Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Proposed Submission

Search Representations

Results for MEPC Silverstone GP Limited search

New search New search

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

E1 Protection of key employment sites

Representation ID: 852

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: MEPC Silverstone GP Limited

Agent: Terence O'Rourke Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Silverstone Park is included as a strategic employment site (policy E1), which is welcomed by MEPC.
The plan includes a separate policy entitled Silverstone Circuit (policy E10). This makes reference to
the 'business and technology park', but it fails to clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park (MEPC)
and Silverstone Circuit (BRDC). Two landowners with distinct planning objectives control these two
sites. Therefore, the plan is not effective in this regard.
The policy wording in E10 should clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park and Silverstone Circuit.
The planning objectives and the existing/proposed land uses relevant to each site should be clearly
stated

Full text:

Silverstone Park is included as a strategic employment site (policy E1), which is welcomed by MEPC.
The plan includes a separate policy entitled Silverstone Circuit (policy E10). This makes reference to
the 'business and technology park', but it fails to clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park (MEPC)
and Silverstone Circuit (BRDC). Two landowners with distinct planning objectives control these two
sites. Therefore, the plan is not effective in this regard.
The policy wording in E10 should clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park and Silverstone Circuit.
The planning objectives and the existing/proposed land uses relevant to each site should be clearly
stated (i.e. those land uses permitted within MEPC application 16/02745/AOP and BRDC application
17/01840/AOP).
The 'Silverstone' policy map identifies only Zone K, located west of Dadford Road, as forming part of
Silverstone Park. The remaining part of the estate is entitled 'Silverstone Motor Racing Circuit and
Business Park'. This is incorrect. Silverstone Park also comprises land on the eastern side of Dadford
Road and there is no business park within the Circuit itself. To avoid any ambiguity, the policy map
should clearly define those areas that are Silverstone Park (MEPC) and those which are Silverstone
Circuit (BRDC).
Please find enclosed MEPC's land use parameters plan (reference: 30876-PL-101E), which denotes the
approved developable boundary of Silverstone Park. MEPC will notify the council of any change in land
ownership.
In addition, the policy map should be updated to indicate the K6-1 development (Zone K) as an existing
key employment site (planning reference: 15/02950/APP). This development was completed in
November 2016. The policy map currently indicates this development as a 'commitment'.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

E10 Silverstone Circuit

Representation ID: 2501

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: MEPC Silverstone GP Limited

Agent: Terence O'Rourke Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Silverstone Park is included as a strategic employment site (policy E1), which is welcomed by MEPC.
The plan includes a separate policy entitled Silverstone Circuit (policy E10). This makes reference to
the 'business and technology park', but it fails to clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park (MEPC)
and Silverstone Circuit (BRDC). Two landowners with distinct planning objectives control these two
sites. Therefore, the plan is not effective in this regard.
The policy wording in E10 should clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park and Silverstone Circuit.
The planning objectives and the existing/proposed land uses relevant to each site should be clearly
stated

Full text:

Silverstone Park is included as a strategic employment site (policy E1), which is welcomed by MEPC.
The plan includes a separate policy entitled Silverstone Circuit (policy E10). This makes reference to
the 'business and technology park', but it fails to clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park (MEPC)
and Silverstone Circuit (BRDC). Two landowners with distinct planning objectives control these two
sites. Therefore, the plan is not effective in this regard.
The policy wording in E10 should clearly distinguish between Silverstone Park and Silverstone Circuit.
The planning objectives and the existing/proposed land uses relevant to each site should be clearly
stated (i.e. those land uses permitted within MEPC application 16/02745/AOP and BRDC application
17/01840/AOP).
The 'Silverstone' policy map identifies only Zone K, located west of Dadford Road, as forming part of
Silverstone Park. The remaining part of the estate is entitled 'Silverstone Motor Racing Circuit and
Business Park'. This is incorrect. Silverstone Park also comprises land on the eastern side of Dadford
Road and there is no business park within the Circuit itself. To avoid any ambiguity, the policy map
should clearly define those areas that are Silverstone Park (MEPC) and those which are Silverstone
Circuit (BRDC).
Please find enclosed MEPC's land use parameters plan (reference: 30876-PL-101E), which denotes the
approved developable boundary of Silverstone Park. MEPC will notify the council of any change in land
ownership.
In addition, the policy map should be updated to indicate the K6-1 development (Zone K) as an existing
key employment site (planning reference: 15/02950/APP). This development was completed in
November 2016. The policy map currently indicates this development as a 'commitment'.

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