Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Main Modifications

Search Representations

Results for Scott Travel Ltd search

New search New search

Object

VALP Main Modifications

MM076

Representation ID: 3226

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Scott Travel Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Late addition of Shenley Park to VALP has denied residents the opportunity to represent the devastating impact on the environment, traffic, road safety in a small village, already subsumed by its proximity to MK. I understand that AVDC have also not fulfilled their duty to cooperate with MKC.

Change suggested by respondent:

MM076 should be removed before adoption of VALP. Eaton leys(Bletchley) or Salden Chase(Newton L'ville) would be sustainable alternative but alternative sites can be identified closer to large towns in A.V., helping those towns' long-term economy sustainability rather than Milton Keynes.

Full text:

SP (Shenley Park, Whaddon) was not included in NOV.17 proposed VALP so whaddon P.C and residents have been denied the opportunity to examine AVDC's decision to promote S.P in preference to the alternative two sites during the public hearing in July 2018. This breaches paras.155,158 and 182 of NPPF. Due to this late inclusion of S.P. The Inspector is called to reopen a further hearing to examine this council, unfair and unjust omission so that the three competing sites can be comparison tested-The acceptance of S.P without proper scrutiny would render the plan unsound and potentially unlawful and potentially.

I find the late inclusion of Shenley Park in VALP, the pre-Christmas timing and the
complexity of the so-called "public consultation" indefensible. I fully support
Whaddon Parish Council's detailed (and expert) objection to this contentious, illconsidered
proposal. Living on Whaddon High Street, as I do, with a bedroom wall
no more than a metre from ever-increasing traffic, and narrow, dangerouslyinclined,
damaged sidewalks, I am appalled at the potential for more accidents, noise
and pollution even if new arrangements were made to access the A421 which is
often already so congested. I would like to know whether any of the proponents of
this scheme have any experience or knowledge of "life on the ground" in a supposed
"Conservation Area" or whether, as I suspect, superficial expediency is the order of
the day. Without any way of knowing or understanding the general layout, highway
distribution, landscaping (green gap between the SP site and Whaddon), it is totally
unreasonable to expect residents to make informed comment. Why was this crucial
information not prepared? Did lack of time, knowledge and understanding play a
part in the process, when AVDC 'lost' so many other dwellings from previouslyallocated
sites? Major infrastructure decisions and further traffic investigations
must be undertaken and resolved BEFORE the site is allocated in the Local Plan, and
MUST NOT be allowed to wait until the later Supplemental and Detailed planning
stages.
I understand MKC discussed this issue at Full Council on 23 October, and members
across all parties agreed that a failure of co-operation has occurred, and that
community engagement has been minimal. Non-compliance with such an important
issue, especially when MKC have an adopted Local Plan with meaningful policies, is
out of order. MKC could, and should, have helped select the best and most
sustainable site if it must abut its boundary. This lack of engagement renders this
part of the plan 'unsound' ...... hence further reason to re-open the hearing sessions
to ascertain exactly why AVDC chose not to cooperate and engage more fully with
MKC - and indeed Whaddon Parish Council, and residents. It is very clear that the MK members have grave reservations as to how sites adjoining MK boundaries will
actually work in practice. The sites will essentially be part of MK and new residents
will almost certainly avail themselves of MK services - healthcare, waste sites,
education, police, ambulance, road repairs etc. So, who will pay for the extra
pressure on these vital services?
Common sense dictates that obvious infill sites should be chosen before despoiling
virgin countryside. But, even so, the Shenley Park site cannot offer the
opportunities available at the Eaton Leys and Salden Chase sites. The inherent
constraints, not least the unknown traffic implications, and landscape and
biodiversity concerns, suggest that in fact it is the least favourable of the three sites
when closely examined, especially as the Shenley Park site would mean crossing the
North Bucks Way- a strong and defensible landscape barrier and wildlife corridor.
Eaton Leys is a totally obvious and logical 'infill site' that would sensibly 'round off'
the eastern side of MK. The total site lies within, and is fully contained by, the A4146
Fenny Stratford bypass, meaning that there will be no encroachment into open
countryside beyond. The A4146 will then clearly define a long lasting and permanent
edge to the east of Milton Keynes

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