “What is surprising is that within the northern half of the district the roles of Buckingham, Winslow and Milton Keynes are relatively equal in the anticipated distribution of development. Milton Keynes, the dominant settlement, is not expected to dominate the development strategy.” (para 35)

“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.” (para 36)

“This would be contrary to national policy expressed in para 34 of the NPPF which advises that plans should ensure that developments which generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised. It is therefore unsound.” (para 37)

Site MMO006 is a large allocation in North Buckinghamshire unconnected to any public transport network, and with no direct route to Milton Keynes or beyond. FMM072 inserts the words ‘at least’ 170 houses, and FMM107 allocates an additional 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total to 182 dwellings. There will be a significant increase in traffic from commuting cars and service vehicles with no direct access to site MMO006 onto a main road as all three access points for the development are either onto narrow rural lanes or via Buckingham Town Centre – as illustrated by the three mitigation packages that will need to be included in the s106 Agreement.

The allocation of site MMO006 and the associated modifications are therefore contrary to para 34 NPPF: Site MMO006 will generate significant movement and, being on the northern edge of a rural village with no bus service to a dominant settlement, it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Even when recognizing its rural location (para 29 NPPF), a development of this size in this location is not in keeping with para 34 NPPF.

ED263, para 13 misinterprets this objection as about ‘conflict with interim findings’. However, this objection focuses not on conflict with the Inspector’s interim findings, but on inconsistency with NPPF 34. Therefore, contextualising the Inspector’s Interim Findings does not address the fact that the allocation is not consistent with NPPF 34; and consistency with NPPF 34 has been a concern previously raised by the Inspector.

The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 155 and PPG para 3-008 [2014] - there was no engagement with Local Councils when the HELAA was amended)

NPPF para 155 states: “Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area.”

PPG para 3-008 (2014 version) states who plan makers should work with: “The following should be involved from the earliest stages of plan preparation, which includes the evidence base in relation to land availability: … parish and town councils; ….”

The Council did not engage with Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting, Akeley Parish Council, Whittlesbury Parish Council or Leckhampstead Parish Council (all of which have objected to the associated Planning Application 16/00151/AOP) on any occasion with regard to the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as suitable for development. The only consultation thereafter was the public consultation on the Submission VALP not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA.

ED263, para 2 seeks to address this by saying “Public opposition to sites does not automatically lead to revisions to the HELAA. HELAA sites can be found suitable despite negative responses to consultation.” However, there was no public opposition to this designation because there was no consultation on this site being designated suitable for development in the HELAA. The November to December 2017 Consultation was not a consultation on HELAA v4 but on the Submission VALP.

The Council concedes this point in ED263, para 15 which says that NPPF 155 cites a general need for early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods and that this has been met by the extensive consultation and engagement process with parish council briefings (ie when MMO006 was still designated as unsuitable for development) but “At the formal stage of pre-submission consultation such engagement does not take place because the council cannot amend the plan as a result of that consultation.” Remarkably, ED263, para 15 then passes responsibility to correct this failure to consult with stakeholders on such a significant amendment to the Inspector by saying “Whether the plan is [subsequently] modified is then the responsibility of the independent Inspector, not the council.”

Overall, the local councils were briefed at a time when MMO006 was designated as unsuitable for development. When they were consulted on the Draft VALP (in summer 2016), the site was still designated as unsuitable. They were then consulted on the Submission VALP (in November 2017). However, in the meantime there was a fundamental change of position in the HELAA (from HELAA v3 to v4) re-designating MMO006 as suitable for development. The local councils were never consulted on that key change.

It remains the case that relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006 or FMM072 is unsound under NPPF 182 because it is not consistent with NPPF 155 and PPG para 3-008, and in line with the Council’s approach in ED263 para 15 I appeal to the Inspector to correct the Council’s mistake at this stage by removing this allocation from the site.

As a Regulation 19 Objector I am extremely dissatisfied and frustrated at the behaviour of the Council through this process. At a basic level it has misled and misdirected Objectors and subverted their right to be heard.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3709

Received: 07/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Pryke

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

Officer note: see attachment(s) for formatted text of full representation e.g. bold, underlined and italics text.

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)

NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”

Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.

In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).

The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.

The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:

“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”

The amended text now reads:

“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”

It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3717

Received: 31/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Simon Mallett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072, and the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151). MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and FMM072 increases the allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182

Change suggested by respondent:

I would remove MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, from the VALP because the site and allocation of at least 170 homes is not sustainable and therefore not sound or legally and procedurally compliant as per NPPF para 182

Full text:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)

NPPF 182 requires that for a Local Plan to be “sound”, it must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”. Site MMO006 was listed in the Technical Annex to the VALP Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton and there is accumulating evidence this has not changed. Whilst Council Note ED264 (the SA prepared by an independent third party organisation, AECOM, in 2020) suggests that this does not mean MMO006 is unsuitable for development, reading through the report, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of the merits of MMO006. More importantly, evidence bringing the sustainability of the site into serious question has emerged that the authors could not have been aware of at the time of its preparation. Some examples are:

1. Biodiversity ED264 justifies its conclusion that “the concerns raised in 2017 are now largely allayed” by citing the Officer’s Report to Committee of Feb 2019 on planning application 16/00151/AOP, c.f. “with the conclusion reached that development should lead to a net gain in biodiversity”. However, an independent report submitted by Professor Shreeve of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd in October 2020 disputes this conclusion and the Council has had to acknowledge that its own earlier reports were flawed. The Council made only a hasty attempt to correct the situation prior to the November 2020 Planning Committee meeting, as documented in an email trail obtained via FoI. Thus, ED264 relies on incorrect and out of date Biodiversity information and the Council’s own information must be treated as incomplete and unsatisfactory and certainly not evidence in favour of MMO006’s sustainability

2. Environment ED264 says that, “Development at Site MMO006 will not serve to realise any particular opportunities in terms of minimising per capita CO2 emissions from the built environment”. How can the site be considered sustainable if this is the case?

3. Economic Benefit ED264 criticises the Council’s conclusion that, “It is considered that there would be economic benefits in terms of the construction of the development itself, its operation and the resultant increase in population contributing to the local economy”. The authors of ED264 in effect say that the Council’s justification is nonsensical since the same could equally apply to any development at any location

4. Heritage ED264 says that, “any decision not to support development at this site, and instead to support one or more of the other competing site options locally, could result in an overall greater degree of impact to the historic environment”. This is an illogical conclusion by the authors. Rejecting the site acknowledged as the largest and least sustainable in the village - a site which also has by far the largest allocation of homes - would result in much less harm

5. Transport ED264 states that, “…the point made in 2017 regarding an inherent draw-back to a higher growth strategy at Maids Moreton still stands. Maids Moreton is a lower order settlement and hence is not well suited to a higher growth strategy, from a transport perspective”. However, it goes on to say that, “…concerns are somewhat allayed in light of the discussion presented within 2019 Officer’s Report, which describes detailed work having been completed to identify and realise opportunities for the development to deliver transport infrastructure upgrades”. In fact, Buckinghamshire Council’s Planning Committee were not satisfied by the transport strategy put forward in February 2019 and directed the Council and its Officers to rethink it. When the planning committee met again in November 2020 to hear updated proposals agreed between the Council and developer, half its members were even less impressed than previously. Indeed some of those who had previously voted in favour opted to vote against. Cllr Richard Newcombe said, “When I voted in favour of this development in 2019, I did so reluctantly and only because there were conditions attached pertaining to the traffic going through Foscote. I wasn’t very impressed by the scheme at that time and I have to say, as far as I can see, nothing has got better, everything has got worse…and for the reasons explained by Councillors Monger, Clare and Broadbent I think this is something to vote against”. This lead to a proposal to reject 16/00151/AOP which was only narrowly defeated via the Chairman’s casting vote AND after Planning and Legal Officers intervened to advise members that, since there were no outstanding issues with site MMO006 being included in the VALP, a refusal would threaten the legitimacy of the local plan. This was plainly untrue since we are still only at the consultation stage of the VALP, with further public hearings scheduled to take place

NPPF 151 states that a Local Plan, “…must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development”. Allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development is not justified by both prior and recently emerging evidence. It is partly based on less than enthusiastic conclusions contained within ED264, which were reached without knowledge of the response from elected members to the latest traffic mitigation proposals. Its inclusion based on evidence from a highly contentious and much disputed planning application that, after 5 years still has not been agreed, would render the VALP unsound

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3720

Received: 01/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Bloss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I object to modification FMM072 because it does not conform with NPPF Para 72 which requires the Council to work with the local community in identifying suitable locations. The feedback on sites was overwhelmingly against MMO006 and overwhelmingly for MMO004. However we now face a modification looking to add "at least" 170 houses whilst we see MMO004 having had it's allocation of potential houses reduced! We also see MMO005 a site adjacent to MMO006 having it's allocation cut resulting in 12 luxury i.e. ZERO affordable houses having been given planning permission

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove MMO006 and revisit MMO004. Work with the community for once

Full text:

I object to modification FMM072 because it does not conform with NPPF Para 72 which requires the Council to work with the local community in identifying suitable locations. The feedback on sites was overwhelmingly against MMO006 and overwhelmingly for MMO004. However we now face a modification looking to add "at least" 170 houses whilst we see MMO004 having had it's allocation of potential houses reduced! We also see MMO005 a site adjacent to MMO006 having it's allocation cut resulting in 12 luxury i.e. ZERO affordable houses having been given planning permission

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3724

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mrs Mandy Lewcock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)
NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.” Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151. In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before). The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151. The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read: “Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.” The amended text now reads:“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.” It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed. FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3728

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Ms Jane Wood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Using HELAA v4 as the evidence for this allocation and the associated modifications including FMM072 are not legally and procedurally compliant because the developer’s Land Classification Assessment (2019) which identified this site as Grade 3a Agricultural Land post-dates the HELAA amendment in 2017 and therefore cannot have informed the allocation or amendment.

Adding ‘at least’ to 170 houses exacerbates the consequences of this faulty allocation. Site MMO006 should be replaced in VALP with site MMO004, which was supported by respondents to the earlier consultation as the only suitable site in the village, with the lowest grade agricultural land.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

It should be replaced with site MMO004 which is at a more accessible location, fits within the current settlement area, is at a more appropriate scale, on poorer agricultural quality land, and was well supported as a the only suitable site in the village.

Full text:

Please see attachment to view 10 response forms submitted against FMM072.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3741

Received: 07/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Bloss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I object to the main modifications on FMM072. There's no basis for the expected delivery of homes to have resulted in 65 homes by 2025. The planning application associated with this site dates back to late 2015 and here we are in 2021 with still no planning approval for outline plans, let alone detailed. The projection also takes no account of Covid19 and its economic impact. Unemployment rose by almost 25% between October 2019 and 2020 in the UK (Source : ONS). There has been no revision to this plan's projections to account for this and it is therefore unsound

Change suggested by respondent:

All projections should be revisited to reflect the new economic trends and realities post-Brexit and post-Covid19

Full text:

I object to the main modifications on FMM072. There's no basis for the expected delivery of homes to have resulted in 65 homes by 2025. The planning application associated with this site dates back to late 2015 and here we are in 2021 with still no planning approval for outline plans, let alone detailed. The projection also takes no account of Covid19 and its economic impact. Unemployment rose by almost 25% between October 2019 and 2020 in the UK (Source : ONS). There has been no revision to this plan's projections to account for this and it is therefore unsound

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3742

Received: 07/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Bloss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The site does not offer genuine choice for transport and is therefore contrary to NPPF paragraph 103

Change suggested by respondent:

Revisit Maids Moreton, scrap this modification and start to have non-developer led analysis of feasible sites in the village. Nobody is saying don't build, what they are saying is listen to us.

Full text:

I object to the changes to the main modifications. To add "at least" exacerbates an already unsustainable site. NPPF Para 103 states : Significant development should be focused on locations which are or
can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine
choice of transport modes. There is one option for people who would live on this site and that is to travel by car. To fund a bus route for a year is not a sustainable solution and does not offer a "genuine" choice. There is a continued blindness on the part of the Council to acknowledge the topography of the site and journey into Buckingham. To spell it out Maids Moreton sits on a plateau that is significantly higher than the river valley that the commercial centre of Buckingham sits in (by around 40 metres elevation). It is utter fantasy that people who would live in MMO006 would do anything but jump in their cars to go anywhere. All journeys would start on rural roads totally unsuitable for an additional 400 or so vehicles.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3743

Received: 07/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Bloss

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The modifications in relation to Maids Moreton are not justified because they do not take into account reasonable alternatives. There are significant impacts on Maids Moreton on the highways alone that would not be necessary if other sites had been given the same level of scrutiny and support by the Council. Planning Application 16/00151/AOP evidence is ONLY being used to support MMO006 whereas it should be being used to inform the relative strengths of other sites in Maids Moreton. MMO004 and 5 could take more houses and MMO006 could be removed.

Change suggested by respondent:

MMO006 should be removed in its entirety and MMO004 and MMO005 should be looked at using all the evidence from 16/00151/AOP to highlight these two sites superiority to MMO006 and that they could take a larger allocation than currently planned which would have the backing of the local community

Full text:

I object to the main modifications and the addition of "at least" together with the amended projection for house building. I believe the modification and indeed the whole site allocation is not consistent with NPPF and it is not justified because the plan has not taken into account reasonable alternatives. All of the reasons to deem alternate sites in Maids Moreton, specifically MMO004 and MMO005, as part suitable and to reduce their housing allocation apply to MMO006 equally i.e. extending the village boundaries, access etc. Yet somehow MMO006 is being treated differently - this is not a sound approach. The village clearly favoured other sites but these appear to have been illogically limited in scope by the Council even though they could take larger allocations and even though MMO006 is the least sustainable of all Maids Moreton sites. The Planning Authority appears to abandon its principles when they become inconvenient and yet even now it is still incapable of providing objective reasoning or evidence in relation to how it has assessed the sites in Maids Moreton. There's not a shred of documentary evidence as to why MMO006 was changed from "Unsuitable" to "Suitable"

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3745

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Maids Moreton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The allocation of MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, is contrary to NPPF Policies and the insertion of the words “at least” further undermines the sustainability of this site.

