Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Main Modifications

Search Representations

Results for Bletchley Park Area Residents Association search

New search New search

Object

VALP Main Modifications

MM076

Representation ID: 3238

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Bletchley Park Area Residents Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The Shenley Park development refers to "at least 1,150" houses, whereas developers are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site - this will further diminish sustainability. No provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy as is made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum. (MM076).

Change suggested by respondent:

Not specified

Full text:

As Chair of Bletchley Park Area Residents Association (BPARA), I am writing to register our objections to the VALP Main Modifications which require further review. The letters 'MM' and numbers refer to the appropriate modifications, and we believe the Public Examination should be re-opened for the reasons stated below.

As set out in previous communications going back as far as BPARA's objections to the original Salden Chase proposed development 10 years or so ago, AVDC are guilty of "piggy-backing off" the services provided by MKDC council taxpayers who live in the MK area bordering Aylesbury Vale. By supporting proposed developments such as those at Salden Chase and Shenley Park, Whaddon, AVDC benefits from planning gain and future council tax income, at the expense of MK. The expansion would create diminished sustainability and a reduced quality of life - (MM070, 076). 10 years ago, BPARA advocated "I before E" - Investment before Infrastructure, a term which is now used by others but is even more relevant today, as indicated below:

Transport
* The requirements for Shenley Park, Whaddon have not been properly considered.
* Current long traffic jams at rush-hour on the A421 are proof that the roads on the west of MK are already at capacity, even before any new developments at Tattenhoe Park and Kingsmead have been built
* Traffic jams will worsen - traffic analysis must be done as a priority now, not as an afterthought. (MM007, 010, 076).

Health Service Provision
* The additional demands on health and emergency services from new developments, plus the disposal of waste have not been properly considered. (MM007, 010,076).

With regard to protection of villages, we agree with others who state there is an obvious double standard being applied between the protection of villages around Aylesbury and the lack of protection for villages around Milton Keynes. All villages must be offered the same protection. (MM013, 014, 031).

The Shenley Park development refers to "at least 1,150" houses, whereas developers are pushing for 1,800 houses on the site - this will further diminish sustainability. No provision has been made for a secondary school in compliance with BCC policy as is made clear in the Sustainability Appraisal Addendum. (MM076).

From submissions due to be made by MK Council to AVDC, there appears to be no active and real co-operation by AVDC with MKC - AVDC policy fails to comply with the adopted policies in the adopted Plan:MK for such proposed development. In addition, from motions passed by Milton Keynes Council in relation to both Salden Chase and Shenley Park, Whaddon, it is questionable that AVDC has any intention to comply with the 'Duty to Cooperate.' (MM072 to 076).

For all the above reasons, and also due to uncertainty following legal objections against the 2,000 properties planned for Salden Chase, we wish to register BPARA's objection to the VALP Main Modifications in respect of Newton Longville and ask that the Public Examination be reopened.


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