VALP Proposed Submission
Results for Cheddington Parish Council searchNew search
VALP Proposed Submission
D2 Proposals for non-allocated sites at strategic settlements, larger villages and medium villages
Representation ID: 811
Respondent: Cheddington Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Cheddington Parish Council (CPC) would like to make the following points:
a) CPC is concerned that the general rate of 25% affordable housing undermines their own figure of 35% included in its adopted Neighbourhood Plan.
b) CPC is concerned in respect of Paragraph 4.159 that any additional development in Cheddington should be returned to the Parish Council for agreement in a further referendum within the updating process of the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan.
Cheddington Parish Council (CPC) makes the following points to the Inspector.
1. Whilst understanding the reasoning for the general rate of 25% affordable housing to be included in any development of 11 dwellings or more, CPC is somewhat concerned that this undermines their own figure of 35% included in its adopted Neighbourhood Plan.
The figure in this and other NP's was compiled under advice from AVDC the local planning authority to ensure needs of local communities were met. Naturally evidence for need must be shown when applications are considered but it is felt that this lower figure, proposed in the VALP, will undermine efforts to allow those communities to develop as was envisaged in those NP's. We would propose that exception be made where a NP states a higher figure and evidence of need can be provided.
2. Despite sites having been identified under the LPA's HELAA some were discounted under the NP process and in this LP's compilation.
In that respect Paragraph 4.159 of VALP states "additional development in medium villages that are not allocated in either the LP or NP will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that sites allocated are not coming forward at the rate anticipated" Policy D2 and paragraph 4.122 should at least use the same terminology.
Further though and to strengthen those policies we would propose that any prospective inclusion of those sites within the LPA's consideration should be returned to the Parish Council for agreement in a further referendum within the updating process of their NP.
Also, that if the same land owner that has a pending permission to develop within a NP area that also has a site identified by HELAA, but not included in the NP or LP, this may not be considered by the LPA for benefit of any 5 year housing supply (for example) due to lack of the permitted site being developed or withheld / delayed for any reason.