Development on this site conflicts with existing policy GP35 (AVDLP) and proposed VALP policies BE2.
The SA Addendum Report concludes “at least” “is of note because the site is subject to a degree of heritage constraint”, “landscape constraint” and “transport constraint.

HELAA v.4 evidence base is unsound and not consistent with NPPF policy (paragraph 158).

Change suggested by respondent:

New and important evidence for MMO006 further undermines its sustainability, which, together with the additional requirements to address the inadequacy of waste water and surface water discharges, betoken removal of this allocation from the VALP.

Full text:

Referring to site MMO006 is Not Sound and Not Justified. The allocation of this site and all associated modifications, including FMM072, is contrary to NPPF Policies and the insertion of the words “at least” further undermines the sustainability of this site.

Maids Moreton has been wrongly categorized as a “medium” village. For a settlement of a lower order with acknowledged, major transport restraints, the proposed growth of 170 dwellings on this site, now compounded by an additional 12 dwellings on MMO005 (FMM107) is not sustainable.
The adverse impacts of doing so will “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the NPPF as a whole, paragraphs 32, 34, 38, 129, 151 and 182.

The Sustainable Assessment Report (SA) identified site MMO006 as the least sustainable in Maids Moreton. The NPPF (paragraph 32) advises that where adverse impacts are unavoidable, alternative options should be chosen.

Furthermore, allocating development on this site conflicts with existing policy GP35 (AVDLP) and proposed VALP policies BE2, which states: “that all new development proposals shall respect and complement the following criteria:
a) The physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings including the scale and context of the site and its setting…..
c. The natural qualities and features of the area, and
d. The effect on important public views and skylines”

NPPF Paragraph 110 states:
In preparing plans to meet development needs, the aim should be to
minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural
environment. Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or
amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework.

This site overlooks an SSSI (Foxcote reservoir and valley) and, in a recent response in respect of the re-determination of application 16/00151/AOP, Natural England have stated “the application would damage or destroy the interest features for which Foxcote Reservoir and Wood has been notified….The construction of a development so close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts”


We note from paragraphs 9.7.3, 9.9.2 and 9.12.4 of the SA Addendum Report that “at least” “is of note because the site is subject to a degree of heritage constraint”, “landscape constraint” and “transport constraint. In view of the recent major flooding incidents within the Great Ouse Valley, there is an additional constraint related to damaging impact on the Foxcote Reservoir and the Foxcote Valley. As stated in Paragraph 9.3.2, significant detail needs to be incorporated into Policy I4; namely the requirement to “ include detailed modelling of any ordinary watercourses within or adjacent to the site, where appropriate, to define in detail the area at risk of flooding and model the effect of climate change.” This is an important proposal as it can be the case that small streams and ditches shown by the nationally available flood risk dataset to be associated with surface water flood risk can be found to be associated with fluvial flood risk upon further investigation”.


It is a major concern that site MMO006 has not been subject to any detailed modelling of “any ordinary watercourses within or adjacent to the site, where appropriate, to define in detail the area at risk of flooding and model the effect of climate change”, nor “specific ground investigations to gain a more local understanding of groundwater flood risk and inform the design of sustainable drainage components”.

HELAA Designations
Contrary to NPPF, paragraph 155, the Council failed to engage in “early and meaningful engagement and collaboration” with Maids Moreton Parish council or Buckingham Town Council on the re-designation of site MMO006 in HELAA v.4. At the time of the VALP consultation in 2016, in accordance with HELAA v3, (and previous versions) there was no allocation site MMO006.

In consideration of the major changes within HELAA v.4, reversing the evidence that had been subject to consultation, the Council made no attempt to seek local views, or produce any objective evidence as to why a site deemed “ Unsuitable: Development would not relate to existing pattern of development of the village and there is no suitable access to the land. Would extend village significantly north east into open countryside” in the assessment of May 2016 should – without any further consultation - by January 2017 be considered “Suitable”. HELAA v.4 is inaccurate in that it did not take into account that this site is Grade 3a agricultural land.

It has been stated (Officer’s Report, November 2020, 16/00151/AOP) that the development of Manor Park “already extends out from the village centre as a precedent for further extension into open countryside”. This statement is factually incorrect. The development known as Manor Park, first occupied in 1965, was a re-development of a brownfield site, which had been previously occupied by The Lodge (demolished c.1964). It respected the existing village boundary which had existed for more than 250 years. It is interesting to note that Maids Moreton at that time had considerably better facilities than it now enjoys (6 shops, resident district nurse practice and regular bus services).

NPPF, paragraph 182 states a plan must be positively prepared “based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development”. A site that is based on the subjectively produced evidence of planning application 16/00151/AOP is not sound or positively prepared.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3757

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Wiltshire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

1 FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)
NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.
In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).
The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.
The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”
It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“not the most appropriate strategy” - 182 dwellings is an excessive allocation for a medium village)
Notwithstanding the fundamental issue that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘medium village’ when it is in fact a ‘small village’, FMM107 allocates a further 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total allocation for this village to 182 dwellings. VALP para 4.153 (now 4.148) lists the allocations in the other medium villages as follows: -
Cuddington – 23 dwellings
Ickford – 30 dwellings
Marsh Gibbon – 9 dwellings
Newton Longville – 17 dwellings
Quainton – 37 dwellings


This illustrates that an allocation of 182 dwellings for a ‘medium village’ is excessive and is not a justifiably appropriate development strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given that Maids Moreton has the 3rd smallest population of the medium villages listed and only four ‘key criteria’, somewhat short of that required for a medium village.
ED263, para 19 says that the large number of dwellings allocated to Maids Moreton “is a result of the Council’s capacity based approach which does not lead to proportional distribution of development according to population”. However, the Council has not given any explanation as to how a settlement with only four key criteria has the ‘capacity’ for such a large development.
In fact, ED263 para 12 justifies this excessive allocation in Maids Moreton on the basis that “allocations…do not match the size of settlements but generally relate to the availability of developable sites.” This is not a capacity-led approach at all. It conflicts with every possible interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ and runs contrary to VALP, para 3.19 which states: “The strategy for development generally reflects the size and character of different settlements and seeks to deliver a sustainable level of development that will support their different roles and functions.”
ED263, para 26 misunderstands previous objections received relating to the Inspector’s Interim Findings at paragraph 41. There is not a lack of support in Maids Moreton for the capacity-led approach to development, only a lack of support insofar as this ‘capacity-led approach’, by the Council’s own admission in ED263 para 12, has not been followed in respect of the allocation in Maids Moreton.
In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations - so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3759

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

David Wilson Homes supports Policy D-MMO006. Buckinghamshire Council has resolved to grant planning permission for up to 170 dwellings etc.
The site is a suitable and a sustainable location for residential development and it is soundly based in evidence.
The planning application has been under consideration since 2016 and the proposed allocation has been in the emerging Local Plan, consulted on in 2017. Therefore, this site has been under consideration for residential development for over 8 years in total and it is noteworthy that after all of this, Buckinghamshire Council have resolved to grant planning permission for this sustainable development.

Change suggested by respondent:

In line with the proposed change to provision of at least 170 dwellings, we consider this proposed
change should include the words ‘at least’.
This would read:
‘at least 65 homes to be delivered 2020-2025 and at least 105 homes to be delivered 2025-2033.’

Full text:

Officer note: officer changed from support to object as a change to the wording of the plan is suggested in the text below.

David Wilson Homes continues to support the proposed allocation Policy D-MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road, Maids Moreton.

This site is a suitable and a sustainable location for residential development and it is soundly based in evidence.

David Wilson Homes has decades of experience in building family homes and is known for its beautifully designed houses that are built to the highest quality. David Wilson Homes is one of the nation’s leading housebuilder, creating great new places to live throughout Britain, including in Buckinghamshire.

David Wilson Homes, working with the landowners and relevant stakeholders, is the developer who intends to bring forward the land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road, Maids Moreton. Within the VALP the site has reference: D-MMO006.

The land in this location is the subject of an outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 170 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure. Buckinghamshire Council’s reference for this planning application is: 16/00151/AOP.

This outline planning application has a resolution to grant planning permission from Buckinghamshire Council. The Council and David Wilson Homes are progressing the S.106 with the aim being to secure planning permission.

The resolution was granted at the Strategic Sites Committee, held on 19 November 2020. The minutes of this meeting in respect of this planning application, state:

“Resolved: that permission be deferred and delegated for approval subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure on site affordable housing provision, on site provision of public open space, monitor and manage impact of development traffic and provide appropriate mitigation for A422/College Farm Road and Foscote Road and Foscote Lane, highways delivery plan, financial contributions towards off site highway improvements, towards the Buckingham Transport Strategy, improved public transport, traffic regulation order, towards open space and recreation, education and to secure an acceptable SuDS scheme and its maintenance, subject to securing a District Licence to address protected species and subject to conditions as considered appropriate by officers, or if these are not achieved for the application to be refused.”

This application was previously heard at the Strategic Development Control Committee of the former Aylesbury Vale District Council on 20th February 2019 when it was resolved that permission be deferred and delegated for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement. The planning application has been under consideration for more than 3 years and it has received a positive resolution from the former Aylesbury Vale District Council and now from the new Buckinghamshire Council.

It is worth noting that the Officers’ report to committee is positive about the proposed development being sustainable development. Paragraph 1.3 of the report to the Strategic Sites Committee of 19 November 2020, states:

“It is acknowledged that there would be significant benefits in terms of both the contribution to housing supply and affordable housing, as a result of population growth and also considerable benefits from investment in construction and the local economy.”

At paragraph 1.12 of the committee report, the Officers state that this site is included in the trajectory for deliverable housing sites and therefore in the calculation of the 5 years housing supply against local housing need.
This is reinforced at paragraph 5.12, which states:
“This site is included in the trajectory for deliverable housing sites and calculation for the 5 years worth of deliverable housing supply against its local housing need. The proposal would therefore contribute to housing land supply and would ensure an on going supply and there is no reason that the site could not be delivered within the next five-year period which would be a significant benefit.”
David Wilson Homes considers this site is a sustainable, viable and available site that fully accords with the sustainable development principles embedded in national planning policy guidance.
The development, under the planning application, proposes a mix of dwelling sizes, two to five bedroom dwellings, and the provision of 30% affordable housing (include a proportion of wheelchair accessible housing) which would be evenly dispersed across the site.
David Wilson Homes intends to deliver a high quality and sustainable development taking matters forward from policy in the VALP through to conversion of the resolution to a planning permission. 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.
In respect of the proposed changes under FMM072, David Wilson Homes supports the proposed change to ‘65 homes to be delivered 2020-2025 and 105 homes to be delivered 2025-2033’.
However, in line with the proposed change to provision of at least 170 dwellings, we consider this proposed change should include the words ‘at least’.

This would read:
‘at least 65 homes to be delivered 2020-2025 and at least 105 homes to be delivered 2025-2033.’
We support the proposed inclusion of the ‘Provision of at least 170 dwellings’.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3762

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Andy Stroud

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated
modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive
allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative
sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel
will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent
with National Policy (NPPF 34).

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

1. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent
with National Policy (NPPF para 34 - it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised)
In his Interim Findings, the Inspector states: "What is surprising is that within the northern half of the district the
roles of Buckingham, Winslow and Milton Keynes are relatively equal in the anticipated distribution of
development. Milton Keynes, the dominant settlement, is not expected to dominate the development strategy. '
(para 35)
"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." (para 36)
"This would be contrary to national policy expressed in para 34 of the NP P F which advises that plans should
ensure that developments which generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be
minimised. It is therefore unsound." (para 37)
Site MMO006 is a large allocation in North Buckinghamshire unconnected to any public transport network, and with no direct route to Milton Keynes or beyond. FMM072 inserts the words 'at least' 170 houses, and FMM 107 allocates an additional 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total to 182 dwellings. There will be a significant increase in traffic from commuting cars and service vehicles with no direct access to site MMO006 onto a main
road as all three access points for the development are either onto narrow rural lanes or via Buckingham Town
Centre - as illustrated by the three mitigation packages that will need to be included in the s 106 Agreement.
The allocation of site MMO006 and the associated modifications are therefore contrary to para 34 NPPF:
MMO006 will generate significant movement and, being on the northern edge of a rural village with no bus service
to a dominant settlement, it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable
transport modes can be maximised. Even when recognizing its rural location (para 29 NPPF), a development of this size in this location is not in keeping with para 34 NPPF.
ED263, para 13 misinterprets this objection as about 'conflict with interim findings'. However, this objection
focuses not on conflict with the Inspector's interim findings, but on inconsistency with NPPF 34. Therefore,
contextualising the Inspector's Interim Findings does not address the fact that the allocation is not consistent with
NPPF 34; and consistency with NPPF 34 has been a concern previously raised by the Inspector.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3765

Received: 18/01/2021

Respondent: Ms Lyn Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 breaches NPPF 151 and NPPF 182 because it does not support sustainable housing
development. The criteria used are not sound, and indeed it has been already been identified by the
Council's Planning Department as 1the LEAST sustainable site for development' in north Bucks. The
change in wording from 170 houses to at least 170 houses is totally inappropriate for the application,
given the unsuitability of the proposal: the excessive number of houses coupled with inadequate
infrastructure regarding social, transport, educational and environmental needs. Maids Moreton is
not a medium but a SMALL village ie. it has no shop or medical facilities, a minimal bus service, and a
pub in danger. Supermarkets are the other side of Buckingham 2.5 miles away. FMM072 conflicts
with NPPF 158 regarding the size and character of our village.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

