Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for Unknown search

New search New search

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-MMO006 Land east of Walnut Drive and west of Foscote Road

Representation ID: 282

Received: 22/11/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I am writing to object to the VALP proposal of destruction of Maids Moreton due to:
1: Will destroy the character of the village
2: Will damage the visual aspect of the village
3: Will increase demand for Medical and Social services
4: Will further worsen the existing traffic conditions
5: Will remove existing householder parking
6: Will destroy natural environment
7: This does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

I sincerely hope you will take the above points in consideration and stop destroying this village.
I have lived here for 30 years and have seen so much to and fro in the village.

Full text:

I am writing to object to the VALP proposal of destruction of Maids Moreton due to:

1: Will destroy the character of the village
2: Will damage the visual aspect of the village
3: Will increase demand for Medical and Social services
4: Will further worsen the existing traffic conditions
5: Will remove existing householder parking
6: Will destroy natural environment
7: This does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

I sincerely hope you will take the above points in consideration and stop destroying this village.
I have lived here for 30 years and have seen so much to and fro in the village.

Best wishes

Mrs N Gill

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D-WHI009 Holt's Field, Whitchurch

Representation ID: 284

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Like many residents I am concerned about the risk of excessive housing development and I note that for Whitchurch, 22 new houses are included in the proposal for the period to 2033. Even if this number were to be considered acceptable, can some language be included to make it plain that this is a maximum, to avoid a continual drip-drip of applications to exceed this number?

Full text:

I see that you are given as the contact for the above meeting. I would be grateful if you could draw the attention of the participants to this email.

By way of background, I am a resident of Whitchurch concerned about some of the implications of the draft local plan and the Bucks Districts and LEP MOU attached to the agenda. I have no "official" or vested interest in the subject beyond my status as a resident.

Like many residents I am concerned about the risk of excessive housing development and I note that for Whitchurch, 22 new houses are included in the proposal for the period to 2033. Even if this number were to be considered acceptable, can some language be included to make it plain that this is a maximum, to avoid a continual drip-drip of applications to exceed this number?

The MOU referenced in the agenda, makes it plain that the officers have in mind proposing an increase in the amount of new housing in Aylesbury Vale beyond the stated "need", because the other districts are thought not to have sufficient room to accommodate their own needs. The numbers are startling. The "need" in Aylesbury Vale is given as 18100 houses, and in Chilterns and South Bucks 26100. However the proposal is that 27400 should be built in AV and only 19400 in C&SB.

As written, i understand the draft District Plan, is based on the need and not any extra allocation, as above. To be meaningful, Ithe plan should also indicate the geographic distribution planned, should this aggregate amount of housing be at the higher level, which is some 50% above the assessed need.

Finally, and here there is hope, I note the careful language in the MOU, accompanying the above numbers. It states that
"The Councils agreed that the housing need within the HMA would first fall to be met within each plan area based on the needs of each individual plan area, but if that was proven to be impossible then the resultant need would be met elsewhere within the 'best fit' HMA where it was reasonable to do so and was consistent with achieving sustainable development. "(My bold underlining)

The phrase "proven to be impossible" is not a figure of speech. it implies that proof (not just evidence) is demonstrated that it is impossible to build the needed houses in the areas of need. Impossible does not mean "inconvenient", "uneconomic", "undesirable" for instance but that the goal could not be met locally by any possible course of action. It would be helpful if the Committee could consider and at least outline, the way that they would seek to check if the test of "proven to be impossible" should be met.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S6 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision

Representation ID: 359

Received: 02/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to S6 and inclusion of Oakview Park, Boarstall as a allocation. Permanent permission has been refused on this site numerous times, the views of the development control committee, PINs, Parish Council and locals have been ignored. There is a oversupply of sites in the vicinity. Its close to the MOD site and prison, other sites have been objected to by them. The site has a dominant and unnatural impact on the open countryside. There are 20 plots on site, not 13. Doesn't meet the criteria.

Full text:

I believe that S6. Gypsy, traveler and travelling show people provision and more specifically
Table 4. Oaksview Park, Boarstall. to be unsound as indicated above, and therefore should be removed from the plan.

It should be noted that the content of my representation is not intended as a comment regarding objection to planning consent but merely on the inclusion of this site within the VALP

Whilst I acknowledge the need for Gypsy and traveler sites in the district the allocation of this site is ill conceived and therefore not sound

1.1. The site has been occupied for a number of years with temporary or no permission, 5 hearings for planning permission have been heard by the development control committee, all have overwhelmingly found the site unsuitable for permanent occupation. The inspectorate has heard two appeals for the site and again found it as unsuitable for anything but a temporary site until AVDC located a suitable site.

