Aylesbury Vale Area

FMM107

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3702

Received: 22/12/2020

Respondent: Cuddington Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

The map for Cuddington still includes CDN001 (North of Aylesbury Road) as an allocation.
The houses have now been built and modified Table 2 (FMM017) now includes this site under completions.
The Cuddington proposals map should only show CDN003 Dadbrook Farm

Change suggested by respondent:

Omit allocation CDN001 from the Cuddington proposals map

Full text:

The map for Cuddington still includes CDN001 (North of Aylesbury Road) as an allocation.
The houses have now been built and modified Table 2 (FMM017) now includes this site under completions.
The Cuddington proposals map should only show CDN003 Dadbrook Farm

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3713

Received: 21/01/2021

Respondent: Mr James Watt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The map for Buckingham includes proposed building sites which are against the Buckingham Local Area Plan and also a development which planning was refused by the Secretary of State.

Change suggested by respondent:

The area on the Moreton Road should not be included on the plan as it goes against the Buckingham Local Area Plan.
It should be removed because planning has previously been refused by the Government. The reasons behind this refusal will not have changed as the Old Gaol is still in the middle of Buckingham!

Full text:

The map for Buckingham includes proposed building sites which are against the Buckingham Local Area Plan and also a development which planning was refused by the Secretary of State.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3738

Received: 06/02/2021

Respondent: Quainton Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Reference Quainton Policy Map ED245 P.15
The map shows site 17/04041/AOP under commitments between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2020 which is correct.
However, the map shows housing allocation QUA001 which had planning permission in October 2018 (ref. 15/04276/APP).

Change suggested by respondent:

QUA001 should be shown as a commitment (13 homes) already included in the Quainton figures in Table 2 Proposed settlement hierarchy and housing development (FMM017).

This would then be consistent with the allocation figure of 24 in Table 2 and the policy map showing QUA014-016 as the allocation as per FMM075.

Full text:

Reference Quainton Policy Map ED245 P.15
The map shows site 17/04041/AOP under commitments between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2020 which is correct.
However, the map shows housing allocation QUA001 which had planning permission in October 2018 (ref. 15/04276/APP).

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3775

Received: 14/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Mark Gadd

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 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.

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:

Support

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3814

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Arrow Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

The Consortium notes that SMD004 is shown on the proposals map as a Commitment and is correctly shown as not being within the allocation area for AGT1. The Consortium support the exclusion of SMD004 from the AG1 allocation area as shown on the Proposals Map as now amended. The Consortium proposes that the boundary of AGT1 is more clearly delineated with a thicker boundary (excluding SMD04, SMD018, 16/02673/AOP & 17/02868/AOP)) so that it is clear to anybody looking at the Proposals Map that those sites are not included with the AGT1 allocation.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Consortium proposes that the boundary of AGT1 is more clearly delineated with a thicker boundary (excluding SMD04, SMD018, 16/02673/AOP & 17/02868/AOP)) so that it is clear to anybody looking at the Proposals Map that those sites are not included with the AGT1 allocation.

Full text:

On behalf of the D-AGT1 Consortium, please find attached a response to the VALP Further Main Modifications consultation. The submission comprises the following two attachments:

1. Completed Representations Form;
2. Representations Document.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3840

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

As we have previously set out, Hambledon Land itself is promoting land to the north west of Fremantle Court and considers that this area has the capacity to accommodate approximately 100 units of accommodation.
We note that the proposed allocation also includes land to the south east of Fremantle Court. That area of land does not form part of Hambledon Land’s proposals and was envisaged as a possible future phase of development.
The proposed allocation currently includes the land occupied by the Fremantle Court Care Home. We consider that this area should be excluded.
(officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sir / Madam
VALP FURTHER MAIN MODIFICATIONS CONSULTATION 2020-2021
We write to submit representations on behalf of our client, Hambledon Land to the consultation into the further main modifications to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.
BACKGROUND
Hambledon Land is promoting a retirement and care community on land north west of Fremantle Court at Stoke Mandeville.
Land to the south-east of Fremantle Court, which is owned by Fremantle Trust, could deliver a second phase of specialist housing accessed through the existing entrance to Fremantle Court, should the Trust decide to bring it forward. A document setting out the form of development proposed at this site was submitted in response to the Main Modifications consultation and has been shared with the group preparing the Stoke Mandeville Neighbourhood Plan. This document showed how the proposals would comprise:
• Between 100 and 140 homes for the elderly on land to the north west of the existing Fremantle Court Care Home and the potential for 50 units in a later phase to the south east.
• A 17-acre nature reserve integrating and blending with the areas of built development – dedicated in perpetuity through a deed of covenant (with this located in the former Wycombe District part of Buckinghamshire Council).
• Communal facilities including restaurant/snack bar, education/hobby suite, fitness suite, health clinic, swimming pool and bowling green.
• Full access to all communal facilities and the nature reserve for new residents, Fremantle Court residents and the wider village community.

• Exceptionally designed energy efficient buildings and on-site renewables to assist in achieving zero carbon performance across the site.
• The creation of a wildlife habitat with a fully integrated environmental management plan to deliver a biodiversity and wider environmental net gain across the site.
• Footpath links to encourage recreational experiences with nature.
• An extension of the Stoke Mandeville Way to the site.
• A wide range of green travel options to reflect the zero carbon concept for the site.

REPRESENTATIONS
In light of Hambledon Land’s interests as explained above, these representations consider:
• ED243: Schedule of Proposed Further Main Modifications to the Modified VALP, namely those numbered FMM078 – FMM084;
• ED245 Proposed Further Modifications to the VALP Policies Maps
• ED246 Sustainability Appraisal of Further Main Modifications
ED243: Schedule of Proposed Further Main Modifications to the Modified VALP
FMM078
We welcome the additional analysis undertaken by the LPA to ensure that the VALP represents a more positive response to the need for C2 accommodation. We note from the proposed revision to paragraph 5.42 that although the level of completions/commitments since 2013 has increased, so has the remaining need (rising from 800 to 1,212).
We understand that the Council’s methodology for calculating the revised level of need for C2 accommodation is set out in document ED258 ‘Buckinghamshire Council Supporting Statement for VALP C2 Older Persons' Housing Allocations (November 2020)’.
The Council’s analysis in document ED258 explains that the further Main Modifications results in a small shortfall against the need for C2 accommodation. In our submission, this indicates that the LPA must apply a proactive approach to the determination of applications, by seeking to maximise the capacity of sites and by granting permission in a timely manner. Furthermore, in our submission, the VALP itself should be proactive enough to address this shortfall if such opportunities exist.
FMM079
We welcome the fact that the LPA has continued to recognise the importance of identifying specific deliverable sites to meet identified needs for C2 accommodation.
FMM080
We note that the revised text records that the proposed allocations fall short by 51 units. In our submission, that text should be amended to explain that this shortfall is against the five year requirement between 2020-2025. As we set out above this indicates that the LPA must apply a proactive approach to the determination of applications, by seeking to maximise the capacity of sites and by granting permission in a timely manner. Furthermore, we reiterate our submission that the VALP itself should be proactive enough to address this shortfall if such opportunities exist.

FMM081
The revised text to paragraph 5.46 indicates that the VALP will still result in a residual requirement for C2 accommodation which is not met by site specific allocations and as such the draft Policy maintains the approach of supporting broad locations for such development.
As we set out above, the scale of the residual need indicates that the LPA must apply a proactive approach to the determination of applications, by seeking to maximise the capacity of sites and by granting permission in a timely manner. Furthermore, we reiterate our submission that the VALP itself should be proactive enough to address this shortfall if such opportunities exist.
FMM082
We broadly welcome the specific identification of the land adjacent to Fremantle Court, Stoke Mandeville as a proposed allocation to meet the need for C2 accommodation between 2020 – 2025. In particular we note that the Council has considered the positive impact that this scheme could have by reducing the scale of unmet need through the Sustainability Appraisal (Document ED246). We do not repeat the content of the Sustainability Appraisal in these representations.
However we maintain concerns in relation to a number of factors:
• The proposed site area is indicated to be 0.38 hectares. This does not correspond to the area shown in document ED245 Proposed Further Modifications to the VALP Policies Maps.
• The treatment of the land south east of the Fremantle Court Care Home; and
• The references within Policy H6(b) to a nature reserve.
In our submission, the site area (in hectares) should be amended to reflect the eventual allocation.
In relation to the capacity of the site, Hambledon Land has reviewed its proposals for the land north west of Fremantle Court and now considers that area to have capacity for approximately 100 units (rather than the 100-140 previously promoted).
We note that the proposed allocation also includes land to the south east of Fremantle Court. That area of land does not form part of Hambledon Land’s proposals and was envisaged as a possible future phase of development.
In order to provide certainty, Hambledon Land consider that the proposed allocation of land adjacent to Fremantle Court should be amended to:
• Clarify that approximately 100 units are allocated on land to the north west of Fremantle Court. That then corresponds with the Hambledon Land promotion and as such ensures that the VALP reflects a scheme which is actively being promoted and could deliver accommodation to meet identified needs; and
• Identify the land to the south east of Fremantle Court as being safeguarded for a future phase of development. That then provides the LPA with a potential additional source of C2 accommodation to meet identified needs over the longer term.

The revised Policy wording indicates that the development on land adjacent to Fremantle Court is expected to provide a designated nature reserve. As the Council will be aware, that does form part of the Hambledon Land proposals, but not on land within the former Aylesbury Vale area which is to be covered by the VALP. The proposed nature reserve is on land formerly within Wycombe District. Whilst the nature reserve does form part of the Hambledon Land proposals, it would not be appropriate for this to be subject to the VALP allocation. As such we suggest that the supporting text be amended to explain that the allocation will be delivered in conjunction with a nature reserve located outside of the VALP area.
FMM083
We have no comments to make.
FMM084
An allocation of approximately 100 units to the north west of Fremantle Court would correspond with the Hambledon Land promotion and ensure that the VALP reflects a scheme which is actively being promoted and could deliver accommodation to meet identified needs.
We explain in these representations that the land to the south east of Fremantle Court was envisaged as a possible future phase of development and we have proposed that this area be safeguarded for a future phase of development. That then provides the LPA with a potential additional source of C2 accommodation to meet identified needs over the longer term.
ED245 Proposed Further Modifications to the VALP Policies Maps
The proposed further modifications to the VALP Policies Map shows an area of land to be allocated under Policy H6(b) adjacent to Fremantle Court, Stoke Mandeville, for C2 accommodation. As we have previously set out, Hambledon Land itself is promoting land to the north west of Fremantle Court and considers that this area has the capacity to accommodate approximately 100 units of accommodation.
We note that the proposed allocation also includes land to the south east of Fremantle Court. That area of land does not form part of Hambledon Land’s proposals and was envisaged as a possible future phase of development. We have proposed that this area be safeguarded for a future phase of development. That then provides the LPA with a potential additional source of C2 accommodation to meet identified needs over the longer term.
The proposed allocation currently includes the land occupied by the Fremantle Court Care Home. We consider that this area should be excluded from the allocation for the following reasons:
• The proposed allocation refers to the land adjacent to Fremantle Court; and
• The inclusion of the Fremantle Court Care Home within the allocation is likely to cause confusion and uncertainty to the users and occupiers of that building.
SUMMARY
Hambledon Land is promoting a scheme of 100 units of accommodation for the elderly on land to the north west of the existing Fremantle Court Care Home with the potential for 50 units in a later phase to the south east.

The Further Modifications to the VALP propose to allocate land adjacent to Fremantle Court, Stoke Mandeville for C2 accommodation under Policy H6(b) for approximately 100 units. Hambledon Land consider that this allocation should be amended to reflect the proposal for approximately 100 units on land to the north west of the existing Fremantle Court Care Home. The land to the south east of Fremantle Court is also shown on the Policies Map as being part of this allocation. However for the reasons we set out, this should be safeguarded as a possible future phase.
We would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss the proposals on the land adjacent to Fremantle Court with Officers in greater detail.
Yours sincerely
David Murray-Cox

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3882

Received: 09/02/2021

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Define Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Officer summary:
The capacity of site STO008 (Land South of Creslow Way, Stone) as identified in the housing trajectory that is proposed to be modified by FMM106 should be updated to 60 dwellings both to maximise the efficient use of the site and to allow for a further buffer above the Council’s housing requirement. To accommodate that, the policies map for Stone, proposed to be amended under FMM107, should be further amended to include the whole of Vistry Group’s site ownership, with the landscape buffer amended to reflect the boundary of that land.
Whilst the marginal increase in the provision of housing at large villages is welcomed, the modified plan fails to
allocate a sufficient quantum of development for the remainder of the plan period, and as such fails to support
large villages. To achieve this, and also to allow for an increased buffer over AVDC’s housing requirement, AVDC should maximise the potential of existing allocations.
Given that there are no technical constraints that would limit the site’s capacity to 26 dwellings, the capacity of
‘Land South of Creslow Way, Stone’ (STO008) should be increased to c. 60 dwellings.

Change suggested by respondent:

The modified housing trajectory (as proposed to be modified through FMM106) should be further modified to
identify a development capacity of c. 60 dwellings at ‘Land South of Creslow Way, Stone’ (STO008) rather than 26 dwellings as currently drafted in order to achieve an efficient use of land. The overall housing supply (as modified by FMM001) and other relevant alterations (e.g. the buffer as modified by FMM012) should be modified in light of this change, and the allocation policy should also be updated to reflect this.

Full text:

FMM001 proposes a reduction in the District’s overall housing supply during the plan period (2013-2033), from
30,233 to 30,134 dwellings. Indeed, that alteration is also reflected in FMM012, which notes that this results in a
reduction in the buffer of housing that is to be provided above the overall housing requirement from 5.7% (as per
the previous iteration of the plan) to 5.4%.
The reduction in the total number of dwellings to be delivered across the plan period is informed directly by the housing trajectory, which is proposed to be amended through FMM106. Notably, those amendments have resulted in reductions to delivery from D-AGT2 South West Aylesbury (reduced to 1,300 dwellings in the plan period from 1,400 dwellings) and D-AGT3 Aylesbury North of A41 (reduced to 600 dwellings in the plan period from 757 dwellings previously).
Whilst the amendments to the trajectories of those sites are welcome, the broader point still stands that the
District’s housing supply is still largely dependent on delivery from a number of large sites within the same
settlement (most notably Aylesbury town). Indeed, the housing trajectory as modified by FMM106 anticipates that 8,877 dwellings are to be delivered within the six strategic allocations surrounding Aylesbury (D-AGT1 to D-AGT6) between 2020 and 2033; which comes in addition to the delivery of 3,036 dwellings within those developments in
the plan period to date (April 2013 – April 2020). Clearly, that is a significant proportion of AVDC’s supply to be
delivered from just 6 sites, and indeed delivery from those sites totals some 40% of the District’s supply.
Whilst the inclusion of large, strategic sites within AVDC’s trajectory is of course sound in principle, the reliance on
large developments in a single settlement fails to reflect that larger sites frequently stall during the course of their
development. The Letwin Review of Build Out (Final Report, October 2018) succinctly captures the reasons for the reduction of the build out rates of larger sites (such as the aforementioned allocations D-AGT1 to D-AGT6).
Firstly, the Letwin Report highlights that delays can often occur at the early stages of development as a result of the
complexities of delivering the necessary transport and utilities-based infrastructure to accommodate development
of this scale. That is a particularly relevant consideration given the nature of the proposed development sites
adjacent to Aylesbury town, and indeed the revised policies maps (as proposed to be modified by FMM107)
highlight the significant road infrastructure that is still required to be delivered to facilitate those development sites.
Specifically, the modified policies map highlights that delivery of the Eastern Link Road North, Eastern Link Road
South, Southern Link Road, South East Aylesbury Link Road, the Stoke Mandeville A4010 Realignment, and the
South West Aylesbury Link Road have yet to be completed. That infrastructure provision directly relates to parcels
AGT1, AGT2, AGT3, and AGT4, and as such their deliverability is dependent on the timely delivery of it. Indeed,
whilst it is accepted that the majority of those infrastructure projects are nearing completion, AVDC must be aware
that the delivery of large pieces of infrastructure is volatile, and that delays can occur for a multitude of reasons
even in the latter stages of a project.
As such, whilst modified under FMM106 to marginally improve the realism of the timelines for delivery, it is
considered that the amended Housing Trajectory still does not reflect the reality of delivering a number of large
sites around Aylesbury town. Indeed, the Housing Trajectory suggests that residential delivery at AGT4 will
commence from 2022/23 (as little as four months after the highways project is scheduled to be completed), and
that delivery at the residual areas of AGT1 and AGT2 will commence in 2024/25. Those timescales fail to take into
consideration those complexities, and the need for those developments to first navigate through the planning
application process.
If and when those issues have been overcome, the Letwin Report also notes that build out rate can be limited by the
effective market absorption rate of developments. Indeed, the report concludes that “the homogeneity of the types
and tenures of the homes on offer on these sites, and the limits on the rate at which the market will absorb such
homogenous products, are the fundamental drivers of the slow rate of build out” (paragraph 1.7). This is particularly
prevalent given the sheer concentration of new housing to the settlement of Aylesbury. Evidently, a considerable
number of dwellings will be delivered in the Garden Town at the same time and, in reflection of the findings of the
Letwin Report, the release of these units onto the open market could effectively flood the market. Given that the
absorption of properties can directly stall the build-out of sites, this may be a considerable issue within a settlement
where six allocations are delivering some 40% of AVDC’s supply of housing over the plan period.
That is not to say, however, that the modified housing trajectory should reduce its aspiration to deliver larger sites.
However, with the reduced buffer now proposed within the modified VALP of just 5.4% (see FMM012) there is even
less scope for slippage in the delivery of these clearly complex sites. Therefore, it is Vistry Group’s position that the
buffer should be increased further to allow flexibility in AVDC’s supply of land and to ensure that there is certainty
that the plan can deliver over the plan period. Until that approach is taken, the plan cannot be considered
“effective” in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 35c.
Specifically, the Letwin Report finds that “we will continue to need more new housing both on the smaller sites and
on large sites” (paragraph 1.8 (b)), which reflects the findings of the NPPF that “small and medium sized sites can
make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively
quickly” (paragraph 68). The suggested amendment would therefore ensure that the plan is in accordance with the
NPPF in that regard.
In that light, and to address AVDC’s reliance on large sites and ensure that their land supply has sufficient flexibility,
AVDC should maximise the potential of small-medium sites. Indeed, whilst the plan proposes to allocate ‘Land South
of Creslow Way, Stone’ (STO008) for residential development, it puts forward a site capacity of just 26 dwellings,
which fails to take into consideration the suite of technical and environmental assessments that have previously
been submitted that demonstrate a more suitable capacity of c. 60 dwellings. The allocation policy, as currently drafted, fails to ensure an “efficient use of land” therefore as required by NPPF paragraph 122.
As such, to allow for an increased buffer of dwellings in the Council’s supply and to demonstrate an ‘efficient use of land’ in accordance with NPPF paragraph 122, the capacity of ‘Land at Creslow Way, Stone’ should be increased to 60 dwellings.

Whilst FMM001 proposes a reduction in the District’s overall housing supply during the plan period (2013-2033),
from 30,233 to 30,134 dwellings, FMM008 specifies that there has been an increase in housing provision at ‘large
villages’ over the plan period from 2,271 dwellings to 2,408 dwellings. Whilst the marginal increase in delivery at
‘large villages’ is welcomed, the VALP should ensure that it maximises development potential at such settlements,
given that the NPPF makes it clear that “planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and
thrive”, and that development in such locations supports local services and the provision of infrastructure (NPPF
paragraph 78).
Indeed, whilst there has been a marginal increase in the number of dwellings to be delivered in large villages in the
plan period, FMM016 (which seeks to modify Spatial Strategy for Growth Table 1 and sets out the composition of
completions and commitments by settlement hierarchy level) makes it clear that the increase in delivery at large
villages has occurred as a result of prior completions and existing commitments earlier on in the plan period, rather
than being derived from the provision of any further allocations within the ‘large villages.’
Thus, notwithstanding that modification, the modified plan seeks to allocate land for just 26 dwellings within ‘large
villages’ in the remainder of the plan period. That is clearly an insufficient level of development for the remaining 13
years of the plan period across all villages and fails to reflect that, as identified in the settlement hierarchy, large
villages “have at least reasonable access to facilities and services and public transport, making them sustainable
locations for development”. Indeed, the allocation of such a small number of dwellings across the remainder of the
plan period fails to maximise the potential of such settlements, and certainly does not provide the investment that
such settlements require in order to support the provision of local services and facilities; and as such is contrary to
the aforementioned NPPF paragraph 78.
Indeed, it is notable that the figure is lower than the number of dwellings to be delivered from allocations at
‘medium villages’ (39 dwellings as per MM016), which appears to be at odds with a settlement hierarchy that
should fundamentally underpin the distribution of development in the District.
As such, it is Vistry Group’s position that the number of dwellings to be delivered at ‘large villages’, as proposed to
be modified by FMM008 and FMM016, should be increased further still through the identification of an increased
quantum of development through upcoming allocations (rather than commitments outside of the local plan review
process). That approach would also help to provide an increased buffer above AVDC’s housing requirement to
address the District’s dependence on large sites (please refer to Vistry Group’s representations to FMM001,
FMM012 and FMM106 for further commentary on this matter). Specifically, the increase in the number of
dwellings to be delivered at such locations should be achieved by maximising delivery from already allocated sites.
Indeed, a suite of technical and environmental assessments have been submitted in relation to ‘Land at Creslow Way, Stone’ (STO008) that identifies that the site is suitable to accommodate the development of c. 60 dwellings, rather than 26 dwellings as currently suggested. Those submissions identified that there are no technical or environmental constraints that would limit the capacity of the site to 26 dwellings and that the site could effectively accommodate a development size of circa 60 dwellings. That position was noted within the previous consultation and, whilst Vistry Group recognises that the Inspector has stated that AVDC’s response to not increasing the site’s capacity has been accepted, that response was generic in its nature and offered no technical-based justification for the decision not to maximise the available capacity on land that forms an integral part of an existing proposed allocation within a large village.
Indeed, the current allocation confirms that AVDC recognise the site’s suitability for residential development.
However, by limiting the site area and potential capacity, AVDC are unduly restricting potential development and
residential land delivery in this location, and thus are failing to promote an “efficient use of land” in accordance with NPPF paragraph 122.
As such, the capacity of site STO008 (Land South of Creslow Way, Stone) as identified in the housing trajectory thatis proposed to be modified by FMM106 should be updated to 60 dwellings both to maximise the efficient use of the site and to allow for a further buffer above the Council’s housing requirement. To accommodate that, the policies map for Stone, proposed to be amended under FMM107, should be further amended to include the whole of Vistry Group’s site ownership, with the landscape buffer amended to reflect the boundary of that land.

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3901

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Mr David Vowles

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The small strip of land between the Exchange Street car park and Exchange Street, Aylesbury, which contains 5 mature chestnut trees that are a prominent feature of the street scene and a major asset to the Garden Town, has rightly been excluded from the modified primary shopping area. However, for consistency of definition it should also be excluded from the “site for town centre redevelopment” shown on the policies map.

Change suggested by respondent:

Delete from the “site for town centre redevelopment” shown on the policies map the strip of land between Exchange Street and the Exchange Street car park, Aylesbury.

Full text:

Officer note, soundness tests failed: justified

The small strip of land between the Exchange Street car park and Exchange Street, Aylesbury, which contains 5 mature chestnut trees that are a prominent feature of the street scene and a major asset to the Garden Town, has rightly been excluded from the modified primary shopping area. However, for consistency of definition it should also be excluded from the “site for town centre redevelopment” shown on the policies map.

Attachments:

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 4017

Received: 08/02/2021

Respondent: Arnold White Estates

Agent: Arrow Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Policy Map, housing trajectory and other references should be updated to reflect the removal of D-HAL003;

Not sound - not justified

Change suggested by respondent:

The Policy Map, housing trajectory and other references should be updated to reflect the removal of D-HAL003;

Full text:

See attached documentation

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 4054

Received: 04/02/2021

Respondent: CDS Planning and Development Consultants Ltd.

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The current consultation show the policy maps as a further main modification (FMM107) being amended by identifying only the Care Home use as per the below
image on the site. This is shown in broadly the same location as the current Care Home reserved matters application. The Care Home land shown above has increased in size and therefore has some impact on the adjoining commercial areas. To align the new Care Home, Officers have requested a section 73 application to amend the approved parameter plans. This is currently being considered (ref 20/03629/AOP). Whilst the land for B1 commercial has reduced, the scheme will still deliver 3000 sqm. (officer summary).

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy D5 –
Aston Clinton Road MDA 5000 sqm 3000 sqm

Full text:

Please see attached submission in respect of the Aston Clinton Road MDA site

Object

VALP Further Main Modifications

Representation ID: 4101

Received: 07/02/2021

Respondent: The Buckingham Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

It is noticeable when examining the Policies Map for Buckingham and the neighbouring settlement of Maids Moreton (page 5) that allocations BUC043 and MMO006 are located at the furthest edges of Buckingham and Maids Moreton respectively and distanced by some margin from the main employment areas.

The reserved site for Buckingham’s additional cemetery site is not shown. This is a commitment within the Buckingham Neighbourhood Development Plan and marked ‘F’ on Fig.4.2.

Full text:

FMM059

BUC043 (Moreton Road, Phase III)
The Society has consistently opposed the inclusion of this site in VALP. It did not form part of the development plan in the adopted Buckingham Neighbourhood Development Plan and a previous application was rejected at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. It cannot deliver sustainable housing growth, as can be understood from the many objections to the planning application validated on 11th February 2020 and without major infrastructure mitigation, no development is possible within the plan period.
Pollution: It is acknowledged that the relative high growth strategy at Buckingham and Maids Moreton carries a severe risk of pollution since current waste water treatments are at capacity and necessitate major works to prevent pollution. The inclusion of “reference to consultation with the water and sewerage undertaker” does not adequately mitigate against anticipated pollution.
Transport:ED257 Buckingham and Maids Moreton VALP Allocations
This document appears to be produced by Buckinghamshire Council in response to the conclusions reached by Jacobs’ (ED255), Additional Buckingham Modelling Report (produced in October 2020).
ED257 focus’ on the withdrawal of BUC051, using the calculations carried out by the recent additional modelling by Jacobs. The modelling methodology used focus’ on the impacts at the two town centre junctions (Moreton Road/Stratford Road/Market Square and West Street/Bridge Street/Market Square). The report concludes that the impact of traffic emanating from BUC043 and MMO006 combined (300 dwellings) is less than that might be generated by BUC051 (125 dwellings). The Buckingham Society believes this is disingenuous for the following reasons:
1. Alternative routes for BUC046 cannot be compared to the so-called “alternative routes” for BUC043 and MMO006 combined.
2.Figs 2-5 – 2-8 indicate traffic flows from BUC043 and MMO006 using the principal village roads of Avenue Road, Mill Lane* and Main Street. This “alternative” route has been deemed unacceptable and there are mitigation measures proposed to discourage any use of these routes.
3.If the modelling is predicting a 25% increase in flows eastwards from the Moreton Road/High Street junction, the A422 will be subject to long queues at the approaches from both Stratford Road and Mill Lane*.
4.Why is it assumed that all traffic emanating from site BUC051 will flow through the town centre? The Brackley Road (A422 westwards) is a likely route, leading as it does to the Silverstone Enterprise Zone.
5. Both BUC043 and MMO006 are approached from the town centre via a steep hill, making cycle access difficult and, with limited footpath access at historic pinch points, interaction between cars and pedestrians will be problematic. By contrast, site BUC051 could initiate an attractive, flat, pedestrian/cycle access via the riverside walks.
6. There is equally (if not worse) significant on street parking along the Moreton Road further exacerbating the queuing traffic from an easterly direction.
* Mill Lane is also referred to as ‘College Farm Road’.

FMM003

Buckingham is expected to accommodate additional growth (2,177 houses) without any indication of the associated infrastructure that will be required to service this growth.
Sustainable growth is not justified without sustainable transport links. This requires public transport that is easily accessible without the use of the car. In the light of the recent confirmed financial support for the East-West Rail link, which will offer a real alternative to the car, the Society calls for a re-directed balance of housing towards Winslow. The reduction of dwellings stated in FMM006 (27) should be re-instated in Winslow, and the increase in Buckingham (10) diverted to a more sustainable location.

In the Inspector’s Interim Findings, it is noted that ”growth in the north of the district would lead to increased lengths of commuting flows” and that this is contrary to the NPPF, paragraph 34, which seeks to “ensure that developments which generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimized”.

ED245 Policies Map

Please note this is neither a ‘support’ or ‘object’ matter. It is simply an observation, which leads to the conclusions set out under other responses from The Buckingham Society to this consultation.
Policies Map
It is noticeable when examining the Policies Map for Buckingham and the neighbouring settlement of Maids Moreton (page 5) that allocations BUC043 and MMO006 are located at the furthest edges of Buckingham and Maids Moreton respectively and distanced by some margin from the main employment areas.

The reserved site for Buckingham’s additional cemetery site is not shown. This is a commitment within the Buckingham Neighbourhood Development Plan and marked ‘F’ on Fig.4.2.

FMM072

D-MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road
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 insertion of the words “at least” further undermines the sustainability of this site. Contrary to FMM067, the village is not “moderately well served with services and facilities”, having only 4 of the 6 criteria cited as a minimum number to qualify as a “medium” village. And, even if it WAS a “medium” village, “at least 170 houses” is in total conflict with FMM015, Policy S2 (h): “growth in medium villages will be at a scale in keeping with the local character and setting. It is also in direct conflict with NPPF, Paragraph 34, since the “significant” movement that will be generated by 170 dwellings outside the settlement boundary of a small village cannot be minimised.
One can observe the ludicrously unbalanced nature of this allocation in FMM068, noting that no other ‘medium’ village is expected to accommodate more than 37 dwellings.
Pollution
As noted under FMM059, the high growth strategy at Buckingham and Maids Moreton carries an unacceptable risk of pollution owing to the inadequacy of waste water treatment in the area.
Transport
The SA Addendum report (ED246 9.12.4) considers the “at least 170 houses” to add a further degree of constraint since it is acknowledged that a “larger site at a lower order settlement” will generate significant vehicular movement contrary to NPPF, paragraph 34.
Maids Moreton is approached from the town centre via a steep hill, making cycle access difficult and, with limited footpath access at historic pinch points, interaction between cars and pedestrians will be problematic.
ED257 Buckingham and Maids Moreton VALP Allocations
This document appears to be produced by Buckinghamshire Council in response to the conclusions reached by Jacobs’ (ED255), Additional Buckingham Modelling Report (produced in October 2020).
ED257 focus’ on the withdrawal of BUC051, using the calculations carried out by the recent additional modelling by Jacobs. The modelling methodology used focus’ on the impacts at the two town centre junctions (Moreton Road/Stratford Road/Market Square and West Street/Bridge Street/Market Square). The report concludes that the impact of traffic emanating from BUC043 and MMO006 combined (300 dwellings) is less than that might be generated by BUC051 (125 dwellings). The Buckingham Society believes this is disingenuous for the following reasons:
1. Alternative routes for BUC046 cannot be compared to the so-called “alternative routes” for BUC043 and MMO006 combined.
2.Figs 2-5 – 2-8 indicate traffic flows from BUC043 and MMO006 using the principal village roads of Avenue Road, Mill Lane* and Main Street. This “alternative” route has been deemed unacceptable and there are mitigation measures proposed to discourage any use of these routes.
*Mill Lane is also referred to as ‘College Farm Road’.

FMM096 and FMM103

Policy I4 Flooding
(e) and (i)Noting the changes in FMM103 to “ensure no increase in flood risk on site or elsewhere such as downstream, or upstream receptors, existing development and/or adjacent land” , The Buckingham Society considers that development on the scale envisaged in BUC043, BUC046 and MMO006 would see a significant increase in surface water discharge and lead to even greater flood risks within the Great Ouse catchment area. Calculations for floodplain compensation and volume-for-volume compensation up to the 1% annual probability (1 in 100) are no longer adequate.

FMM096 requires “a new 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.
There are vast numbers of active springs around the town and it is noticeable that these and related underground watercourses have changed the pattern of surface discharge; so much so that in each of the recent major flood events (1998, 2007 and most recently December 2020), the associated flooding within and without the town has significantly worsened, flooding properties and land that has not seen such volumes of water in previous decades. Should planning applications proceed for sites BUC043, BUC046 and MMO006, further evidence is needed on such matters.