Since 2012 the National Planning Policy Framework has guided Local Planning. Yet FMM072 breaches NPPF 151
and NPPF 182 because it does not support sustainable housing development. The criteria used are not sound, and indeed it has been already been identified by the Council's Planning Department as 'the LEAST sustainable site or development' in north Bucks.
The change in wording from 170 houses to at least 170 houses is totally inappropriate for the application, given
the unsuitability of the proposal: the excessive number of houses coupled with inadequate infrastructure
regarding social, transport, educational and environmental needs.
Maids Moreton is not a medium but a SMALL village ie. it has no shop or medical facilities, a minimal bus service,
and a pub in danger. Supermarkets are the other side of Buckingham 2.5 miles away. FMM072 conflicts with NPPF 158 regarding the size and character of our village.
the entire planning application is FLAWED in content and procedure, and Maids Moreton begs for a more
reasonable outcome.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3771

Received: 28/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Forrester

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated
modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FIRST REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared
(not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)
NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.
In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).
The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications –
including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable
development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.
The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site
- that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that
the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid
justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147).
Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a
medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so
the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”
It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development.
All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.
FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151
because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving
sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under
NPPF 182.
SECOND REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified
(“not the most appropriate strategy” - 182 dwellings is an excessive allocation for a medium village)
Notwithstanding the fundamental issue that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised in the Settlement
Hierarchy as a ‘medium village’ when it is in fact a ‘small village’, FMM107 allocates a further 12 houses to
Maids Moreton bringing the total allocation for this village to 182 dwellings. VALP para 4.153 (now 4.148) lists the
allocations in the other medium villages as follows: -
 Cuddington – 23 dwellings
 Ickford – 30 dwellings
 Marsh Gibbon – 9 dwellings
 Newton Longville – 17 dwellings
 Quainton – 37 dwellings
This illustrates that an allocation of 182 dwellings for a ‘medium village’ is excessive and is not a justifiably
appropriate development strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given that Maids
Moreton has the 3rd smallest population of the medium villages listed and only four ‘key criteria’, somewhat short
of that required for a medium village.
ED263, para 19 says that the large number of dwellings allocated to Maids Moreton “is a result of the Council’s
capacity based approach which does not lead to proportional distribution of development according to population”.
However, the Council has not given any explanation as to how a settlement with only four key criteria has the
‘capacity’ for such a large development.
In fact, ED263 para 12 justifies this excessive allocation in Maids Moreton on the basis that “allocations…do not
match the size of settlements but generally relate to the availability of developable sites.” This is not a capacity-led approach at all. It conflicts with every possible interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ and runs contrary to VALP, para 3.19 which states: “The strategy for development generally reflects the size and character of different settlements and seeks to deliver a sustainable level of development that will support their different roles and functions.”
ED263, para 26 misunderstands previous objections received relating to the Inspector’s Interim Findings at paragraph
41. There is not a lack of support in Maids Moreton for the capacity-led approach to development, only a lack of
support insofar as this ‘capacity-led approach’, by the Council’s own admission in ED263 para 12, has not been
followed in respect of the allocation in Maids Moreton.
In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient
allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not
justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation
for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations –
so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.
THIRD REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with
National Policy (NPPF para 34 - it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised)
In his Interim Findings, the Inspector states: “What is surprising is that within the northern half of the district the
roles of Buckingham, Winslow and Milton Keynes are relatively equal in the anticipated distribution of development.
Milton Keynes, the dominant settlement, is not expected to dominate the development strategy.” (para 35)
“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.” (para 36)
“This would be contrary to national policy expressed in para 34 of the NPPF which advises that plans should ensure
that developments which generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised. It is therefore unsound.” (para 37)
Site MMO006 is a large allocation in North Buckinghamshire unconnected to any public transport network, and with no direct route to Milton Keynes or beyond. FMM072 inserts the words ‘at least’ 170 houses, and FMM107 allocates an additional 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total to 182 dwellings. There will be a significant increase in traffic from commuting cars and service vehicles with no direct access to site MMO006 onto a main road as all three access points for the development are either onto narrow rural lanes or via Buckingham Town Centre – as illustrated
by the three mitigation packages that will need to be included in the s106 Agreement.
The allocation of site MMO006 and the associated modifications are therefore contrary to para 34 NPPF: Site MMO006 will generate significant movement and, being on the northern edge of a rural village with no bus service
to a dominant settlement, it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable
transport modes can be maximised. Even when recognizing its rural location (para 29 NPPF), a development of this size in this location is not in keeping with para 34 NPPF.
ED263, para 13 misinterprets this objection as about ‘conflict with interim findings’. However, this objection focuses not on conflict with the Inspector’s interim findings, but on inconsistency with NPPF 34. Therefore, contextualising
the Inspector’s Interim Findings does not address the fact that the allocation is not consistent with NPPF 34; and
consistency with NPPF 34 has been a concern previously raised by the Inspector.
The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated
modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).
FOURTH REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not
consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112 - because the allocation site is on Best and Most Versatile
Agricultural Land)
NPPF para 112 says: “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other
benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural
land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality
in preference to that of higher quality.”
In justifying the allocation of the best and most versatile agricultural land for development in breach of
NPPF para 112, ED263, para 7 states “there is no location around Buckingham or Maids Moreton that
would easily avoid Grade 3a land.” This is not true. The Council’s own Technical Annex to the
Sustainability Appraisal (p.77) clearly illustrates that there is a more suitable site of poorer agricultural
quality within Maids Moreton which can accommodate development.
ED263, para 22 says that VALP para 9.51 inaccurately refers to HELAA v3 when it should, in fact, refer
to HELAA v4. If this amendment is made, then the rest of para 9.51 - that poorer agricultural land should
be prioritised for development over higher grades, and that the Council’s approach to site allocations in
order to give effect to NPPF para 112 has been informed by HELAA v4 (as proposed to be amended) –
does not hold true because site MMO006 is Grade 3a land (best and most versatile agricultural land).
The allocation of site MMO006 and the proposed modifications, including FMM072, are unsound
because they are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112). The planning authority has
not sought to use agricultural land of poorer quality but instead has allocated MMO006 which is
the best and most versatile agricultural land.
FIFTH REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY
COMPLIANT because HELAA Methodology para 2.15 was not correctly adhered to because site
MMO006 is Grade 3a Agricultural Land
HELAA Methodology para 2.15 states that Grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land quality will be carefully
considered when designating sites as suitable for development.
HELAA v4 has not taken into consideration that site MMO006 is Grade 3a agricultural land because
the developer’s Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (2019) which identified this site as
Grade 3a Agricultural Land post-dates the HELAA amendment in 2017. Therefore, using HELAA v4
to inform land allocations in the VALP means that the evidence base for this allocation and the
associated modifications including FMM072 are not legally and procedurally compliant.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3773

Received: 28/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Ian Forrester

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151
because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no
explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FIRST REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared
(not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)
NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.
In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).
The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications –
including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable
development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.
The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site
- that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that
the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid
justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147).
Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a
medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so
the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”
It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development.
All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.
FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151
because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving
sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under
NPPF 182.
SECOND REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified
(“not the most appropriate strategy” - 182 dwellings is an excessive allocation for a medium village)
Notwithstanding the fundamental issue that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised in the Settlement
Hierarchy as a ‘medium village’ when it is in fact a ‘small village’, FMM107 allocates a further 12 houses to
Maids Moreton bringing the total allocation for this village to 182 dwellings. VALP para 4.153 (now 4.148) lists the
allocations in the other medium villages as follows: -
 Cuddington – 23 dwellings
 Ickford – 30 dwellings
 Marsh Gibbon – 9 dwellings
 Newton Longville – 17 dwellings
 Quainton – 37 dwellings
This illustrates that an allocation of 182 dwellings for a ‘medium village’ is excessive and is not a justifiably
appropriate development strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given that Maids
Moreton has the 3rd smallest population of the medium villages listed and only four ‘key criteria’, somewhat short
of that required for a medium village.
ED263, para 19 says that the large number of dwellings allocated to Maids Moreton “is a result of the Council’s
capacity based approach which does not lead to proportional distribution of development according to population”.
However, the Council has not given any explanation as to how a settlement with only four key criteria has the
‘capacity’ for such a large development.
In fact, ED263 para 12 justifies this excessive allocation in Maids Moreton on the basis that “allocations…do not
match the size of settlements but generally relate to the availability of developable sites.” This is not a capacity-led approach at all. It conflicts with every possible interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ and runs contrary to VALP, para 3.19 which states: “The strategy for development generally reflects the size and character of different settlements and seeks to deliver a sustainable level of development that will support their different roles and functions.”
ED263, para 26 misunderstands previous objections received relating to the Inspector’s Interim Findings at paragraph
41. There is not a lack of support in Maids Moreton for the capacity-led approach to development, only a lack of
support insofar as this ‘capacity-led approach’, by the Council’s own admission in ED263 para 12, has not been
followed in respect of the allocation in Maids Moreton.
In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient
allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not
justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation
for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations –
so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.
THIRD REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with
National Policy (NPPF para 34 - it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised)
In his Interim Findings, the Inspector states: “What is surprising is that within the northern half of the district the
roles of Buckingham, Winslow and Milton Keynes are relatively equal in the anticipated distribution of development.
Milton Keynes, the dominant settlement, is not expected to dominate the development strategy.” (para 35)
“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.” (para 36)
“This would be contrary to national policy expressed in para 34 of the NPPF which advises that plans should ensure
that developments which generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised. It is therefore unsound.” (para 37)
Site MMO006 is a large allocation in North Buckinghamshire unconnected to any public transport network, and with no direct route to Milton Keynes or beyond. FMM072 inserts the words ‘at least’ 170 houses, and FMM107 allocates an additional 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total to 182 dwellings. There will be a significant increase in traffic from commuting cars and service vehicles with no direct access to site MMO006 onto a main road as all three access points for the development are either onto narrow rural lanes or via Buckingham Town Centre – as illustrated
by the three mitigation packages that will need to be included in the s106 Agreement.
The allocation of site MMO006 and the associated modifications are therefore contrary to para 34 NPPF: Site MMO006 will generate significant movement and, being on the northern edge of a rural village with no bus service
to a dominant settlement, it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable
transport modes can be maximised. Even when recognizing its rural location (para 29 NPPF), a development of this size in this location is not in keeping with para 34 NPPF.
ED263, para 13 misinterprets this objection as about ‘conflict with interim findings’. However, this objection focuses not on conflict with the Inspector’s interim findings, but on inconsistency with NPPF 34. Therefore, contextualising
the Inspector’s Interim Findings does not address the fact that the allocation is not consistent with NPPF 34; and
consistency with NPPF 34 has been a concern previously raised by the Inspector.
The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated
modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).
FOURTH REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not
consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112 - because the allocation site is on Best and Most Versatile
Agricultural Land)
NPPF para 112 says: “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other
benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural
land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality
in preference to that of higher quality.”
In justifying the allocation of the best and most versatile agricultural land for development in breach of
NPPF para 112, ED263, para 7 states “there is no location around Buckingham or Maids Moreton that
would easily avoid Grade 3a land.” This is not true. The Council’s own Technical Annex to the
Sustainability Appraisal (p.77) clearly illustrates that there is a more suitable site of poorer agricultural
quality within Maids Moreton which can accommodate development.
ED263, para 22 says that VALP para 9.51 inaccurately refers to HELAA v3 when it should, in fact, refer
to HELAA v4. If this amendment is made, then the rest of para 9.51 - that poorer agricultural land should
be prioritised for development over higher grades, and that the Council’s approach to site allocations in
order to give effect to NPPF para 112 has been informed by HELAA v4 (as proposed to be amended) –
does not hold true because site MMO006 is Grade 3a land (best and most versatile agricultural land).
The allocation of site MMO006 and the proposed modifications, including FMM072, are unsound
because they are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112). The planning authority has
not sought to use agricultural land of poorer quality but instead has allocated MMO006 which is
the best and most versatile agricultural land.
FIFTH REPRESENTATION
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY
COMPLIANT because HELAA Methodology para 2.15 was not correctly adhered to because site
MMO006 is Grade 3a Agricultural Land
HELAA Methodology para 2.15 states that Grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land quality will be carefully
considered when designating sites as suitable for development.
HELAA v4 has not taken into consideration that site MMO006 is Grade 3a agricultural land because
the developer’s Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (2019) which identified this site as
Grade 3a Agricultural Land post-dates the HELAA amendment in 2017. Therefore, using HELAA v4
to inform land allocations in the VALP means that the evidence base for this allocation and the
associated modifications including FMM072 are not legally and procedurally compliant.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3774

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Gadd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable development allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151.
The additional development referred to in FMM107 alone would be a sufficient allocation for Maids Moreton.
Evidence submitted for planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case.
FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains an unjustifiable excessive allocation for the size of village and contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations. So the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

1. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)
NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. So the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton.
In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none.
The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.
The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”
It is unfair that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’, without public consultation even though it has not been shown that this site could be a sustainable development. Indeed, based on current information it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.
FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.
2. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“not the most appropriate strategy” - 182 dwellings is an excessive allocation for a medium village)
Notwithstanding the fundamental issue that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘medium village’ when it is in fact a ‘small village’, FMM107 allocates a further 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total allocation for this village to 182 dwellings.
The MMO006 development of 170+ houses, which in their plan states should be primarily houses for 4-6 persons, would accommodate approximately 680-850 persons or more. This single development would double the current population and it seems unlikely that the village will be able to retain much of its identity in such circumstances.
VALP para 4.153 (now 4.148) lists the allocations in the other medium villages as follows: -
Cuddington – 23 dwellings
Ickford – 30 dwellings
Marsh Gibbon – 9 dwellings
Newton Longville – 17 dwellings
Quainton – 37 dwellings
This comparison of other ‘medium village’ allocations illustrates that an allocation of 182 dwellings for a ‘medium village’ is disproportionate, excessive and is not a justifiably appropriate development strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given that Maids Moreton has the 3rd smallest population of the medium villages listed and only four ‘key criteria’.
ED263, para 19 says that the large number of dwellings allocated to Maids Moreton “is a result of the Council’s capacity based approach which does not lead to proportional distribution of development according to population”. However, the Council has not given any explanation as to how a small settlement with only four key criteria has the ‘capacity’ for such a large development.
In fact, ED263 para 12 justifies this excessive allocation in Maids Moreton on the basis that “allocations…do not match the size of settlements but generally relate to the availability of developable sites.” This is not a capacity-led approach at all. It conflicts with every possible interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ and runs contrary to VALP, para 3.19 which states: “The strategy for development generally reflects the size and character of different settlements and seeks to deliver a sustainable level of development that will support their different roles and functions.”
ED263, para 26 misunderstands previous objections received relating to the Inspector’s Interim Findings at paragraph 41. There is not a lack of support in Maids Moreton for the capacity-led approach to development, only a lack of support insofar as this ‘capacity-led approach’, by the Council’s own admission in ED263 para 12, has not been followed in respect of the allocation in Maids Moreton.
In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation for the size of village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations - so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.
3. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because the planning commentary in relation to site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is Not Positively Prepared (not “objectively assessed”), and Not Justified (based on incorrect and misleading evidence)
NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be positively prepared, “based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development….and consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be justified, “the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.”
The commentary on planning application 16/00151/AOP in respect of site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is incomplete and misleading. The development was not ‘objectively assessed’ during the course of the planning application, and neither was the decision to grant planning permission ‘based on proportionate evidence’.
In order to ascertain for himself whether or not this planning application provides objectively assessed, proportionate evidence which supports the ‘soundness’ of the site allocation in the VALP - or indeed further undermines this unsustainable and flawed allocation - the Inspector requires a full commentary on the application. In view of this, the planning commentary for site MMO006 in ED244 (Appendix A) should include all the following information:
An outline planning application (16/00151/AOP) for up to 170 homes, public open space and associated infrastructure on what is now the VALP as proposed to be modified site MMO006 was validated in January 2016. At that time, HELAA v3 had designated this site as ‘unsuitable for development’. On receiving this planning application, the Council changed the designation in the HELAA from ‘unsuitable for development’ to ‘suitable for development’, which then allowed the application site to become an allocated site in the VALP. No evidence, other than receipt of this planning application, has been produced by the Council to support this change. As a result of allocating this site in the VALP, the application was determined by the AVDC Strategic Management and Development Committee (20th February 2019), and the Officer’s Report (2019) presented the VALP allocation as evidence that the application site is a ‘sustainable location’ for 170 dwellings. The application was approved subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement, which was subsequently published online in draft in July 2020. Following comments received on the draft s106 Agreement, representations received in relation to the VALP allocation during Public Consultation (Dec 2019) and additional Examination Documents accepted by the Inspector in relation to site MMO006, the draft s106 Agreement was not signed, and the planning application was called back to committee for redetermination in November 2020. This second determination was heard by the Strategic Sites Committee (19th November 2020) and - despite being a second determination, despite being heard by the Strategic Sites Committee where only two Members are local to the application site, and despite the Officer’s Report (2020) recommending approval - there was clear support for refusing permission during the course of the debate. In view of this, a motion was put forward for refusal on grounds of traffic and transport, landscape impact, best and most versatile agricultural land and heritage. As the motion for refusal was put forward, intervention from the Planning Officer warning Members against refusal materially influenced the vote leading to a tie, which was then decided by the Chair casting his deciding vote in accordance with the Officer’s Report. At the second determination planning permission was granted, not on the basis of the ‘planning merits’ of the application as purported in much of the VALP supporting evidence, but instead on the direction to Members that they had insufficient grounds for refusing this application in light of this site being an allocated site in the VALP with which the Inspector had raised no issues of soundness.
In support of this ‘full commentary’ the following information from the second determination is relevant:
- Residents have received legal advice that the decision to grant planning permission is unlawful.
The Planning Officer’s incorrect advice during the second determination and intervention (which sought to persuade against a refusal) is currently subject to an internal investigation at the highest level within the Council, which is being carried out by an independent legal professional.
- The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members against refusal on the basis that it would undermine the allocation of this site in the VALP and potentially other allocations in the VALP: “I think we’ve got to be very very careful refusing a site that has already gone through quite a lot of scrutiny through the VALP process but also through the application process and the implications that this would have elsewhere in terms of the strategy and the allocations.” (193:03)
- The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members that there were insufficient grounds for refusal particularly with regard to traffic and transport, despite Members’ express belief to the contrary on hearing all the evidence: “I would just stress that I am concerned our highways engineers have made it absolutely clear that they think that this is satisfactory and they are highly unlikely to be able to support a reason for refusal and provide evidence on that basis.” (205:14)
As one Member commented after a series of like interventions by the Planning Officer: “I was really astonished frankly Chairman that, in my experience on planning committees, once a proposal was made and seconded the vote is carried ….. there's been an attempt to virtually rubbish everything Councillor Clare [the proposer] said which I was surprised by.” (213:47)
- Natural England put forward an objection that “the application would damage or destroy the interest features for which Foxcote Reservoir & Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified…..The construction of a development so close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts upon the site.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
- Anglian Water put forward an objection that “Development [of this site] will lead to unacceptable risk of flooding downstream.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
- Anglian Water also put forward an objection that “The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Buckingham Water Recycling Centre which currently does not have capacity to treat the flows the development site.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
- Six different Local Councils raised strong objections to the development on the grounds that the site is entirely inaccessible for the volume of traffic that a development of 170 houses will generate: Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting, Leckhampstead Parish Council, Akeley Parish Council and Whittlebury Parish Council.
Clearly, the evidence for planning application 16/00151/AOP was not ‘objectively assessed’ and therefore not positively prepared and cannot be used as evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006.
Equally, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been based on proportionate evidence but, instead, based on inappropriate and incorrect direction from the Planning Officer during the course of the Committee debate. In effect, the VALP process is being used to support a recommendation to approve the planning application; whilst at the same time the planning application is being used to support the allocation in the VALP. Therefore, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP cannot be used to justify the site allocation in the VALP.
Evidence submitted for planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case. Therefore, reliance on the resolution to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP, or reliance on a considerable amount of the material submitted in support of planning application 16/00151/AOP, in the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - would render the allocation unsound.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3779

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Lewcock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Evidence submitted for planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case. Therefore, reliance on the resolution to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP, or reliance on a considerable amount of the material submitted in support of planning application 16/00151/AOP, in the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - would render the allocation unsound.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

See attachment(s) for formatted text of full representation e.g. bold, underlined and italics text.

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because the planning commentary in relation to site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is Not Positively Prepared (not “objectively assessed”), and Not Justified (based on incorrect and misleading evidence)
NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be positively prepared, “based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development….and consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be justified, “the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.”
The commentary on planning application 16/00151/AOP in respect of site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is incomplete and misleading. The development was not ‘objectively assessed’ during the course of the planning application, and neither was the decision to grant planning permission ‘based on proportionate evidence’.
In order to ascertain for himself whether or not this planning application provides objectively assessed, proportionate evidence which supports the ‘soundness’ of the site allocation in the VALP - or indeed further undermines this unsustainable and flawed allocation - the Inspector requires a full commentary on the application. In view of this, the planning commentary for site MMO006 in ED244 (Appendix A) should include all the following information:
An outline planning application (16/00151/AOP) for up to 170 homes, public open space and associated infrastructure on what is now the VALP as proposed to be modified site MMO006 was validated in January 2016. At that time, HELAA v3 had designated this site as ‘unsuitable for development’.
On receiving this planning application, the Council changed the designation in the HELAA from ‘unsuitable for development’ to ‘suitable for development’, which then allowed the application site to become an allocated site in the VALP. No evidence, other than receipt of this planning application, has been produced by the Council to support this change.
As a result of allocating this site in the VALP, the application was determined by the AVDC Strategic Management and Development Committee (20th February 2019), and the Officer’s Report (2019) presented the VALP allocation as evidence that the application site is a ‘sustainable location’ for 170 dwellings. The application was approved subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement, which was subsequently published online in draft in July 2020.
Following comments received on the draft s106 Agreement, representations received in relation to the VALP allocation during Public Consultation (Dec 2019) and additional Examination Documents accepted by the Inspector in relation to site MMO006, the draft s106 Agreement was not signed, and the planning application was called back to committee for redetermination in November 2020.
This second determination was heard by the Strategic Sites Committee (19th November 2020) and - despite being a second determination, despite being heard by the Strategic Sites Committee where only two Members are local to the application site, and despite the Officer’s Report (2020) recommending approval - there was clear support for refusing permission during the course of the debate. In view of this, a motion was put forward for refusal on grounds of traffic and transport, landscape impact, best and most versatile agricultural land and heritage.
As the motion for refusal was put forward, intervention from the Planning Officer warning Members against refusal materially influenced the vote leading to a tie, which was then decided by the Chair casting his deciding vote in accordance with the Officer’s Report.
At the second determination planning permission was granted, not on the basis of the ‘planning merits’ of the application as purported in much of the VALP supporting evidence, but instead on the direction to Members that they had insufficient grounds for refusing this application in light of this site being an allocated site in the VALP with which the Inspector had raised no issues of soundness.

In support of this ‘full commentary’ the following information from the second determination is relevant:
• Residents have received legal advice that the decision to grant planning permission is unlawful.
• The Planning Officer’s incorrect advice during the second determination and intervention (which sought to persuade against a refusal) is currently subject to an internal investigation at the highest level within the Council, which is being carried out by an independent legal professional.
• The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members against refusal on the basis that it would undermine the allocation of this site in the VALP and potentially other allocations in the VALP: “I think we’ve got to be very very careful refusing a site that has already gone through quite a lot of scrutiny through the VALP process but also through the application process and the implications that this would have elsewhere in terms of the strategy and the allocations.” (193:03)
• The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members that there were insufficient grounds for refusal particularly with regard to traffic and transport, despite Members’ express belief to the contrary on hearing all the evidence: “I would just stress that I am concerned our highways engineers have made it absolutely clear that they think that this is satisfactory and they are highly unlikely to be able to support a reason for refusal and provide evidence on that basis.” (205:14)
As one Member commented after a series of like interventions by the Planning Officer: “I was really astonished frankly Chairman that, in my experience on planning committees, once a proposal was made and seconded the vote is carried ….. there's been an attempt to virtually rubbish everything Councillor Clare [the proposer] said which I was surprised by.” (213:47)
• Natural England put forward an objection that “the application would damage or destroy the interest features for which Foxcote Reservoir & Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified…..The construction of a development so close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts upon the site.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
• Anglian Water put forward an objection that “Development [of this site] will lead to unacceptable risk of flooding downstream.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
• Anglian Water also put forward an objection that “The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Buckingham Water Recycling Centre which currently does not have capacity to treat the flows the development site.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
• Six different Local Councils raised strong objections to the development on the grounds that the site is entirely inaccessible for the volume of traffic that a development of 170 houses will generate: Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting, Leckhampstead Parish Council, Akeley Parish Council and Whittlebury Parish Council.
Clearly, the evidence for planning application 16/00151/AOP was not ‘objectively assessed’ and therefore not positively prepared and cannot be used as evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006.
Equally, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been based on proportionate evidence but, instead, based on inappropriate and incorrect direction from the Planning Officer during the course of the Committee debate. In effect, the VALP process is being used to support a recommendation to approve the planning application; whilst at the same time the planning application is being used to support the allocation in the VALP. Therefore, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP cannot be used to justify the site allocation in the VALP.
Evidence submitted for planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case. Therefore, reliance on the resolution to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP, or reliance on a considerable amount of the material submitted in support of planning application 16/00151/AOP, in the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - would render the allocation unsound.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3781

Received: 09/01/2021

Respondent: Mrs Christine Jackson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Officer summary:
FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to “at least” 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a ‘medium’ village when it is, in fact, a ‘small’ village.Maids Moreton still should be reclassified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘small’ village in order to correct the false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has, at best, 4½. It is a misapplication of the assessment process to include ‘criteria’ that the village simply does not have. Unless this change is made to the Settlement Hierarchy, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 are not justified because the allocation is based on incorrect evidence and is unsound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“based on incorrect evidence” - Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a medium village when it is, in fact, a small village)

Examination Document ED200(B) proposes changes to the settlement hierarchy which reduces the number of houses being delivered in Buckingham and surrounding villages in order that further housing can be delivered close to Milton Keynes in line with the Inspector’s Interim Findings. FMM107 increases the number of dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182 new houses, and FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to “at least” 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a ‘medium’ village when it is, in fact, a ‘small’ village.

According to ED191 “The key services available are the main determinant of the final position of a settlement in the hierarchy, not a settlement’s population.” To be a medium village, para 5.15 of CD/MIS/003 (‘Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Proposed Submission Plan September 2017’) sets out that between 6 and 7 of the ‘key criteria’ should be met, with at least 6 being the minimum number. The only exception to this is Stewkley which meets only 5 of the key criteria but has a large population of 1,840.

The ‘key criteria’ for assessing the settlement hierarchy are: within 4 miles of a service centre, employment of 20 units or more, food store, pub, post office, GP, village hall, recreation facilities, primary school, hourly or more bus service and train station. Maids Moreton only meets four of these key criteria:-
1. 1.5 miles to a service centre (Buckingham)
2. 1 public house
3. 1 recreation ground/playing field
4. 1 village hall
There is no hourly bus service in Maids Moreton and there is not a primary school in Maids Moreton (only an infant school but an infant school is not stated as a key criteria so cannot be regarded as such).

Para 5.19 of CD/MIS/003 states that none of the smaller settlements have more than five key criteria, and typically only have four of the key criteria. Great Brickhill, a settlement with a comparable population to Maids Moreton, has 5 key criteria but is categorised as a small settlement.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3783

Received: 18/01/2021

Respondent: Mr K B Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Summary.
The VALP has serious flaws in designating the Maids Moreton site as suitable development land.
A) The Maids Moreton site is the least suitable site for development
B) The HELAA v4 evidence base is Inaccurate and misleading.
C) There was no local engagement with Local Councils when the HELAA was amended.
D) The HELAA methodology was not adhered to in designating site MMO006
E) The development of MMO006 is not sustainable , proportional, or desirable by the local
communlties of Buckingham, Maids Moreton , Foscote or Akeley.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072 , must be deleted
from the V ALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 1 82 .