1.2. The plan has identified this site with no reference to the significant number of alternative sites within a 5 mile radius, not only within AVDC but also the Cherwell district. This oversupply in the vicinity has been demonstrated by this sites under occupancy over the years; to the extent that the owners were sub-letting plots to eastern European economic migrants.

1.3. The site has been refused planning permission on so many occasions in the past why do the authors presume it will be awarded permission in the future?

2. I fail to see how the plan has complied with the duty to cooperate as it disregards the views of many.

2.1. It disregards the repeated decisions of its own development control committee

2.2. It disregards the repeated decisions of the planning inspectorate

2.3. It disregards the repeated objections of the parish council

2.4. It disregards the repeated objections from the residents adjacent to the site who have spent many thousands on security to minimize the number of break ins and vandalism from children residing on the site

2.5 The site lies within a few metres of a Ministry Of Defence, live munitions training ground and the close to Bullingdon Prison. The adjacent Cherwell District Council received an application for a site further away from the MOD boundary than this particular site. Following consultation, permission was refused after objection from the MOD and prison, AVDC have not consulted with these parties or the Military or Civil Police, and the adjoining parishes of Arncott, Murcott and Piddington.

3. I fail to see how a plan could be legally compliant that is in flagrant disregard of the development control committee member (elected Councilor's) repeated decision; it suggests that AVDC are making policy not its councilors.

4. The inclusion of this inappropriate site and systemic policy of AVDC over recent years to grant permanent permission to traveler sites it has previously refused permission to is a clear indication of its own failure to identify appropriate sites; on this basis the plan cannot possibly be considered to be a positively prepared policy.

5. Given the development control committee and inspectorates decisions, the authors of this plan have attempted to now justify the site on the basis of greater regulation of the site, they have done this in full knowledge that the site has flouted conditions imposed upon it and enforcement have been unable to influence this. The authors have not commented on the major reason for prior refusals, its dominant and unnatural effect on the open country side. On this basis its inclusion cannot be considered as justified or effective.

6. The VALP state the site is for 13 plots whilst the Authors have unfettered knowledge that is divided into 20 plots; I see the naming of 13 sites as a clear attempt to mislead the Inspector on compliance with the size recommendation within National Policy for gypsy and traveler sites. The authors have publically acknowledged non- compliance and defended it on the basis of it being the most appropriate "identified" site, i.e. 1 of 1. The site does not meet the defined criteria.

a. It has reasonable access to existing local services and facilities (a. including shops, schools,
healthcare and public transport). Sites should either be within or close to existing
sustainable settlements or with good access to major roads and/or public transport
b. Have safe and convenient vehicular access without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on
highway safety
c. Be able to achieve a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for both people living
on the site and those living nearby
d. Not have an significantly adverse impact on environmental assets such as open
countryside, landscapes, the historic environment, biodiversity, waterways, open space and
green infrastructure
e. The size and scale of the site and the number of caravans stationed is appropriate to the
size and density of the local settled community, and does not dominate the nearest settled
community
f. The site should not be located where there is a risk of flooding or be affected by
environmental hazards that may effect residents health or welfare
g. The site must be capable of being adequately serviced by drinking water, utilities and
sewerage disposal facilities
h. Sites should remain small in scale - no more normally than 15 pitches on any one site

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S6 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision

Representation ID: 563

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposed allocation of Oaksview Park, Boarstall fails all of the necessary criteria for inclusion:

1. The site does not have planning permission and has been previously judged as unsuitable on numerous occasions.
2. The VALP is not legally compliant.
a. The VALP is in flagrant disregard of repeated decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and the Development Control Committee.
3. The VALP does not comply with the duty to co-operate.
a. The VALP disregards the views of all the stakeholders, including local residents, local councilors, the Ministry of Defence, Bullingdon Prison, the consultants and other subject matter experts advising AVDC.
4. The VALP is not sound on the grounds that it;
a. Is not positively prepared, refer section 4;
b. Is not justified, refer section 5;
c. Is not effective, refer section 5;
d. Is not consistent with National Policy, refer section 6.

