Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for Jake Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd search

New search New search

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-HAD007 Land north of Rosemary Lane

Representation ID: 780

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Jake Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Objection is raised to the details of D-HAD007 on the basis that the identification of land to the rear of 14 Townsend as a 'not built development' area is unjustified and irrational in planning terms, and reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of housing delivery on D-HAD007.

Full text:

Whilst this representation is noted as one of 'objection' to D-HAD007, that objection relates only to matters of the detail contained within the policy (and associated plan), with the respondent otherwise supportive of the allocation of the site for residential development.

In this context, and by way of background, it is important to recognise that D-HAD007 is not in the control of a single party, but two separate parties, with this respondent in control of the section of land to the rear of 14 Townsend and forming part the south-eastern section of D-HAD007. Moreover, it is significant to note that previous iterations of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) have identified the whole of D-HAD007 as being suitable for residential development and, indeed, it has only been in the Publication Version of VALP that 'not built development' areas within D-HAD007 have been identified. It is in respect of the identification of the whole of the land to the rear of 14 Townsend as 'not built development' that this objection is made, and submitted on the basis that such annotation is unsound by reason of such not being appropriately justified or being effective for a recognised planning purpose. Indeed, it is illogical and irrational that the one part of D-HAD007 that falls within the established settlement framework, surrounded on three-side by existing built development and therefore otherwise compliant with existing and emerging policy in respect of appropriate housing sites within sustainable settlements, should seemingly be precluded from built development by an unjustified 'not built development' annotation.


Notwithstanding this over-arching point, particular objection is raised to criteria (f) and, by application through the site allocation/annotation plan, criteria (g) of D-HAD007. Indeed, and irrespective of such, it is considered that such criteria have then been unjustifiably interpreted in the 'not built development' annotation on the D-HAD007 Plan Allocation.


Sub-section (f) of D-HAD007 states a 'landscape buffer to be provided between the existing dwellings and new development'. There is no rational planning basis for such a requirement since the relationship between existing and new development should be a matter that is appropriately controlled at the Development Management (i.e. planning application) stage in accordance with the Council's policies and guidelines at the time. The effect of such a requirement would be to engineer a layout and form of development that would be more isolated and less well-integrated with the existing development pattern and, potentially, could hinder the capacity of D-HAD007. This part of sub-section (f) is, therefore, neither justified in planning terms nor effective in delivering the allocation.
Irrespective of such, any reasonable interpretation of (a) - (i) of D-HAD007 would not direct that the whole of the land to the rear of 14 Townsend be identified as 'not built development' since such annotation would not be fulfilling all, or any, of the said criteria. On the contrary, if the assertion is correct that (f) is unsound for the reasons given, then it follows that the whole of the 'not built development' annotation should be removed. Indeed, none of the other criteria would direct such an annotation, with (g) ultimately satisfied without such an annotation given that this would be appropriately controlled at the Development Management stage with the layout of the scheme recently approved at the adjoining Dolicott site demonstrating that an appropriate and acceptable relationship can be secured with designated heritage assets without re-course to a 'not built development' zone.

The additional potential consequence of such an unjustified annotation of a 'not built development' zone on the whole of the land to the rear of 14 Townsend is that it reduces the overall capability of D-HAD007 to deliver 315 dwellings, and thereby potentially undermining the effectiveness of the policy.

Moreover, and as noted above, it is illogical, and perverse (given that it is in separate control to the remainder) that D-HAD007 includes the site as part of the allocation yet then precludes any development on the land.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Haddenham

Representation ID: 917

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Jake Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Objection is raised to the details of D-HAD007 on the basis that the identification of land to the rear of 14 Townsend as a 'not built development' area is unjustified and irrational in planning terms, and reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of housing delivery on D-HAD007.

Full text:

Whilst this representation is noted as one of 'objection' to D-HAD007, that objection relates only to matters of the detail contained within the policy (and associated plan), with the respondent otherwise supportive of the allocation of the site for residential development.