Full text:

See attachment(s) for formatted text of full representation e.g. bold, underlined and italics text.

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not "consistent with achieving sustainable development"), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)

NPPF 182 says that in order to be "sound", the Local Plan must be "positively prepared .... consistent with achieving sustainable development", and NPPF 151 says "Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development."

Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council 'Note' on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.

In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).

The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site
notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications - including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.

The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:

"Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations."

The amended text now reads:

"Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application."

It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a 'Further Additional Modification' which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from "170 houses" to "at least 170" contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.
FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified(not "based on proportionate evidence" - HELAA v4 evidence base is inaccurate and misleading) and not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 158)

HELAA v4, which deemed site MMO006 as 'suitable' for 170 houses, was used as supporting evidence for the allocation of site MMO006 in the Submission VALP. The designation of this site as suitable for development in HELAA v4 is not evidence based and therefore calls into question the general soundness of the approach to identifying the allocation (see ED186(A-S): HELAA v4, Lack of Evidence).

NPPF para 158 says: "Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area."

ED263, para 3 claims that the change to the HELAA in 2016 was, in fact, based on evidence submitted in support of planning application 16/00151/AOP - in particular, on matters relating to landscape, and traffic & transport. However, ED263, para 3 does not give the Inspector the following information: -
· 16/00151/AOP Officer's Report (2019), para 10.60 states: "It has been acknowledged that there would be a major scale of adverse change to the currently agricultural fields that form the application site and to the open views across the site currently experienced from homes on the edge of the settlement."
· 16/00151/AOP Officer's Report (2019), para 10.62 states: "the proposed development would extend the built form further into the countryside."
· 16/00151/AOP Officer's Report (2019), para 10.63 states: "the LVIA concludes that. .. . the users of the homes to the south of the site and the footpath which crosses the site would experience long term significant negative visual effects."
· 16/00151/AOP Officer's Report (2020), para 5. 78 states: "It is accepted that there will be significant adverse visual impacts from the development."
· 16/00151/AOP Consultee Comments from Natural England (2.11.20) states: "We consider that without appropriate mitigation the application would damage or destroy the interest features for which Foxcote Reservoir & Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified .. ... The construction of a development so close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts upon the site."

Neither does ED263 para 3 inform the Inspector that, with regards to access to the site, the routes available to take traffic from the development to the A422 for Milton Keynes/Aylesbury and beyond ALL require mitigation packages in the s106 Agreement because they are ALL unsuitable for the proposed volume of traffic:
i. through Maids Moreton and down Mill Lane to the A422: The s106 Agreement will contain a mitigation package to discourage use of this route because it is a rural lane unlikely to cope with the volume of traffic;
ii. via Foscote Road and Foscote Lane: The s106 Agreement will contain a mitigation package to discourage use of this route because it involves unsuitable rural roads through neighbouring villages;
iiL through Buckingham town centre in breach of VALP T3, as this development was not considered as part of the Buckingham Transport Strategy which underpins VALP T3. In recognition of this, the s106 Agreement will also include a financial contribution to mitigate against traffic in Buckingham Town Centre.

Most importantly, ED263 does not inform the Inspector that the application was recently taken back to Committee for redetermination (Nov 2020). In respect of the planning merits of this application - particularly. in relation to access and landscape issues - the majority of Committee Members did not support the application, and a motion was put forward for refusal. The Officer's intervention and persuasion that VALP Policy D-MMO006 was considered by the Inspector to be 'sound', with no outstanding issues of 'soundness', brought the vote to a tie with the Chair casting a deciding vote in favour of the Officer's recommendation. The application was NOT decided on the basis of the planning merits of the proposed development.

To persuade the Inspector now that he can rely on evidence submitted in relation to Planning Application 16/00151/AOP to support the amendment to the HELAA- particularly on grounds on access and landscape - is wholly inappropriate and misleading.

Given the questionable planning merits of Planning Application 16/00151/AOP, it cannot be relied on as supporting evidence for the designation of MMO006 as suitable for development in HELAA v4. Therefore, the allocation of this site in the VALP, and the modification in FMM072, are not justified by a sound evidence base, and are not consistent with NPPF 158 so the allocation of the site for development is not sound under NPPF 182.

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 155 and PPG para 3-008 [2014] - there was no engagement with Local Councils when the HELAA was amended)

NPPF para 155 states: "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area."

PPG para 3-008 (2014 version) states who plan makers should work with: "The following should be involved from the earliest stages of plan preparation, which includes the evidence base in relation to land availability: ... parish and town councils; .... "

The Council did not engage with Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting, Akeley Parish Council, Whittlesbury Parish Council or Leckhampstead Parish Council (all of which have objected to the associated Planning Application 16/00151/AOP) on any occasion with regard to the amendment in HELAA v4 which designated this site as suitable for development. The only consultation ' ' thereafter was the public consultation on the Submission VALP not the designation of the site as suitable for development in the HELAA

ED263, para 2 seeks to address this by saying "Public opposition to sites does not automatically lead to revisions to the HELAA. HELAA sites can be found suitable despite negative responses to consultation." However, there was no public opposition to this designation because there was no consultation on this site being designated suitable for development in the HELAA. The November to December 2017 Consultation was not a consultation on HELAA v4 but on the Submission VALP.

The Council concedes this point in ED263, para 15 which says that NPPF 155 cites a general need for early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods and that this has been met by the extensive consultation and engagement process with parish council briefings (ie when MMO006 was still designated as unsuitable for development) but "At the formal stage of pre-submission consultation such engagement does not take place because the council cannot amend the plan as a result of that consultation." Remarkably, ED263, para 15 then passes responsibility to correct this failure to consult with stakeholders on such a significant amendment to the Inspector by saying "Whether the plan is [subsequently]modified is then the responsibility of the independent Inspector, not the council."

Overall, the local councils were briefed at a time when MMO006 was designated as unsuitable for
development. When they were consulted on the Draft VALP (in summer 2016), the site was still designated as unsuitable. They were then consulted on the Submission VALP (in November 2017). However, in the meantime there was a fundamental change of position in the HELAA (from HELAA v3 to v4) re-designating MMO006 as suitable for development. The local councils were never consulted on that key change.

It remains the case that relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006 or FMM072 is unsound under NPPF 182 because it is not consistent with NPPF 155 and PPG para 3-008, and in line with the Council's approach in ED263 para 15 we appeal to the Inspector to correct the Council's mistake at this stage by removing this allocation from the site.

consistent with NPPF 155 and PPG para 3-008, and in line with the Council's approach in ED263 para 15 we appeal to the Inspector to correct the Council's mistake at this stage by removing this allocation from the site.

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112 - because the allocation site is on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land)

NPPF para 112 says: "Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of higher quality."

In justifying the allocation of the best and most versatile agricultural land for development in breach of NPPF para 1 1 2, ED263, para 7 states "there is no location around Buckingham or Maids Moreton that would easily avoid Grade 3a land." This is not true. The Council's own Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal (p.77) clearly illustrates that there is a more suitable site of poorer agricultural quality within Maids Moreton which can accommodate development

ED263, para 22 says that VALP para 9.51 inaccurately refers to HELAA v3 when it should, in fact, refer to HELAA v4. If this amendment is made, then the rest of para 9.51 - that poorer agricultural land should be prioritised for development over higher grades, and that the Council's approach to site allocations in order to give effect to NPPF para 112 has been informed by HELAA v4 (as proposed to be amended) - does not hold true because site MMO006 is Grade 3a land (best and most versatile agricultural land).

The allocation of site MMO006 and the proposed modifications, including FMM072, are unsound because they are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112). The planning authority has not sought to use agricultural land of poorer quality but instead has allocated MMO006 which is the best and most versatile agrjcultural land.

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because the planning commentary In relation to site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is Not Positively Prepared (not "objectively assessed"), and Not Justified (based on incorrect and misleading evidence)

NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be positively prepared, "based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development. ...a nd consistent with achieving sustainable development."

NPPF 1 82 says that, \n order to be sound, a plan must be justified, "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence."

The commentary on planning application 1 6/001 51/AOP in respect of site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is incomplete and misleading. The development was not 'objectively assessed' during the course of the planning application, and neither was the decision to grant planning permission 'based on proportionate evidence'.

In order to ascertain for himself whether or not this planning application provides objectively assessed, proportionate evidence which supports the 'soundness' of the site allocation in the VALP - or indeed further undermines this unsustainable and flawed allocation - the Inspector requires a full commentary on the application. In view of this, the planning commentary for site MMO006 in ED244 (Appendix A) should include all the following information:

An outline planning application (16/00151 /AOP) for up to 170 homes, public open space and associated infrastructure on what is now the VALP as proposed to be modified site MMO006 was validated in January 2016. At that time, HELAA v3 had designated this site as 'unsuitable for development'. On receiving this planning application, the Council changed the designation in the HELAA from 'unsuitable for development' to 'suitable for development', which then allowed the application site to become an allocated site in the VALP. No evidence, other than receipt of this planning application, has been produced by the Council to support this change. As a result of allocating this site in the VALP, the application was determined by the AVDC Strategic Management and Development Committee (2oth February 2019), and the Officer's Report (2019) presented the VALP allocation as evidence that the application site is a 'sustainable location' for 170 dwellings. The application was approved subject to the completion of a s1 06 legal agreement, which was subsequently published online in draft in July 2020. Following comments received on the draft s106 Agreement, representations received in relation to the VALP allocation during Public Consultation (Dec 201 9) and additional Examination Documents accepted by the Inspector in relation to site MMO006, the draft s106 Agreement was not signed, and the planning application was called back to committee for redetermination in November 2020. This second determination was heard by the Strategic Sites Committee (19th November
2020) and - despite being a second determination, despite being heard by the Strategic Sites Committee where only two Members are local to the application site, and despite the Officer's Report (2020) recommending approval - there was clear support for refusing permission during the course of the debate. In view of this, a motion was put forward for refusal on grounds of traffic and transport, landscape impact, best and most versatile agricultural land and heritage. As the motion for refusal was put forward, intervention from the Planning Officer warning Members against refusal materially influenced the vote leading to a tie, which was then decided by the Chair casting his deciding vote in accordance with the Officer's Report. At the second determination planning permission was granted, not on the basis of the 'planning merits' of the
application as purported in much of the VALP supporting evidence, but instead on the direction to Members that they had insufficient grounds for refusing this application in light of this site being an allocated site in the VALP with which the Inspector had raised no issues of soundness.

In support of this 'full commentary' the following information from the second determination is relevant:
· Residents have received legal advice that the decision to grant planning permission is unlawful.
· The Planning Officer's incorrect advice during the second determination and intervention (which sought to persuade against a refusal) is currently subject to an internal investigation at the highest level within the Council, which is being carried out by an independent legal professional.
· The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members against refusal on the basis that it would undermine the allocation of this site in the VALP and potentially other allocations in the VALP: "I think we've got to be very very careful refusing a site that has already gone through quite a lot of scrutiny through the VALP process but also through the application process and the implications that this would have elsewhere in terms of the strategy and the allocations." (193:03)
· The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members that there were insufficient grounds for refusal particularly with regard to traffic and transport, despite Members' express belief to the contrary on hearing all the evidence: "I would just stress that I am concerned our highways engineers have made it absolutely clear that they think that this is satisfactory and they are highly unlikely to be able to support a reason for refusal and provide evidence on that basis." (205: 14)

As one Member commented after a series of like interventions by the Planning Officer: "I was really astonished frankly Chairman that, in my experience on planning committees, once a proposal was made and seconded the vote is carried ..... there's been an attempt to virtually rubbish everything Councillor Clare [the proposer] said which I was surprised by." (213:47)
· Natural England put forward an objection that "the application would damage or destroy the interest features for which Foxcote Reservoir & Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified ... ..T he construction of a development so close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts upon the site." This was not raised in the Officer's Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
· Anglian Water put forward an objection that "Development [of this site] will lead to unacceptable risk of flooding downstream." This was not raised in the Officer's Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
· Anglian Water also put forward an objection that "The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Buckingham Water Recycling Centre which currently does not have capacity to treat the flows the development site." This was not raised in the Officer's Report (2020) or during the course of the debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
· Six different Local Councils raised strong objections to the development on the grounds that the site is entirely inaccessible for the volume of traffic that a development of 170 houses will generate: Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting, Leckhampstead Parish Council, Akeley Parish Council and Whittlebury Parish Council.

Clearly, the evidence for planning application 16/00151/AOP was not 'objectively assessed' and therefore not positively prepared and cannot be used as evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006.

Equally, the decision to approve planning application 1 6/00151/AOP has not been based on proportionate evidence but, instead, based on inappropriate and incorrect direction from the Planning Officer during the course of the Committee debate. In effect, the VALP process is being used to support a recommendation to approve the planning application; whilst at the same time the planning application is being used to support the allocation in the VALP. Therefore, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP cannot be used to justify the site allocation in the VALP.

Evidence submitted for planning application 1 6/001 51/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case. Therefore, reliance on the resolution to approve planning application 1 6/001 51/AOP, or reliance on a considerable amount of the material submitted in support pf planning application 1 6/00 1 5 1 /AOP, in the allocation of site MM0006 and all associated modifications - including FMM072 - would render the allocation unsound.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3784

Received: 12/01/2021

Respondent: Foscote Parish Meeting

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The allocation of site MMO006 and associated FMM072 are:
• not positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives,
• not based on justifiably accurate and proportionate evidence; and
• not consistent with National Policies – NPPF paras 34, 112, 151, 155 and 158, and PPG para 3-008.
Therefore, the allocation is UNSOUND under NPPF para 182.
The allocation of site MMO006 and associated FMM072 fall foul of HELAA v4 (Appendix 2) and HELAA
Methodology paras 1.20, 1.21 and 2.15, so they are NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY COMPLIANT in
accordance with NPPF para 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must
be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally and procedurally
compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

see attachment(s) for formatted text of full representation e.g. bold, underlined and italics text.