Full text:

I believe that S6. Gypsy, traveler and travelling show people provision and more specifically
Table 4. Oaksview Park, Boarstall. to be unsound as indicated above, and therefore should be removed from the plan.

It should be noted that the content of my representation is not intended as a comment regarding objection to planning consent but merely on the inclusion of this site within the VALP (Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan)

Whilst I acknowledge the need for Gypsy and traveler sites in the district, the allocation of this site is ill-conceived and therefore not sound.

1. The VALP is Unsound
1.1. The site has been occupied for a number of years with temporary or no permission, 5 hearings for planning permission have been heard by the development control committee, all have overwhelmingly found the site unsuitable for permanent occupation. The inspectorate has heard two appeals for the site and again found it as unsuitable for anything but a temporary site until AVDC located a suitable site.
1.2. The plan has identified this site with no reference to the significant number of alternative sites within a 5-mile radius, not only within AVDC, but also the Cherwell district. This oversupply in the vicinity has been demonstrated by this sites under occupancy over the years; to the extent that the owners were sub-letting plots to eastern European economic migrants.
1.3. The site has been refused planning permission on so many occasions in the past why do the authors presume it will be awarded permission in the future?

2. Duty to Co-operate
2.1. The VALP fails to comply with the duty to cooperate as it disregards the views of all the stakeholders, including the consultants and other subject matter experts advising AVDC.
2.2. It disregards the repeated decisions of its own Development Control Committee.
2.3. It disregards the repeated decisions of the Planning Inspectorate.
2.4. It disregards the repeated objections of the Parish Council.
2.5. It disregards repeated objections from the residents adjacent to the site, who have spent many thousands of pounds on additional security measures to minimise the quantity and impact of break-ins and vandalism proven to be perpetrated by the occupants of the site.
2.6. The site lies within a few meters of a Ministry of Defence, live munitions training ground and the close to Bullingdon Prison. The adjacent Cherwell District Council received an application for a site further away from the MOD boundary than this particular site. Following consultation, permission was refused after objection from the MOD and prison. AVDC have not consulted with these parties, or the Military or Civil Police, or the adjoining parishes of Arncott, Murcott and Piddington.

3. Legally Compliant Local Plan
3.1. The VALP fails to be legally compliant while it remains in flagrant disregard of repeated decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and the Development Control Committee; the latter being made up of elected Councilors. This suggests that employees of AVDC are making policy, not our elected Councilors. This is fundamentally overrides the remit of the elected Councilors.

4. Positively Prepared Local Plan
4.1. The inclusion of this inappropriate site and systemic policy of AVDC over recent years to grant permanent permission to traveller sites it has previously refused permission for, is a clear indication of its own failure to identify appropriate sites; on this basis, the plan cannot possibly be considered to be a positively prepared policy.

5. Justified or Effective Local Plan
5.1. Given the development control committee and inspectorates decisions, the authors of this plan have attempted to now justify the site on the basis of greater regulation of the site. They have done this in full knowledge that the site has flouted conditions imposed upon it, while planning enforcement remains ineffectual.
5.2. The authors of the local plan have failed to comment on the major reason for prior refusals; its dominant and unnatural effect on the open countryside. On this basis, its inclusion cannot be considered as justified or effective.

6. Consistent with National Policy
6.1. The VALP states that the site is for 13 plots. However, the Authors have known since 2005 that the site is actually divided into 20 plots; The assignment of 13 plots is a clear attempt to mislead the Inspector into believing that the site is in compliance with the VALP itself, and National Policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites (refer here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/Final_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf)
6.2. The authors have publicly acknowledged non-compliance with local and national policy, and attempted to defend it on the basis of it being the most appropriate "identified" site, i.e. 1 of 1.

The site does not even meet the criteria stated in the VALP itself:

a. It has reasonable access to existing local services and facilities (a. including shops, schools, healthcare and public transport). Sites should either be within or close to existing
sustainable settlements or with good access to major roads and/or public transport

b. Have safe and convenient vehicular access without giving rise to unacceptable impacts on highway safety

c. Be able to achieve a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy for both people living
on the site and those living nearby

d. Not have an [sic] significantly adverse impact on environmental assets such as open
countryside, landscapes, the historic environment, biodiversity, waterways, open space and
green infrastructure

e. The size and scale of the site and the number of caravans stationed is appropriate to the
size and density of the local settled community, and does not dominate the nearest settled
community

f. The site should not be located where there is a risk of flooding or be affected by
environmental hazards that may effect [sic] residents [sic] health or welfare

g. The site must be capable of being adequately serviced by drinking water, utilities and
sewerage disposal facilities

h. Sites should remain small in scale - no more normally than 15 pitches on any one site