In this context, and by way of background, it is important to recognise that D-HAD007 is not in the control of a single party, but two separate parties, with this respondent in control of the section of land to the rear of 14 Townsend and forming part the south-eastern section of D-HAD007. Moreover, it is significant to note that previous iterations of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) have identified the whole of D-HAD007 as being suitable for residential development and, indeed, it has only been in the Publication Version of VALP that 'not built development' areas within D-HAD007 have been identified. It is in respect of the identification of the whole of the land to the rear of 14 Townsend as 'not built development' that this objection is made, and submitted on the basis that such annotation is unsound by reason of such not being appropriately justified or being effective for a recognised planning purpose. Indeed, it is illogical and irrational that the one part of D-HAD007 that falls within the established settlement framework, surrounded on three-side by existing built development and therefore otherwise compliant with existing and emerging policy in respect of appropriate housing sites within sustainable settlements, should seemingly be precluded from built development by an unjustified 'not built development' annotation.


Notwithstanding this over-arching point, particular objection is raised to criteria (f) and, by application through the site allocation/annotation plan, criteria (g) of D-HAD007. Indeed, and irrespective of such, it is considered that such criteria have then been unjustifiably interpreted in the 'not built development' annotation on the D-HAD007 Plan Allocation.


Sub-section (f) of D-HAD007 states a 'landscape buffer to be provided between the existing dwellings and new development'. There is no rational planning basis for such a requirement since the relationship between existing and new development should be a matter that is appropriately controlled at the Development Management (i.e. planning application) stage in accordance with the Council's policies and guidelines at the time. The effect of such a requirement would be to engineer a layout and form of development that would be more isolated and less well-integrated with the existing development pattern and, potentially, could hinder the capacity of D-HAD007. This part of sub-section (f) is, therefore, neither justified in planning terms nor effective in delivering the allocation.
Irrespective of such, any reasonable interpretation of (a) - (i) of D-HAD007 would not direct that the whole of the land to the rear of 14 Townsend be identified as 'not built development' since such annotation would not be fulfilling all, or any, of the said criteria. On the contrary, if the assertion is correct that (f) is unsound for the reasons given, then it follows that the whole of the 'not built development' annotation should be removed. Indeed, none of the other criteria would direct such an annotation, with (g) ultimately satisfied without such an annotation given that this would be appropriately controlled at the Development Management stage with the layout of the scheme recently approved at the adjoining Dolicott site demonstrating that an appropriate and acceptable relationship can be secured with designated heritage assets without re-course to a 'not built development' zone.

The additional potential consequence of such an unjustified annotation of a 'not built development' zone on the whole of the land to the rear of 14 Townsend is that it reduces the overall capability of D-HAD007 to deliver 315 dwellings, and thereby potentially undermining the effectiveness of the policy.

Moreover, and as noted above, it is illogical, and perverse (given that it is in separate control to the remainder) that D-HAD007 includes the site as part of the allocation yet then precludes any development on the land.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

D-HAD007 Land north of Rosemary Lane

Representation ID: 918

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Jake Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd

Representation Summary:

This representation is distinct from 780 and 917 that have been submitted on behalf of the owner of land to rear of 14 Townsend, Haddenham and also forming part of D-HAD007.

This representation is on behalf of Aston Hill Land Ltd, who have an interest in the remainder of the site and who support the principle of the allocation of the site for residential development and can confirm (as evidenced by the current outline planning application) that the site is suitable, available and deliverable for residential development.

Full text:

This representation is distinct from 780 and 917 that have been submitted on behalf of the owner of land to rear of 14 Townsend, Haddenham and also forming part of D-HAD007.

This representation is on behalf of Aston Hill Land Ltd, who have an interest in the remainder of the site and who support the principle of the allocation of the site for residential development and can confirm (as evidenced by the current outline planning application) that the site is suitable, available and deliverable for residential development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S2 Spatial Strategy for Growth

Representation ID: 922

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Jake Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The housing requirements set out in Policy S2 should be increased to take account of the new methodology in connection with the calculation of the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing, whilst also taking account of the effects of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. The consequences of such should 'drop-down' the existing strategy but include provision for a new settlement.

Full text:

The housing requirements set out in Policy S2 should be increased to take account of the new methodology in connection with the calculation of the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing, whilst also taking account of the effects of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. The consequences of such should 'drop-down' the existing strategy but include provision for a new settlement.

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