FOSCOTE PARISH MEETING
REPRESENTATION TO FURTHER PUBLIC CONSULTATION (Dec 2020)
FMM072, ED244 (Appendix A) and Site MMO006
The allocation of site MMO006 and associated FMM072, which inserts the words “at least” before “170 dwellings”
under site provision (a), still bypass the key theme of ‘sustainable development’ under NPPF 150 in favour of a
contested and incomplete planning application. The commentary on this planning application in ED244, Appendix A
in respect of site MMO006 is incomplete and misleading so cannot be relied on to justify this unsustainable and
flawed allocation.
The inclusion of site MMO006 in the VALP, and all associated modifications including FMM072, remains based on flawed and incomplete evidence, and is still unsound and legally and procedurally not compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.
A. FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006: NOT SOUND
1. Not Positively Prepared, and not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF 151)
NPPF 151 says: “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 - a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 - suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, it does not mean that site MMO006 is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.
Furthermore, the conclusions from ED264 support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).
The Council has not provided any explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is
the least sustainable site appraised. Therefore, the allocation of this site for development and all associated
modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with
achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.
The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site
- that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that
the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid
justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147).
Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a
medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”
It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies
outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable
development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.
1
FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151
because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation
has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006
and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving
sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 151). On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.
2. Not Justified (not the most appropriate strategy)
Notwithstanding the fundamental issue that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘medium village’ when it is in fact a ‘small village’, FMM107 allocates a further 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total allocation for this village to 182 dwellings. VALP para 4.153 (now 4.148) lists the
allocations in the other medium villages as follows: -
• Cuddington – 23 dwellings
• Ickford – 30 dwellings
• Marsh Gibbon – 9 dwellings
• Newton Longville – 17 dwellings
• Quainton – 37 dwellings
This illustrates that an allocation of 182 dwellings for a ‘medium village’ is excessive and is not a justifiably
appropriate development strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given that Maids Moreton has the 3rd smallest population of the medium villages listed and only four ‘key criteria’, somewhat short of that required for a medium village.
ED263, para 19 says that the large number of dwellings allocated to Maids Moreton “is a result of the Council’s
capacity based approach which does not lead to proportional distribution of development according to population”.
However, the Council has not given any explanation as to how a settlement with only four key criteria has the
‘capacity’ for such a large development.
In fact, ED263 para 12 justifies this excessive allocation in Maids Moreton on the basis that “allocations…do not
match the size of settlements but generally relate to the availability of developable sites.” This is not a capacity-led
approach at all. It conflicts with every possible interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ and runs contrary to VALP,
para 3.19 which states: “The strategy for development generally reflects the size and character of different
settlements and seeks to deliver a sustainable level of development that will support their different roles and
functions.”
ED263, para 26 misunderstands previous objections received relating to the Inspector’s Interim Findings at paragraph
41. There is not a lack of support in Maids Moreton for the capacity-led approach to development, only a lack of
support insofar as this ‘capacity-led approach’, by the Council’s own admission in ED263 para 12, has not been
followed in respect of the allocation in Maids Moreton.
In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient
allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not
justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive
allocation for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to
allocations - so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.
3. Not justified (based on incorrect evidence)
Examination Document ED200(B) proposes changes to the settlement hierarchy which reduces the number of houses being delivered in Buckingham and surrounding villages in order that further housing can be delivered close to Milton Keynes in line with the Inspector’s Interim Findings. FMM107 increases the number of dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182 new houses, and FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to “at least” 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a
‘medium’ village when it is, in fact, a ‘small’ village.
According to ED191 “The key services available are the main determinant of the final position of a settlement in the
hierarchy, not a settlement’s population.” To be a medium village, para 5.15 of CD/MIS/003 (‘Settlement Hierarchy
Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Proposed Submission Plan September 2017’) sets out that between 6 and 7 of the ‘key criteria’ should be met, with at least 6 being the minimum number. The only exception to this is Stewkley which meets only 5 of the key criteria but has a large population of 1,840.
The ‘key criteria’ for assessing the settlement hierarchy are: within 4 miles of a service centre, employment of 20
units or more, food store, pub, post office, GP, village hall, recreation facilities, primary school, hourly or more bus
service and train station. Maids Moreton only meets four of these key criteria:-
1. 1.5 miles to a service centre (Buckingham)
2. 1 public house
3. 1 recreation ground/playing field
4. 1 village hall
There is no hourly bus service in Maids Moreton and there is not a primary school in Maids Moreton (only an infant
school but an infant school is not stated as a key criteria so cannot be regarded as such).
Para 5.19 of CD/MIS/003 states that none of the smaller settlements have more than five key criteria, and typically
only have four of the key criteria. Great Brickhill, a settlement with a comparable population to Maids Moreton, has 5 key criteria but is categorised as a small settlement.
In ED263, para 11 the Council claims that the bus service will be reinstated via a s106 Agreement relating to planning
application 16/00151/AOP. Planning permission has not been granted for this application and almost 2 years on from the original Committee Hearing the s106 Agreement has not been signed. The application is highly flawed and
remains a contested application so cannot be relied on at this stage to deliver any bus service. Under CD/MIS/003,
villages are categorised according to key criteria they currently have, not key criteria they might have in the future.
To assess the size of Maids Moreton on key criteria they don’t actually have is a misapplication of the assessment
process. Equally, it is simply made up by the Council that an ‘infant school’ is included in the key criteria as a primary school.
Notwithstanding both these points, at best Maids Moreton can be said to have 4½ key criteria (for the infant school).
This is still some way short of the 6 criteria very clearly stipulated as a requirement to be a ‘medium’ village.
Maids Moreton still should be reclassified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘small’ village in order to correct the false
assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has, at best, 4½. It is a
misapplication of the assessment process to include ‘criteria’ that the village simply does not have. Unless this
change is made to the Settlement Hierarchy, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 are not justified because
the allocation is based on incorrect evidence and is unsound under NPPF 182.
4. Not justified (not based on proportionate evidence) and not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 158)
HELAA v4, which deemed site MMO006 as ‘suitable’ for 170 houses, was used as supporting evidence for the
allocation of site MMO006 in the Submission VALP. The designation of this site as suitable for development in HELAA
v4 is not evidence based and therefore calls into question the general soundness of the approach to identifying the
allocation (see ED186(A-S): HELAA v4, Lack of Evidence).
NPPF para 158 says: “Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-todate
and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.”
ED263, para 3 claims that the change to the HELAA in 2016 was, in fact, based on evidence submitted in support of
planning application 16/00151/AOP - in particular, on matters relating to landscape, and traffic & transport.
However, ED263, para 3 does not give the Inspector the following information: -
• 16/00151/AOP Officer’s Report (2019), para 10.60 states: “It has been acknowledged that there would be a
major scale of adverse change to the currently agricultural fields that form the application site and to the
open views across the site currently experienced from homes on the edge of the settlement.”
• 16/00151/AOP Officer’s Report (2019), para 10.62 states: “the proposed development would extend the built
form further into the countryside.”
• 16/00151/AOP Officer’s Report (2019), para 10.63 states: “the LVIA concludes that….the users of the homes
to the south of the site and the footpath which crosses the site would experience long term significant
negative visual effects.”
• 16/00151/AOP Officer’s Report (2020), para 5.78 states: “It is accepted that there will be significant adverse visual impacts from the development.”

• 16/00151/AOP Consultee Comments from Natural England (2.11.20) states: “We consider that without
appropriate mitigation the application would damage or destroy the interest features for which Foxcote
Reservoir & Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified…..The construction of a development so
close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts upon the site.”
Neither does ED263 para 3 inform the Inspector that, with regards to access to the site, the routes available to take
traffic from the development to the A422 for Milton Keynes/Aylesbury and beyond ALL require mitigation packages in the s106 Agreement because they are ALL unsuitable for the proposed volume of traffic:
i. through Maids Moreton and down Mill Lane to the A422: The s106 Agreement will contain a mitigation
package to discourage use of this route because it is a rural lane unlikely to cope with the volume of traffic;
ii. via Foscote Road and Foscote Lane: The s106 Agreement will contain a mitigation package to discourage use
of this route because it involves unsuitable rural roads through neighbouring villages;
iii. through Buckingham town centre in breach of VALP T3, as this development was not considered as part of
the Buckingham Transport Strategy which underpins VALP T3. In recognition of this, the s106 Agreement will
also include a financial contribution to mitigate against traffic in Buckingham Town Centre.
Most importantly, ED263 does not inform the Inspector that the application was recently taken back to Committee
for redetermination (Nov 2020). In respect of the planning merits of this application - particularly in relation to
access and landscape issues - the majority of Committee Members did not support the application, and a motion was
put forward for refusal. The Officer’s intervention and persuasion that VALP Policy D-MMO006 was considered by
the Inspector to be ‘sound’, with no outstanding issues of ‘soundness’, brought the vote to a tie with the Chair casting
a deciding vote in favour of the Officer’s recommendation. The application was NOT decided on the basis of the
planning merits of the proposed development.
To persuade the Inspector now that he can rely on evidence submitted in relation to Planning Application 16/00151/
AOP to support the amendment to the HELAA – particularly on grounds on access and landscape - is wholly
inappropriate and misleading.
Planning Application 16/00151/AOP cannot be relied on as supporting evidence for the designation of MMO006 as
suitable for development in HELAA v4. Therefore, the allocation of this site in the VALP, and the modification in
FMM072, are not justified by a sound evidence base, and are not consistent with NPPF 158 so the allocation of the
site for development is not sound under NPPF 182.
5. Not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 34)
In his Interim Findings, the Inspector states: “What is surprising is that within the northern half of the district the
roles of Buckingham, Winslow and Milton Keynes are relatively equal in the anticipated distribution of development.
Milton Keynes, the dominant settlement, is not expected to dominate the development strategy.” (para 35)
“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.” (para 36)
“This would be contrary to national policy expressed in para 34 of the NPPF which advises that plans should ensure
that developments which generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised. It is
therefore unsound.” (para 37)
Site MMO006 is a large allocation in North Buckinghamshire unconnected to any public transport network, and with
no direct route to Milton Keynes or beyond. FMM072 inserts the words ‘at least’ 170 houses, and FMM107 allocates
an additional 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total to 182 dwellings. There will be a significant increase in
traffic from commuting cars and service vehicles with no direct access to site MMO006 onto a main road as all three
access points for the development are either onto narrow rural lanes or via Buckingham Town Centre – as illustrated by the three mitigation packages that will need to be included in the s106 Agreement.
The allocation of site MMO006 and the associated modifications are therefore contrary to para 34 NPPF: Site MMO006 will generate significant movement and, being on the northern edge of a rural village with no bus service to a dominant settlement, it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable
transport modes can be maximised. Even when recognizing its rural location (para 29 NPPF), a development of this size in this location is not in keeping with para 34 NPPF.

ED263, para 13 misinterprets this objection as about ‘conflict with interim findings’. However, this objection focuses not on conflict with the Inspector’s interim findings, but on inconsistency with NPPF 34. Therefore, contextualising
the Inspector’s Interim Findings does not address the fact that the allocation is not consistent with NPPF 34; and
consistency with NPPF 34 has been a concern previously raised by the Inspector.
The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated
modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).
6. Not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112)
NPPF para 112 says: “Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be
necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of higher
quality.”
In justifying the allocation of the best and most versatile agricultural land for development in breach of NPPF para
112, ED263, para 7 states “there is no location around Buckingham or Maids Moreton that would easily avoid Grade 3a land.” This is not true. The Council’s own Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal (p.77) clearly illustrates
that there is a more suitable site of poorer agricultural quality within Maids Moreton which can accommodate
development.
ED263, para 22 says that VALP para 9.51 inaccurately refers to HELAA v3 when it should, in fact, refer to HELAA v4. If this amendment is made, then the rest of para 9.51 - that poorer agricultural land should be prioritised for development over higher grades, and that the Council’s approach to site allocations in order to give effect to NPPF para 112 has been informed by HELAA v4 (as proposed to be amended) – does not hold true because site MMO006 is Grade 3a land (best and most versatile agricultural land).
The allocation of site MMO006 and the proposed modifications, including FMM072, are unsound because they are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112). The planning authority has not sought to use agricultural land of poorer quality but instead has allocated MMO006 which is the best and most versatile agricultural land.
B. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because the planning
commentary in relation to site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is Not Positively Prepared (not
“objectively assessed”), and Not Justified (based on incorrect and misleading evidence)
NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be positively prepared, “based on a strategy which seeks to
meet objectively assessed development….and consistent with achieving sustainable development.”
NPPF 182 says that, in order to be sound, a plan must be justified, “the most appropriate strategy, when considered
against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.”
The commentary on planning application 16/00151/AOP in respect of site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is incomplete and misleading. The development was not ‘objectively assessed’ during the course of the planning
application, and neither was the decision to grant planning permission ‘based on proportionate evidence’.
In order to ascertain for himself whether or not this planning application provides objectively assessed,
proportionate evidence which supports the ‘soundness’ of the site allocation in the VALP - or indeed further
undermines this unsustainable and flawed allocation - the Inspector requires a full commentary on the application.
In view of this, the planning commentary for site MMO006 in ED244 (Appendix A) should include all the following
information:

An outline planning application (16/00151/AOP) for up to 170 homes, public open space and associated
infrastructure on what is now the VALP as proposed to be modified site MMO006 was validated in January
2016. At that time, HELAA v3 had designated this site as ‘unsuitable for development’.
On receiving this planning application, the Council changed the designation in the HELAA from ‘unsuitable for
development’ to ‘suitable for development’, which then allowed the application site to become an allocated
site in the VALP. No evidence, other than receipt of this planning application, has been produced by the
Council to support this change.
As a result of allocating this site in the VALP, the application was determined by the AVDC Strategic
Management and Development Committee (20th February 2019), and the Officer’s Report (2019) presented
the VALP allocation as evidence that the application site is a ‘sustainable location’ for 170 dwellings. The
application was approved subject to the completion of a s106 legal agreement, which was subsequently
published online in draft in July 2020.
Following comments received on the draft s106 Agreement, representations received in relation to the VALP
allocation during Public Consultation (Dec 2019) and additional Examination Documents accepted by the
Inspector in relation to site MMO006, the draft s106 Agreement was not signed, and the planning application
was called back to committee for redetermination in November 2020.
This second determination was heard by the Strategic Sites Committee (19th November 2020) and - despite
being a second determination, despite being heard by the Strategic Sites Committee where only two Members
are local to the application site, and despite the Officer’s Report (2020) recommending approval - there was
clear support for refusing permission during the course of the debate. In view of this, a motion was put
forward for refusal on grounds of traffic and transport, landscape impact, best and most versatile agricultural
land and heritage.
As the motion for refusal was put forward, intervention from the Planning Officer warning Members against
refusal materially influenced the vote leading to a tie, which was then decided by the Chair casting his
deciding vote in accordance with the Officer’s Report.
At the second determination planning permission was granted, not on the basis of the ‘planning merits’ of the
application as purported in much of the VALP supporting evidence, but instead on the direction to Members
that they had insufficient grounds for refusing this application in light of this site being an allocated site in the
VALP with which the Inspector had raised no issues of soundness.
In support of this ‘full commentary’ the following information from the second determination is relevant:
• Residents have received legal advice that the decision to grant planning permission is unlawful.
• The Planning Officer’s incorrect advice during the second determination and intervention (which sought to
persuade against a refusal) is currently subject to an internal investigation at the highest level within the
Council, which is being carried out by an independent legal professional.
• The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members against refusal on the basis that it would undermine
the allocation of this site in the VALP and potentially other allocations in the VALP: “I think we’ve got to be
very very careful refusing a site that has already gone through quite a lot of scrutiny through the VALP
process but also through the application process and the implications that this would have elsewhere in
terms of the strategy and the allocations.” (193:03)
• The Planning Officer inappropriately advised Members that there were insufficient grounds for refusal
particularly with regard to traffic and transport, despite Members’ express belief to the contrary on hearing
all the evidence: “I would just stress that I am concerned our highways engineers have made it absolutely
clear that they think that this is satisfactory and they are highly unlikely to be able to support a reason for
refusal and provide evidence on that basis.” (205:14)
• As one Member commented after a series of like interventions by the Planning Officer: “I was really
astonished frankly Chairman that, in my experience on planning committees, once a proposal was made
and seconded the vote is carried ….. there's been an attempt to virtually rubbish everything Councillor Clare
[the proposer] said which I was surprised by.” (213:47)
• Natural England put forward an objection that “the application would damage or destroy the interest
features for which Foxcote Reservoir & Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified…..The
construction of a development so close to the SSSI boundary could cause pollution, dust, disturbance and
other impacts upon the site.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the
debate and has not been raised with the Inspector.
• Anglian Water put forward an objection that “Development [of this site] will lead to unacceptable risk of
flooding downstream.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate
and has not been raised with the Inspector.
• Anglian Water also put forward an objection that “The foul drainage from this development is in the
catchment of Buckingham Water Recycling Centre which currently does not have capacity to treat the flows
the development site.” This was not raised in the Officer’s Report (2020) or during the course of the debate
and has not been raised with the Inspector.
• Six different Local Councils raised strong objections to the development on the grounds that the site is
entirely inaccessible for the volume of traffic that a development of 170 houses will generate: Buckingham
Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting, Leckhampstead Parish Council,
Akeley Parish Council and Whittlebury Parish Council.
Clearly, the evidence for planning application 16/00151/AOP was not ‘objectively assessed’ and therefore not
positively prepared and cannot be used as evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006.
Equally, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been based on proportionate evidence
but, instead, based on inappropriate and incorrect direction from the Planning Officer during the course of the
Committee debate. In effect, the VALP process is being used to support a recommendation to approve the planning
application; whilst at the same time the planning application is being used to support the allocation in the VALP.
Therefore, the decision to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP cannot be used to justify the site allocation in
the VALP.
Evidence submitted for planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the
decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case. Therefore, reliance on the resolution to
approve planning application 16/00151/AOP, or reliance on a considerable amount of the material submitted in
support of planning application 16/00151/AOP, in the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications –
including FMM072 - would render the allocation unsound.
C. FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006: NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY COMPLIANT
1. Amendment to HELAA v3 falls foul of HELAA v4 appendix 2
HELAA v4, Appendix 2 states: “During summer 2016, further comments were received, this time on the HELAA v3 report and these informed the preparation of HELAA v4”.
During the Issues and Options Consultation prior to the publication of HELAA v3 there was overwhelming support for the designation of site MMO006 as ‘unsuitable for development’. On this basis, site MMO006 was not allocated for development in the Draft VALP which was published for consultation during summer 2016. As the site was not included in the draft VALP, it was not raised or commented on during the consultation period in Summer 2016.
Therefore, the designation of site MMO006 in HELAA v4 as ‘suitable’ for development was not informed by
comments received during summer 2016 as claimed in Appendix 2 of HELAA v4. In fact, there has been a large
number of objections to the allocation of site MMO006 which have never been addressed by the Council due to the Council’s assertion during the VALP Examination that they were going to delete this site from the VALP.
ED263, para 1 attempts to address this by saying “HELAA v2 and v3 assessments considered that impact on the
countryside/village and access constraints justified the site being unsuitable. However, the assessment prior to
HELAA v4 concluded that there were then insufficient environmental constraints to prevent the site being found
suitable for development.”
What ‘assessment prior to HELAA v4’ is the Council referring to? A number of FOI Requests asking for further
information about this assessment have been answered by the Council as follows: -
• “The decision on HELAA suitability was made informally by AVDC Planning Policy officers” (see reply to FOI
Request addressed to A Ralph in ED186[L])

• “There is no evidence in the form of minutes and emails…..the process was done informally by AVDC
planning policy officers with verbal discussions” (see reply to FOI Request addressed to R Scott ED186[S]).
• “There are no minutes as there was no formal meeting held” in relation to the decision to amend the
HELAA (see reply to FOI Request addressed to A Ralph ED186[L]).
• “The decision [to amend the HELAA] was made by AVDC Planning Officers, informally, it was not made at a
committee or any capacity formally recorded. The decision was made in December 2016-January 2017.”
(see reply to FOI Request addressed to D Child ED186[N]).
In fact, the Council has failed to disclose any assessment whatsoever supporting the change to the HELAA. The
change was simply made in response to planning application 16/00151/AOP without any independent formal
assessment.
It remains the case that the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, are
informed by evidence that is not legally and procedurally compliant because the amendment to HELAA v4 was not
based on further comments received during the summer 2016 public consultation, neither is there any evidence
whatsoever of a formal assessment prior to the amendment.
2. HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21 not correctly adhered to HELAA Methodology para 1.20 states: “The PPG recommends that local authorities should work in partnership with all interested parties in the production of the HELAA….Each District Council will identify stakeholders relevant for their area and engage appropriately……Stakeholders will reflect those categories identified in the PPG: …..parish and town councils.”
HELAA Methodology para 1.21 states: “Each Council is committed to stakeholder engagement on the HELAA….As a
minimum each local planning authority will carry out the following:
• ….
• a draft report will be published for stakeholders to review the individual sites prior to the council finalising the study
• Where details are known, landowners/developers/agents will be contacted for each site to provide information on deliverability and when a site is likely to be developed. Involvement of stakeholders at these times is vital in ensuring the Councils assessment process is realistic and informed.”
The Council did not identify Buckingham Town Council, Maids Moreton Parish Council, Foscote Parish Meeting,
Akeley Parish Council, Whittlebury Parish Council or Leckhampstead Parish Council (all of which have objected to the associated planning application 16/00151/AOP) as ‘stakeholders’ that should be consulted on the designation of site MMO006 in HELAA v4. There was no engagement with these local councils, and no draft report on the designation of this individual site for local councils to review prior to the Council finalising the HELAA v4. Notably, comments
from the consultation on HELAA v3 were not adhered to in the production of HELAA v4.
ED263, para 1 attempts to address this by saying that all previous HELAAs were consulted on in conjunction with
consulting on the local plan, and therefore the consultation on the Submission VALP in December 2017 was also a consultation on HELAA v4. However, in ED263, para 15 the Council says that “At the formal stage of pre-submission consultation such engagement [i.e. meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods] does not take place because the council cannot amend the plan as a result of that consultation.”
Therefore, the change to HELAA v4 was made without meaningful engagement and collaboration with stakeholders,
and in direct conflict with comments made during the HELAA v3 consultation. Disregarding the overwhelming
response from stakeholders in the HELAA v3 consultation that the site is unsuitable for development, without any
evidence or engagement/collaboration with stakeholders prior to the change in the HELAA fails to fulfil the Council’s
obligation to engage with stakeholders as set out in the HELAA Methodology.
As the HELAA Methodology paras 1.20-1.21 was not adhered to, the designation of site MMO006 in HELAA v4 is not
procedurally and legally compliant so it cannot be relied on as the evidence base for the allocation of site MMO006
for development in the VALP or the associated FMM072.
3. HELAA Methodology para 2.15 not correctly adhered to
HELAA Methodology para 2.15 states that Grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land quality will be carefully considered when designating sites as suitable for development.

HELAA v4 has not taken into consideration that site MMO006 is Grade 3a agricultural land because the developer’s Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (2019) which identified this site as Grade 3a Agricultural Land post-dates the HELAA amendment in 2017. Therefore, using HELAA v4 to inform land allocations in the VALP means that the evidence base for this allocation and the associated modifications including FMM072 are not legally and procedurally compliant.
C. Conclusion
The allocation of site MMO006, all associated modifications including FMM072 which inserts the words ‘at least’ 170 dwellings, and the supporting evidence presented in ED244 (Appendix A) are unsound and not legally and procedurally compliant.
During the course of the Examination Stage, AVDC has proposed to omit site MMO006 from the VALP on a number of occasions:-
1. In response to the Inspector’s Q67 re Jeremy Bloss’s comment 203
2. In response to the Inspector’s Q67 re Christopher Wayman’s comment 886 (of Buckingham Town Council)
and re Crest Strategic Projects comments 2033 and 2035
3. In response to the Inspector’s Q72 re all other Reg 19 objectors relating to this site
4. In response to Inspector’s Q104
In particular, the Council’s response to the Inspector’s Q72 states “new commitments from 2017/18 are expected to balance the loss of dwellings from this site so replacement provision will not be required” (bold added).
Given the Council’s acknowledgement throughout the examination process that it would not be problematic to take site MMO006 out of the VALP, it is essential that this site is now deleted from the VALP, together with all associated modifications, in order that the VALP can be found sound and legally and procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF 182.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3788

Received: 16/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Oliver Wood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to “at least” 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a ‘medium’ village when it is, in fact, a ‘small’ village.
Maids Moreton still should be reclassified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘small’ village in order to correct the false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has, at best, 4½. It is a misapplication of the assessment process to include ‘criteria’ that the village simply does not have. Unless this change is made to the Settlement Hierarchy, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 are not justified because the allocation is based on incorrect evidence and is unsound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

1. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“not the most appropriate strategy” - 182 dwellings is an excessive allocation for a medium village)

Notwithstanding the fundamental issue that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly categorised in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘medium village’ when it is in fact a ‘small village’, FMM107 allocates a further 12 houses to Maids Moreton bringing the total allocation for this village to 182 dwellings. VALP para 4.153 (now 4.148) lists the allocations in the other medium villages as follows: -
• Cuddington – 23 dwellings
• Ickford – 30 dwellings
• Marsh Gibbon – 9 dwellings
• Newton Longville – 17 dwellings
• Quainton – 37 dwellings
This illustrates that an allocation of 182 dwellings for a ‘medium village’ is excessive and is not a justifiably appropriate development strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, particularly given that Maids Moreton has the 3rd smallest population of the medium villages listed and only four ‘key criteria’, somewhat short of that required for a medium village.

ED263, para 19 says that the large number of dwellings allocated to Maids Moreton “is a result of the Council’s capacity based approach which does not lead to proportional distribution of development according to population”. However, the Council has not given any explanation as to how a settlement with only four key criteria has the ‘capacity’ for such a large development.
In fact, ED263 para 12 justifies this excessive allocation in Maids Moreton on the basis that “allocations…do not match the size of settlements but generally relate to the availability of developable sites.” This is not a capacity-led approach at all. It conflicts with every possible interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ and runs contrary to VALP, para 3.19 which states: “The strategy for development generally reflects the size and character of different settlements and seeks to deliver a sustainable level of development that will support their different roles and functions.”
ED263, para 26 misunderstands previous objections received relating to the Inspector’s Interim Findings at paragraph 41. There is not a lack of support in Maids Moreton for the capacity-led approach to development, only a lack of support insofar as this ‘capacity-led approach’, by the Council’s own admission in ED263 para 12, has not been followed in respect of the allocation in Maids Moreton.

In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations - so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.
2. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“based on incorrect evidence” - Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a medium village when it is, in fact, a small village)

Examination Document ED200(B) proposes changes to the settlement hierarchy which reduces the number of houses being delivered in Buckingham and surrounding villages in order that further housing can be delivered close to Milton Keynes in line with the Inspector’s Interim Findings. FMM107 increases the number of dwellings in Maids Moreton to 182 new houses, and FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to “at least” 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a ‘medium’ village when it is, in fact, a ‘small’ village.

According to ED191 “The key services available are the main determinant of the final position of a settlement in the hierarchy, not a settlement’s population.” To be a medium village, para 5.15 of CD/MIS/003 (‘Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Proposed Submission Plan September 2017’) sets out that between 6 and 7 of the ‘key criteria’ should be met, with at least 6 being the minimum number. The only exception to this is Stewkley which meets only 5 of the key criteria but has a large population of 1,840.

