Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for Natural England search

New search New search

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D1 Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

Representation ID: 1027

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We support the statement; 'The site
layout and design should also take
account with key long-distance
views to the Chiltern Hills', and
designed using 'a landscape-led
approach'. However, it should be
made clear to developers that any
development (as 'major' is not
defined in the NPPF) likely to impact
the AONB provide a Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment in line
with the method devised by the
Landscape Institute (version3),
including mitigation measures, as
part of any planning application in
line with policy NE4.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

NE4 The Chilterns AONB and setting

Representation ID: 2569

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We support NE4 but would like to
add a reference to the best practice
methodology to ensure its
effectiveness at delivering the
supported outcomes through the
development planning process.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D1 Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

Representation ID: 2570

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We recognise and support the
provision of 50% of land for green
infrastructure in line with the new
Garden Town Guidelines (TCPA
2017). However the definition of GI
does not include biodiversity. This
leaves the provision of GI open to
misinterpretation. For example the
provision of sporting fields, which
are technically GI, but provide little
benefit to biodiversity, possibly
leading to the loss of biodiversity at
the development site.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S1 Sustainable development for Aylesbury Vale

Representation ID: 2571

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

While impacts to biodiversity should
of course be minimised the wording
of this policy does not go far enough
to comply with the NPPF or policy
EN2.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

3.38

Representation ID: 2572

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The development policies of this
Plan rely heavily on multifunctional
green infrastructure to ensure
protection and promotion of the
environment, wildlife and
biodiversity. However if the
definition of green infrastructure has
no mention of biodiversity it misses
the mark in terms of complying with
the NPPF and the ability to deliver
on the plan's other policies.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury

Representation ID: 2573

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

By including the words "where
practicable" you allow for the
possibly of destruction of priority
habitats and the loss of biodiversity.
For the woodlands and hedgerows
there is already the word "should"
instead of "will" which lessens the
strength of the policy and allows
arguments against retaining habitat
features.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-AGT2 South west Aylesbury

Representation ID: 2574

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

By including the words "where
practicable" you allow for the
possibly of destruction of priority
habitats and the loss of biodiversity.
For the woodlands and hedgerows
there is already the word "should"
instead of "will" which lessens the
strength of the policy and allows
arguments against retaining habitat
features.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41

Representation ID: 2575

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

By including the words "where
practicable" you allow for the
possibly of destruction of priority
habitats and the loss of biodiversity.
For the woodlands and hedgerows
there is already the word "should"
instead of "will" which lessens the
strength of the policy and allows
arguments against retaining habitat
features.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41

Representation ID: 2576

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Is this the only development site
that requires ecological mitigation?
The other sites hold similar
constraints. Consistency in the site
specific policies is important. A
reference to NE1-9 may be a more
consistent way of dealing with this.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41

Representation ID: 2577

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Natural England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

By including the words "where
practicable" you allow for the
possibly of destruction of priority
habitats and the loss of biodiversity.
For the woodlands and hedgerows
there is already the word "should"
instead of "will" which lessens the
strength of the policy and allows
arguments against retaining habitat
features.

Full text:

Please find attached Natural England's response to Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Reg 19 consultation.

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