If your representation is more than 100 words, please provide a brief summary here:

The proposed provision for Gypsy, traveler and travelling show people, described in section 6, table 4 (Oaksview Park, Boarstall) of the VALP fails all of the necessary criteria for inclusion:

1. The site does not have planning permission and has been previously judged as unsuitable on numerous occasions.
2. The VALP is not legally compliant.
a. The VALP is in flagrant disregard of repeated decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and the Development Control Committee.
3. The VALP does not comply with the duty to co-operate.
a. The VALP disregards the views of all the stakeholders, including local residents, local councilors, the Ministry of Defence, Bullingdon Prison, the consultants and other subject matter experts advising AVDC.
4. The VALP is not sound on the grounds that it;
a. Is not positively prepared, refer section 4;
b. Is not justified, refer section 5;
c. Is not effective, refer section 5;
d. Is not consistent with National Policy, refer section 6.

Please specify the changes needed to be made to make the Plan sound/legally compliant:

1. The inclusion of this site in the VALP should be immediately withdrawn.
2. A condition must be placed on acceptance of the revised VALP such that;
a. An alternative, appropriate site is identified and secured by AVDC within a timescale defined by the Planning Inspectorate with appropriate penalties for continued failure.






Object

VALP Proposed Submission

D3 Housing development at smaller villages

Representation ID: 659

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Agent: THE W.R. DAVIDGE PLANNING PRACTICE

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The terms of Policy D3 to be unduly prescriptive, potentially negative in impact, and not fully recognising the scope for appropriate additional limited development which unquestionably exists in a village such as Adstock.

Full text:

These representations relate to the provisions of this Plan as they concern the village of Adstock.
Although we concur with the classification of it as a "Smaller village", and that it cannot rate highly in any sustainability assessment, at the same time the village is closely and conveniently related both to immediate centres (i.e. Buckingham and Winslow), as well as to Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard and Aylesbury.
In addition the Local Plan seeks to accommodate some 35% of its housing growth in the rural areas, against the background of an acknowledged national shortage of housing land supply.
Consequently we consider the terms of Policy D3 to be unduly prescriptive, potentially negative in impact, and not fully recognising the scope for appropriate additional limited development (our underlining for emphasis) which unquestionably exists in a village such as this.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S6 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople provision

Representation ID: 829

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

S6. Gypsy, traveler and travelling show people provision and more specifically
Table 4. Oaksview Park, Boarstall. to be unsound as indicated above, and therefore should be removed from the plan.

Full text:

I believe that S6. Gypsy, traveler and travelling show people provision and more specifically
Table 4. Oaksview Park, Boarstall. to be unsound as indicated above, and therefore should be removed from the plan.

It should be noted that the content of my representation is not intended as a comment regarding objection to planning consent but merely on the inclusion of this site within the VALP (Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan)

Whilst I acknowledge the need for Gypsy and traveler sites in the district, the allocation of this site is ill-conceived and therefore not sound.

1. The VALP is Unsound
1.1. The site has been occupied for a number of years with temporary or no permission, 5 hearings for planning permission have been heard by the development control committee, all have overwhelmingly found the site unsuitable for permanent occupation. The inspectorate has heard two appeals for the site and again found it as unsuitable for anything but a temporary site until AVDC located a suitable site.
1.2. The plan has identified this site with no reference to the significant number of alternative sites within a 5-mile radius, not only within AVDC, but also the Cherwell district. This oversupply in the vicinity has been demonstrated by this sites under occupancy over the years; to the extent that the owners were sub-letting plots to eastern European economic migrants.
1.3. The site has been refused planning permission on so many occasions in the past why do the authors presume it will be awarded permission in the future?

2. Duty to Co-operate
2.1. The VALP fails to comply with the duty to cooperate as it disregards the views of all the stakeholders, including the consultants and other subject matter experts advising AVDC.
2.2. It disregards the repeated decisions of its own Development Control Committee.
2.3. It disregards the repeated decisions of the Planning Inspectorate.
2.4. It disregards the repeated objections of the Parish Council.
2.5. It disregards repeated objections from the residents adjacent to the site, who have spent many thousands of pounds on additional security measures to minimise the quantity and impact of break-ins and vandalism proven to be perpetrated by the occupants of the site.
2.6. The site lies within a few meters of a Ministry of Defence, live munitions training ground and the close to Bullingdon Prison. The adjacent Cherwell District Council received an application for a site further away from the MOD boundary than this particular site. Following consultation, permission was refused after objection from the MOD and prison. AVDC have not consulted with these parties, or the Military or Civil Police, or the adjoining parishes of Arncott, Murcott and Piddington.

3. Legally Compliant Local Plan
3.1. The VALP fails to be legally compliant while it remains in flagrant disregard of repeated decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate and the Development Control Committee; the latter being made up of elected Councilors. This suggests that employees of AVDC are making policy, not our elected Councilors. This is fundamentally overrides the remit of the elected Councilors.

4. Positively Prepared Local Plan
4.1. The inclusion of this inappropriate site and systemic policy of AVDC over recent years to grant permanent permission to traveller sites it has previously refused permission for, is a clear indication of its own failure to identify appropriate sites; on this basis, the plan cannot possibly be considered to be a positively prepared policy.

5. Justified or Effective Local Plan
5.1. Given the development control committee and inspectorates decisions, the authors of this plan have attempted to now justify the site on the basis of greater regulation of the site. They have done this in full knowledge that the site has flouted conditions imposed upon it, while planning enforcement remains ineffectual.
5.2. The authors of the local plan have failed to comment on the major reason for prior refusals; its dominant and unnatural effect on the open countryside. On this basis, its inclusion cannot be considered as justified or effective.

6. Consistent with National Policy
6.1. The VALP states that the site is for 13 plots. However, the Authors have known since 2005 that the site is actually divided into 20 plots; The assignment of 13 plots is a clear attempt to mislead the Inspector into believing that the site is in compliance with the VALP itself, and National Policy for Gypsy and Traveller sites (refer here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457420/Final_planning_and_travellers_policy.pdf)
6.2. The authors have publicly acknowledged non-compliance with local and national policy, and attempted to defend it on the basis of it being the most appropriate "identified" site, i.e. 1 of 1.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S1 Sustainable development for Aylesbury Vale

Representation ID: 979

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The increase is housing in the area is currently not sustainable as there has been no improvement in the road network there is increasing congestion in Aylesbury. I've been living in the area for 25 years and other than minor changes to road junctions there have been no major improvements to reduce congestion. Reading the proposals there is no sign of a comprehensive by-pass within a reasonable timescale. The by-pass needs to be in place before all the proposed development.

Full text:

Policy S1
Sustainable Development.
The increase is housing in the area is currently not sustainable as there has been no improvement in the road network there is increasing congestion in Aylesbury. I've been living in the area for 25 years and other than minor changes to road junctions there have been no major improvements to reduce congestion. Reading the proposals there is no sign of a comprehensive by-pass within a reasonable timescale. The by-pass needs to be in place before all the proposed development.

3.22
The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities.
This is not strong enough; you are already trying to coalesce Aylesbury with Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with the Hampden Fields development.

4.14
Aylesbury Town centre
There needs to be more thought on the impact of traffic on the town centre with the extra housing around the town

4.16
Aylesbury Transport Strategy
The "orbital strategy" is only aspirational, it needs to be an actual positive plan and be implemented

Policy D1 Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The amount of planed growth is not sustainable and cannot be accommodated

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury
This creates coalescence between Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall; this is not a reasonable strategy.
Placing 1000+ houses, schools etc. along the south east link road will give a severe impact on the gyratory and surrounding roads.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury North of A41 (Woodlands)
The effect on the A41 for the amount of development in this location will be catastrophic, and is not justified

D-AGT4 Aylesbury South of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The traffic impact at the gyratory and the A41 and A413 will be severe.
See also comments above on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
Putting 1000+ houses on RAF Halton will have a grave potential impact on the surrounding road network. Has the necessary traffic modelling been assessed?

Policy H1 Affordable Housing
All large developments should have 35% affordable housing; the development at Woodlands has only 20% this will let other developers to follow suite. This is not justifiable and not consistent will national policy

7.16 East-West Rail
Is a key infrastructure project and should be fully embraced, the current VALP does not put forward the appropriate strategy as a comprehensive plan would.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
The government supports this scheme so AVDC need to actively plan to capitalise on the housing and transport opportunities this will bring forward

9.39 Air Quality requirement on Developers
Air quality is vital to heath, the council should commit in the plan to improve the air quality within the area. The council has confirmed the major source of pollution is from road transport. This needs to be tacked as a first when development is taking place. The road infrastructure needs to be implemented before the increase in road traffic, Aylesbury need a proper comprehensive dual carriageway with bridges and underpasses at its junctions to keep the majority of the traffic flowing freely keeping the pollution to a minimum within the town as through traffic will by-pass the town centre and on the by-pass itself as there will be minimal stop start at junctions.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

3.3

Representation ID: 1039

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

the quantity of properties being proposed is too much for the corresponding areas. This will add considerable traffic congestion to the local area(s). Aylesbury is already both suffering from lack of infrastructure and is extremely problematical when travelling in and out of the region. Adding these developments, on the scales proposed, will only lead to further congestion that will become deterrents to both employees and employers based or basing themselves within the area. This will then have a negative impact on the local economy.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the consultation period for comments on the above, I wish for my views to be taken into consideration as per the following points:

3.3 & Policy S1 - the quantity of properties being proposed is too much for the corresponding areas. This will add considerable traffic congestion to the local area(s). Aylesbury is already both suffering from lack of infrastructure and is extremely problematical when travelling in and out of the region. Adding these developments, on the scales proposed, will only lead to further congestion that will become deterrents to both employees and employers based or basing themselves within the area. This will then have a negative impact on the local economy.

3.22 - the term 'will seek to preserve' is virtually meaningless and lacks any form of substance. One of the key attractions of Aylesbury Vale is the unique and individual character of the surrounding villages. My understanding has always been that the Council both recognised and endorsed this.The planned developments at both Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville, in particular, will totally undermine the principle of retaining individuality. They will both be entirely coalesced with Aylesbury and completely lose their status as being separate villages. If allowed, this would be absolutely contrary to the policy of resisting developments that compromise open countryside between developments.

4.14 - I see little point in plans to make the Town Centre more attractive when there appears to have been little concerted consideration of the enormous impact of the congestion created by the addition of the proposed quantity of housing.

4.16 (2) - the orbital strategy appears to be based on future aspirations. This makes it very non-committal, ineffective and irrelevant. Accordingly, this should necessitate appropriate and meaningful revisions to the Plan for its alignment with housing policy to be taken seriously.

4.17 - what evidence exists that orbital roads will deal with both existing and the additional congestion that will be created? Anything based on speculation cannot be realistically relied upon when determining if the housing will be supported adequately.

D-AGT1 - Again, as mentioned in 3.22, the issue of coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall is contrary to not developing on open countryside between developments.

D-AGT4 - As per the points made in 3.22, this proposed development will totally merge Weston Turville with Bedgrove / Aylesbury and ensure it loses its identity and character. It is therefore completely against the policy of not developing on open countryside between developments. Additionally, the surrounding roads are already subject to severe congestion and will be virtually untenable if the proposed development proceeds.

4.125 - there appears to be insufficient consideration of the impact on surrounding roads. Correct preparation of a valid traffic model, followed by careful assessment of its results should be undertaken before any plans are allowed to proceed further.

Policy H1 - the reduced percentage of the affordable housing element indicates that private opportunism is being sanctioned above any needs for improved affordable housing. Allowing this policy will encourage further similar submissions and be possibly contrary to national policy.

9.38 - there seems to be insufficient plans and consideration of the detrimental effect on health that the quantity of housing proposed will cause.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

1.12

Representation ID: 1234

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I note the careful language in the MOU, accompanying the above numbers. It states that

"The Councils agreed that the housing need within the HMA would first fall to be met within each plan area based on the needs of each individual plan area, but if that was proven to be impossible then the resultant need would be met elsewhere within the 'best fit' HMA where it was reasonable to do so and was consistent with achieving sustainable development.

The phrase "proven to be impossible" is not a figure of speech. it implies that proof (not just evidence) is demonstrated

Full text:

I see that you are given as the contact for the above meeting. I would be grateful if you could draw the attention of the participants to this email.

By way of background, I am a resident of Whitchurch concerned about some of the implications of the draft local plan and the Bucks Districts and LEP MOU attached to the agenda. I have no "official" or vested interest in the subject beyond my status as a resident.

Like many residents I am concerned about the risk of excessive housing development and I note that for Whitchurch, 22 new houses are included in the proposal for the period to 2033. Even if this number were to be considered acceptable, can some language be included to make it plain that this is a maximum, to avoid a continual drip-drip of applications to exceed this number?

The MOU referenced in the agenda, makes it plain that the officers have in mind proposing an increase in the amount of new housing in Aylesbury Vale beyond the stated "need", because the other districts are thought not to have sufficient room to accommodate their own needs. The numbers are startling. The "need" in Aylesbury Vale is given as 18100 houses, and in Chilterns and South Bucks 26100. However the proposal is that 27400 should be built in AV and only 19400 in C&SB.

As written, i understand the draft District Plan, is based on the need and not any extra allocation, as above. To be meaningful, Ithe plan should also indicate the geographic distribution planned, should this aggregate amount of housing be at the higher level, which is some 50% above the assessed need.

Finally, and here there is hope, I note the careful language in the MOU, accompanying the above numbers. It states that
"The Councils agreed that the housing need within the HMA would first fall to be met within each plan area based on the needs of each individual plan area, but if that was proven to be impossible then the resultant need would be met elsewhere within the 'best fit' HMA where it was reasonable to do so and was consistent with achieving sustainable development. "(My bold underlining)

The phrase "proven to be impossible" is not a figure of speech. it implies that proof (not just evidence) is demonstrated that it is impossible to build the needed houses in the areas of need. Impossible does not mean "inconvenient", "uneconomic", "undesirable" for instance but that the goal could not be met locally by any possible course of action. It would be helpful if the Committee could consider and at least outline, the way that they would seek to check if the test of "proven to be impossible" should be met.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

S1 Sustainable development for Aylesbury Vale

Representation ID: 1872

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

the quantity of properties being proposed is too much for the corresponding areas. This will add considerable traffic congestion to the local area(s). Aylesbury is already both suffering from lack of infrastructure and is extremely problematical when travelling in and out of the region. Adding these developments, on the scales proposed, will only lead to further congestion that will become deterrents to both employees and employers based or basing themselves within the area. This will then have a negative impact on the local economy.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the consultation period for comments on the above, I wish for my views to be taken into consideration as per the following points:

3.3 & Policy S1 - the quantity of properties being proposed is too much for the corresponding areas. This will add considerable traffic congestion to the local area(s). Aylesbury is already both suffering from lack of infrastructure and is extremely problematical when travelling in and out of the region. Adding these developments, on the scales proposed, will only lead to further congestion that will become deterrents to both employees and employers based or basing themselves within the area. This will then have a negative impact on the local economy.

3.22 - the term 'will seek to preserve' is virtually meaningless and lacks any form of substance. One of the key attractions of Aylesbury Vale is the unique and individual character of the surrounding villages. My understanding has always been that the Council both recognised and endorsed this.The planned developments at both Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville, in particular, will totally undermine the principle of retaining individuality. They will both be entirely coalesced with Aylesbury and completely lose their status as being separate villages. If allowed, this would be absolutely contrary to the policy of resisting developments that compromise open countryside between developments.

4.14 - I see little point in plans to make the Town Centre more attractive when there appears to have been little concerted consideration of the enormous impact of the congestion created by the addition of the proposed quantity of housing.

4.16 (2) - the orbital strategy appears to be based on future aspirations. This makes it very non-committal, ineffective and irrelevant. Accordingly, this should necessitate appropriate and meaningful revisions to the Plan for its alignment with housing policy to be taken seriously.

4.17 - what evidence exists that orbital roads will deal with both existing and the additional congestion that will be created? Anything based on speculation cannot be realistically relied upon when determining if the housing will be supported adequately.

D-AGT1 - Again, as mentioned in 3.22, the issue of coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall is contrary to not developing on open countryside between developments.

D-AGT4 - As per the points made in 3.22, this proposed development will totally merge Weston Turville with Bedgrove / Aylesbury and ensure it loses its identity and character. It is therefore completely against the policy of not developing on open countryside between developments. Additionally, the surrounding roads are already subject to severe congestion and will be virtually untenable if the proposed development proceeds.

4.125 - there appears to be insufficient consideration of the impact on surrounding roads. Correct preparation of a valid traffic model, followed by careful assessment of its results should be undertaken before any plans are allowed to proceed further.

Policy H1 - the reduced percentage of the affordable housing element indicates that private opportunism is being sanctioned above any needs for improved affordable housing. Allowing this policy will encourage further similar submissions and be possibly contrary to national policy.

9.38 - there seems to be insufficient plans and consideration of the detrimental effect on health that the quantity of housing proposed will cause.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

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