The ‘key criteria’ for assessing the settlement hierarchy are: within 4 miles of a service centre, employment of 20 units or more, food store, pub, post office, GP, village hall, recreation facilities, primary school, hourly or more bus service and train station. Maids Moreton only meets four of these key criteria:-
1. 1.5 miles to a service centre (Buckingham)
2. 1 public house
3. 1 recreation ground/playing field
4. 1 village hall
There is no hourly bus service in Maids Moreton and there is not a primary school in Maids Moreton (only an infant school but an infant school is not stated as a key criteria so cannot be regarded as such).

Para 5.19 of CD/MIS/003 states that none of the smaller settlements have more than five key criteria, and typically only have four of the key criteria. Great Brickhill, a settlement with a comparable population to Maids Moreton, has 5 key criteria but is categorised as a small settlement.

In ED263, para 11 the Council claims that the bus service will be reinstated via a s106 Agreement relating to planning application 16/00151/AOP. Planning permission has not been granted for this application and almost 2 years on from the original Committee Hearing the s106 Agreement has not been signed. The application is highly flawed and remains a contested application so cannot be relied on at this stage to deliver any bus service. Under CD/MIS/003, villages are categorised according to key criteria they currently have, not key criteria they might have in the future. To assess the size of Maids Moreton on key criteria they don’t actually have is a misapplication of the assessment process. Equally, it is simply made up by the Council that an ‘infant school’ is included in the key criteria as a primary school.

Notwithstanding both these points, at best Maids Moreton can be said to have 4½ key criteria (for the infant school). This is still some way short of the 6 criteria very clearly stipulated as a requirement to be a ‘medium’ village.

Maids Moreton still should be reclassified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘small’ village in order to correct the false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has, at best, 4½. It is a misapplication of the assessment process to include ‘criteria’ that the village simply does not have. Unless this change is made to the Settlement Hierarchy, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 are not justified because the allocation is based on incorrect evidence and is unsound under NPPF 182.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3789

Received: 13/01/2021

Respondent: Ms Pamela Viccars

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)

NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared...consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”

Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainanility Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.

In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).

The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why is has chosen to allocate this site, notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 – are unsound: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.

The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site – that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have – is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:

“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELLA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”

The amended text now reads:

“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELLA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”

It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the LEAST sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3792

Received: 10/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Pete Culley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are not sound because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151):
NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”
Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.
In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).
The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.
The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”
It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.
FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3794

Received: 07/02/2021

Respondent: Mr Alistair Brizell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Maids Moreton is a small village with limited facilities. As my representations make clear, I consider the allocation of at least 170 dwellings on site MMO006 to be neither legally or procedurally compliant and not sound on the basis the plan has not been positively prepared, is not justified and is inconsistent with National Policy. I urge you to delete site MMO006 and all its associated modifications from the VALP.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

Officer note: see attachment(s) for formatted text of full representation e.g. bold, underlined and italics text.

1. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Positively Prepared (not “consistent with achieving sustainable development”), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151). FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.
2. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“not the most appropriate strategy” - 182 dwellings is an excessive allocation for a medium village). In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council’s ‘capacity-led’ approach to allocations - so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.
3. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (“based on incorrect evidence” - Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a medium village when it is, in fact, a small village). Maids Moreton still should be reclassified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a ‘small’ village in order to correct the false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that Maids Moreton has 6 key criteria when in fact it only has, at best, 4½. It is a misapplication of the assessment process to include ‘criteria’ that the village simply does not have. Unless this change is made to the Settlement Hierarchy, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 are not justified because the allocation is based on incorrect evidence and is unsound under NPPF 182.
4. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified (not “based on proportionate evidence” – HELAA v4 evidence base is inaccurate and misleading) and not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 158). Given the questionable planning merits of Planning Application 16/00151/AOP, it cannot be relied on as supporting evidence for the designation of MMO006 as suitable for development in HELAA v4. Therefore, the allocation of this site in the VALP, and the modification in FMM072, are not justified by a sound evidence base, and are not consistent with NPPF 158 so the allocation of the site for development is not sound under NPPF 182.
5. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 155 and PPG para 3-008 [2014] - there was no engagement with Local Councils when the HELAA was amended). It remains the case that relying on the designation of this site in the HELAA as a source of evidence to support the allocation of site MMO006 or FMM072 is unsound under NPPF 182 because it is not consistent with NPPF 155 and PPG para 3-008, and in line with the Council’s approach in ED263 para 15 we appeal to the Inspector to correct the Council’s mistake at this stage by removing this allocation from the site
6. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 34 - it is not located where the need to travel will be minimised). The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).
7. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112 - because the allocation site is on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land). The allocation of site MMO006 and the proposed modifications, including FMM072, are unsound because they are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 112). The planning authority has not sought to use agricultural land of poorer quality but instead has allocated MMO006 which is the best and most versatile agricultural land.
8. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because the planning commentary in relation to site MMO006 given in ED244 (Appendix A) is Not Positively Prepared (not “objectively assessed”), and Not Justified (based on incorrect and misleading evidence). Evidence submitted for planning application 16/00151/AOP has not been objectively assessed and neither was the decision to grant permission based on the planning merits of the case. Therefore, reliance on the resolution to approve planning application 16/00151/AOP, or reliance on a considerable amount of the material submitted in support of planning application 16/00151/AOP, in the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - would render the allocation unsound.
9. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY COMPLIANT because the amendment to HELAA v3 falls foul of HELAA v4 Appendix 2, which states that amendments to the HELAA were in response to comments received during the public consultation. It remains the case that the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, are informed by evidence that is not legally and procedurally compliant because the amendment to HELAA v4 was not based on further comments received during the summer 2016 public consultation, neither is there any evidence whatsoever of a formal assessment prior to the amendment.
10. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY COMPLIANT because HELAA Methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21 were not correctly adhered to. As the HELAA Methodology paras 1.20-1.21 was not adhered to, the designation of site MMO006 in HELAA v4 is not procedurally and legally compliant so it cannot be relied on as the evidence base for the allocation of site MMO006 for development in the VALP or the associated FMM072.
11. FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT LEGALLY AND PROCEDURALLY COMPLIANT because HELAA Methodology para 2.15 was not correctly adhered to because site MMO006 is Grade 3a Agricultural Land. HELAA v4 has not taken into consideration that site MMO006 is Grade 3a agricultural land because the developer’s Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (2019) which identified this site as Grade 3a Agricultural Land post-dates the HELAA amendment in 2017. Therefore, using HELAA v4 to inform land allocations in the VALP means that the evidence base for this allocation and the associated modifications including FMM072 are not legally and procedurally compliant.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3796

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lilian Mcdonald

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from "1 70 houses" to "at least 170" contrary to NPPF 151
because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no
explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of
site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent
with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not
sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the V ALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

Please see attached (5 representation forms all commenting on FMM072)

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3797

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lilian Mcdonald

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

In light of the additional Maids Moreton development referred to in FMM107, which alone would be a sufficient
allocation given the size and capacity of Maids Moreton, FMM072 and the allocation of site MMO006 remains
not justifiably the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. It is an excessive allocation for a village with only four key criteria which is contrary to the Council's 'capacity-led' approach to allocations - so the allocation and associated modifications are not sound under NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

Please see attached (5 representation forms all commenting on FMM072)

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3798

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lilian Mcdonald

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The site allocation in FMM107 should be retained but the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated
modifications, including FMM072, are unsound under NPPF 182 because MMO006 is an excessive allocation for a small rural village which will generate significant traffic. There is no alternative sustainable transport and there are no services or employment opportunities nearby so the need to travel will not be minimised. Therefore, the allocation of MMO006 and associated FMM072 are not consistent with National Policy (NPPF 34).

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FMM072, must be deleted
from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with
NPPF para 182.

Full text:

Please see attached (5 representation forms all commenting on FMM072)

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3803

Received: 18/01/2021

Respondent: Lord Richard Scott

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170”
contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable
site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site
for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications,
including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable
development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under
NPPF 182.

Full text:

Officer note: see attachment(s) for formatted text of full representation e.g. bold, underlined and italics text.

Full Representation Lord Scott of Foscote FMM072,
together with the allocation of the site MMO006, are NOT SOUND. because they are Not Positively Prepared (not”consistent with achieving sustainable development “), and Not Consistent with National Policy (NPPF para 151)

NPPF 182 says that in order to be “sound”, the Local Plan must be “positively prepared….consistent with achieving sustainable development”, and NPPF 151 says “Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.”

Site MMO006 has been identified in the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal as the least sustainable site for development in Maids Moreton. ED264 is a Council ‘Note’ on Site MMO006 which suggests that, even though the Technical Annex to the Sustainability Appraisal conclusively demonstrates site MMO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton, this does not mean the site is unsuitable for development. However, this still does not justify allocating the least sustainable site for development in breach of NPPF 151.

In any event, the conclusions from ED264 only support the conclusions in the Technical Annex that site MOO006 is the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. In light of ED264 and recent information submitted in connection with planning application 16/00151/AOP (which is not considered in ED264), site MMO006 now scores the lowest in 8 of the 12 sustainability criteria, and the highest in none (even greater than before).

The Council has not provided any robust explanation as to why it has chosen to allocate this site notwithstanding that it is the least sustainable site appraised so the allocation of this site for development and all associated modifications – including FMM072 - are UNSOUND: they have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development and the allocation is not consistent with NPPF para 151.

The Council acknowledges in ED263, para 8 that the only previous justification for allocating the least sustainable site - that it delivers outdoor play facilities which the village does not have - is factually incorrect. To reflect the fact that the Council are indeed allocating the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton for development without any valid justification, the Council is now proposing amendment FAM013 which amends VALP para 4.125 (now para 4.147). Previously it read:
“Newton Longville and Maids Moreton have an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable
amount for a medium village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations.”
The amended text now reads:
“Newton Longville has an excess of suitable HELAA sites beyond a reasonable amount for a medium
village, and so the most sustainable site(s) has been selected at these locations. In Maids Moreton the
allocated site was selected on the basis of information derived from a planning application.”

It is remarkable that this amendment can be made as a ‘Further Additional Modification’ which apparently lies outside the realm of this public consultation. Put simply, it has not been shown that this site comprises sustainable development. All we know is that it is the least sustainable of the alternative sites that have been assessed.

FMM072 seeks to increase an unsustainable allocation from “170 houses” to “at least 170” contrary to NPPF 151 because MMO006 has been conclusively shown to be the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton and no explanation has been given for allocating the least sustainable site for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182.
for development. Therefore, the allocation of site MMO006 and all associated modifications, including FMM072, have not been positively prepared consistent with achieving sustainable development, and are not consistent with National Policy. On this basis, they are not sound under NPPF 182

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3805

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Aaron Hales

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Officer summary: FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to "at least" 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a 'medium' village when it is, in fact, a 'small' village.Maids Moreton still should be reclassified in the Settlement Hierarchy as a 'small' village in order to
correct the false assertion in CD/MIS/003 that ,Maids Moreton bas 6 key criteria when in fact it only bas,
at best, 4½. It is a misapplication of the assessment process to include 'criteria' that the viUage simply
does not have. Unless this change is made to the Settlement Hierarchy, FMM072 and the allocation of
site MMO006 are not justified because the allocation is based on incorrect evidence and is unsound under
NPPF 182.

Change suggested by respondent:

The allocation of site MMO006, and all associated modifications including FM072, must be deleted from the VALP because the allocation is not sound or legally/procedurally compliant in accordance with NPPF para 182.

Full text:

FMM072, together with the allocation of site MMO006, are NOT SOUND because they are Not Justified
("based on incorrect evidence" - Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a medium village when it
is, in fact, a small village)
Examination Document ED200(B) proposes changes to the settlement hierarchy which reduces the number o
houses being delivered in Buckingham and surrounding villages in order that further housing can be delivered
close to Milton Keynes in line with the Inspector's Interim Findings. FMM107 increases the number of dwellings
in Maids Moreton to 182 new houses, and FMM072 increases the allocation of MMO006 from 170 dwellings to "at least" 170 dwellings on the site despite the overwhelming evidence that Maids Moreton has been incorrectly classified as a 'medium' village when it is, in fact, a 'small' village.
According to ED 191 "The key services available are the main determinant of the final position of a settlement in
the hierarchy, not a settlement's population. " To be a medium village, para 5 .15 of CD/MIS/003 (' Settlement
Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Proposed Submission Plan September
2017') sets out that between 6 and 7 of the 'key criteria' should be met, with at least 6 being the minimum number.
The only exception to this is Stewkley which meets only 5 of the key criteria but has a large population of 1,840.
The 'key criteria' for assessing the settlement hierarchy are: within 4 miles of a service centre, employment of 20
units or more, food store, pub, post office, GP, village hall, recreation facilities, primary school, hourly or more
bus service and train station. Maids Moreton only meets four of these key criteria:-
1. 1.5 miles to a service centre (Buckingham)
2. 1 public house
3. 1 recreation ground/playing field
4. 1 village hall
There is no hourly bus service in Maids Moreton and there is not a primary school in Maids Moreton ( only an
infant school but an infant school is not stated as a key criteria so cannot be regarded as such).
Para 5.19 of CD/MIS/003 states that none of the smaller settlements have more than five key criteria, and typically
only have four of the key criteria. Great Brickhill, a settlement with a comparable population to Maids Moreton
has 5 key criteria but is categorised as a small settlement.
In ED263, para 11 the Council claims that the bus service will be reinstated via a s106 Agreement relating to planning application 16/00151 / AOP. Planning permission has not been granted for this application and almost 2 years on from the original Committee Hearing the s106 Agreement has not been signed. The application is highly flawed and remains a contested application so cannot be relied on at this stage to deliver any bus service. Under CD/MIS/003, villages are categorised according to key criteria they currently have, not key criteria they might have in the future. To assess the size of Maids Moreton on key criteria they don't actually have is a misapplication of the assessment process. Equally, it is simply made up by the Council that an 'infant school' is included in the key criteria as a primary school.
Notwithstanding both these points, at best Maids Moreton can be said to have 4½ key criteria (for the infant
school). This is still some way short of the 6 criteria very clearly stipulated as a requirement to be a 'medium
village.

Attachments: