Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for Barwood Development Securities Limited search

New search New search

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S2 Spatial Strategy for Growth

Representation ID: 1017

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This approach fails to have regard to the DCLG's proposed new methodology, which if adopted would likely result in a further increase in the numbers of dwellings required per annum in Aylesbury Vale.

Full text:

Policy S2 (Spatial Strategy for Growth)
We consider that Policy S2 is not sound on the grounds that the Policy has not been positively prepared, is not justified, nor consistent with national policy.
Draft Policy S2 made provision for the delivery of 33,300 homes over the Plan period, subject to a decision on unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. The Proposed Submission Plan Policy S2 has reduced this requirement to 27,400, which includes 8,000 to accommodate unmet need from Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe Districts. A reduction in the housing requirements is strongly objected to as it is not considered to be sound in the context of the current national housing crisis and the Framework's requirement to significantly boost housing supply.
This approach fails to have regard to the DCLG's proposed new methodology, which if adopted would likely result in a further increase in the numbers of dwellings required per annum in Aylesbury Vale. The indicative figures published as part of the Government's 'Planning for the Rights Homes in the Right Places' consultation (September 2017) shows a significant increase on the currently identified level of need in Aylesbury Vale from 970 dwellings per annum to 1,499 dwellings per annum. This would equate to a total of 10,580 additional dwellings over the plan period.
The Proposed Submission Plan has failed to adequately consider the role of Aylesbury Vale District in the development of the East-West Rail link, and its position within the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Corridor, particularly with its proximity to the growth hub of Milton Keynes. The National Infrastructure Commissions Interim Report published in November 2017 emphasised that the success of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford corridor has fuelled exceptionally strong demand for housing across the corridor and in its key cities, which has not been matched by supply. Lack of housing supply is leading to high house prices and low levels of affordability, for both home ownership and private rental. Aylesbury Vale is ideally positioned to accommodate additional growth within the Corridor.
It is clear that the undersupply of housing in the corridor is putting the future economic development of the area at significant risk. It would appear that there is currently some serious disparity between aspirations for the Corridor emphasized by the National Infrastructure Commission and the East-West Rail Consortium, and the development strategy adopted for future delivery within Aylesbury Vale District.
Part f. of Policy S2 for the allocation of land within Aylesbury Vale but adjacent to Milton Keynes for 2,212 new dwellings is supported in principle. However, in light of the previous comments, it is considered that the existing allocation has the potential to be extended further south to create a larger sustainable urban extension to the South West of Milton Keynes, incorporating our clients' land interests. This would contribute significantly towards higher growth levels within the District and is ideally located within close proximity of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Corridor, the Milton Keynes growth area and proposed new transport infrastructure.
It is requested that the Hearing Inspector for the Examination of the Proposed Submission seeks further work in respect of the housing targets contained within Policy S2, as currently this is neither positively prepared "based on a strategy that seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.."(NPPF paragraph 182, my emphasis), justified in light of the findings of the National Infrastructure Commission Interim Report and the planned infrastructure in the area, nor consistent with national policy which seeks to significantly boost housing supply.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

1.9

Representation ID: 1214

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.9 - 1.12 Duty to Cooperate
The Proposed Submission Plan is not currently considered to be sound under the provisions of paragraph 182 of the NPPF, in that it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. On this basis, it is unsound as it is not effective in demonstrating that it is based on joint working on cross boundary priorities.
Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.
The Proposed Submission Plan requires more detailed reference to the physical and functional relationship between Aylesbury Vale District and Milton Keynes. This is particularly significant in light of the proposed route of the East-West Rail link and the associated infrastructure and housing supply demands this will bring to the surrounding area particularly within close proximity of the administrative boundary between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes.
The role of Milton Keynes as a focus for strategic growth is well established and has been further strengthened by the Interim Report by the National Infrastructure Commission. It is, therefore, clear that Milton Keynes will remain a focus for future housing and economic growth in the long term, and further strategic urban extensions to the city will be required to meet that identified need. Given its geography, it is inevitable that some or all of that will need to be accommodated on land outside of the city's administrative area. With this in mind, the level of detail available on the Duty to Cooperate with Aylesbury Vale is currently considered to be insufficient.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

1.10

Representation ID: 1215

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.9 - 1.12 Duty to Cooperate
The Proposed Submission Plan is not currently considered to be sound under the provisions of paragraph 182 of the NPPF, in that it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. On this basis, it is unsound as it is not effective in demonstrating that it is based on joint working on cross boundary priorities.
Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.
The Proposed Submission Plan requires more detailed reference to the physical and functional relationship between Aylesbury Vale District and Milton Keynes. This is particularly significant in light of the proposed route of the East-West Rail link and the associated infrastructure and housing supply demands this will bring to the surrounding area particularly within close proximity of the administrative boundary between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes.
The role of Milton Keynes as a focus for strategic growth is well established and has been further strengthened by the Interim Report by the National Infrastructure Commission. It is, therefore, clear that Milton Keynes will remain a focus for future housing and economic growth in the long term, and further strategic urban extensions to the city will be required to meet that identified need. Given its geography, it is inevitable that some or all of that will need to be accommodated on land outside of the city's administrative area. With this in mind, the level of detail available on the Duty to Cooperate with Aylesbury Vale is currently considered to be insufficient.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

1.11

Representation ID: 1216

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.9 - 1.12 Duty to Cooperate
The Proposed Submission Plan is not currently considered to be sound under the provisions of paragraph 182 of the NPPF, in that it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. On this basis, it is unsound as it is not effective in demonstrating that it is based on joint working on cross boundary priorities.
Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.
The Proposed Submission Plan requires more detailed reference to the physical and functional relationship between Aylesbury Vale District and Milton Keynes. This is particularly significant in light of the proposed route of the East-West Rail link and the associated infrastructure and housing supply demands this will bring to the surrounding area particularly within close proximity of the administrative boundary between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes.
The role of Milton Keynes as a focus for strategic growth is well established and has been further strengthened by the Interim Report by the National Infrastructure Commission. It is, therefore, clear that Milton Keynes will remain a focus for future housing and economic growth in the long term, and further strategic urban extensions to the city will be required to meet that identified need. Given its geography, it is inevitable that some or all of that will need to be accommodated on land outside of the city's administrative area. With this in mind, the level of detail available on the Duty to Cooperate with Aylesbury Vale is currently considered to be insufficient.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

1.12

Representation ID: 1217

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.9 - 1.12 Duty to Cooperate
The Proposed Submission Plan is not currently considered to be sound under the provisions of paragraph 182 of the NPPF, in that it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. On this basis, it is unsound as it is not effective in demonstrating that it is based on joint working on cross boundary priorities.
Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 outline the Council's actions in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities. Despite the allocation included within the Proposed Submission Plan at South West Milton Keynes, which immediately adjoins the administrative boundary with Milton Keynes, there are no details contained within the plan relating to the activities and discussions undertaken between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes Councils. It is also noted that the Proposed Submission Plan: MK refers to the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding with Aylesbury Vale, but there is no mention of this within this Proposed Submission Plan.
The Proposed Submission Plan requires more detailed reference to the physical and functional relationship between Aylesbury Vale District and Milton Keynes. This is particularly significant in light of the proposed route of the East-West Rail link and the associated infrastructure and housing supply demands this will bring to the surrounding area particularly within close proximity of the administrative boundary between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes.
The role of Milton Keynes as a focus for strategic growth is well established and has been further strengthened by the Interim Report by the National Infrastructure Commission. It is, therefore, clear that Milton Keynes will remain a focus for future housing and economic growth in the long term, and further strategic urban extensions to the city will be required to meet that identified need. Given its geography, it is inevitable that some or all of that will need to be accommodated on land outside of the city's administrative area. With this in mind, the level of detail available on the Duty to Cooperate with Aylesbury Vale is currently considered to be insufficient.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S3 Settlement hierarchy and cohesive development

Representation ID: 1218

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 3.21 states that specific policies for each of the settlement hierarchy categories are set out in the Strategic Delivery section . However, it is noted that despite falling within its own category within the Settlement Hierarchy, South West Milton Keynes is not included as part of any Policies D1-D5. It is considered that the sustainable urban extension to the South West of Milton Keynes should have its own policy addressing the details for the strategic delivery of the Site, particularly in respect of joint working with Milton Keynes for the delivery of associated transport and social infrastructure and connectivity.

Full text:

Policy S3 (Settlement Hierarchy and Cohesive Development)
Our clients support Policy S3, insofar as it includes land adjacent to Milton Keynes as a separate category within the Settlement Hierarchy at Table 2. Commentary on the quantum of housing to be delivered at land adjacent to Milton Keynes are included in the section above.
Paragraph 3.21 states that specific policies for each of the settlement hierarchy categories are set out in the Strategic Delivery section (Policies D1 - D4). However, it is noted that despite falling within its own category within the Settlement Hierarchy, South West Milton Keynes is not included as part of any Policies D1-D5. It is considered that the sustainable urban extension to the South West of Milton Keynes should have its own policy addressing the details for the strategic delivery of the Site, particularly in respect of joint working with Milton Keynes for the delivery of associated transport and social infrastructure and connectivity. This links back to our previous comments and concerns relating to the duty to cooperate.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.