Aylesbury Vale Area

VALP Main Modifications

Search Representations

Results for Milton Keynes Councillor search

New search New search

Object

VALP Main Modifications

MM076

Representation ID: 3067

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Milton Keynes Councillor

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I urge the authority to reconsider the allocation of Shenley Park as a housing site. It is not viable due to the reasons outlined above, and there is no real evidence to suggest why this site has been included again after it was initially ruled out. The decision to include it is rushed, ill conceived and open to challenge. I urge the LPA to either withdraw the site or, as indicted above, re-open the examination hearings to allow full exploration of all possible options.

Change suggested by respondent:

I urge the authority to reconsider the allocation of Shenley Park as a housing site. It is not viable due to the reasons outlined above, and there is no real evidence to suggest why this site has been included again after it was initially ruled out. The decision to include it is rushed, ill conceived and open to challenge. I urge the LPA to either withdraw the site or, as indicted above, re-open the examination hearings to allow full exploration of all possible options. Please allow my residents, and all residents of Milton Keynes who would be affected by development in Aylesbury Vale, a chance to really get across their views and concerns before a final decision is made.

Full text:

On behalf of the residents of Tattenhoe Ward, Milton Keynes, I strongly object to the inclusion of 'Shenley Park' as a new housing allocation in the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) modifications. The inclusion of such a large housing site at this late stage and the drastic change from the original plan raise a number of questions about the suitability, process and sustainability of such a site. It is highly doubtful that an acceptable and policy-compliant development could be delivered at the Shenley Park site. There is no evidence of a robust yet proportionate site selection process underpinning the proposed allocation of Shenley Park, and therefore the proposed allocation is not justified.
As identified by Milton Keynes Council (MKC), the allocation of Shenley Park was initially proposed at Regulation 18 stage of the VALP. However, this was removed from the Regulation 19 version of the VALP and the VALP as submitted for examination. The reappearance of such a strategically significant prospective allocation at Shenley Park via the Examination in Public and the Proposed Main Modifications consultation has, understandably, come as a significant surprise to the communities of Tattenhoe, Kingsmead and Oxley Park within Milton Keynes which I represent. These communities would not have felt it necessary to engage in the Regulation 19 consultation on the VALP as Shenley Park had been removed as proposed allocation, and therefore have not had a voice in the examination proceedings to date. I strongly support Milton Keynes Council's proposal to re-open the examination hearings. This is necessary allow my residents to further explain any written objections and challenge any further submissions or statements made by AVDC in support of the proposed allocation. It is critically important that residents in Milton Keynes are not seen to be disadvantaged through the consideration of such a significant change to the VALP at this late stage of the plan-making process.
The proposed allocation of the Shenley Park is not viable due to 2 main issues, mainly raised by point f in the site-specific requirements: '....the development will use some facilities in Milton Keynes, given its proximity. Milton Keynes also provides an access point into the site'. The first issue being it's difficulty in complying with policy SD15 of Plan:MK (2019) which details the requirements of any development on the Milton Keynes border. It is widely acknowledged that this development is essentially an extension of Milton Keynes and not a stand-alone development in Aylesbury Vale. The impact this will have on the infrastructure and services in Milton Keynes is huge, and the VALP does not address this satisfactorily. Impact on health care, education and services such as libraries and children's centres will be large and this cannot be mitigated through one-off financial contributions such as S106. The lack of council tax revenue for MKC from the residents of Shenley Park means we would be taking on additional burden without sufficient funding. This is not a sustainable proposal.
The second issue is that of highways and access to the site. Point f states, 'Milton Keynes also provides an access point into the site' which I feel presumes a lot. The indicative design with access to the site through the extension of the H6 Child's Way has caused upset and concern amongst my residents and the site cannot be brought forward whilst it is so reliant on a Milton Keynes planning decision to allow extension of the H6 or the H7. The impact on the residential amenity for residents of Harlow Crescent and Saltwood Avenue in Oxley Park and Kingsmead respectively would be sufficient to refuse any application. The site would not be deliverable without this access point and there would be a huge public campaign to ensure this is not granted.
Overall, I urge the authority to reconsider the allocation of Shenley Park as a housing site. It is not viable due to the reasons outlined above, and there is no real evidence to suggest why this site has been included again after it was initially ruled out. The decision to include it is rushed, ill conceived and open to challenge. I urge the LPA to either withdraw the site or, as indicted above, re-open the examination hearings to allow full exploration of all possible options. Please allow my residents, and all residents of Milton Keynes who would be affected by development in Aylesbury Vale, a chance to really get across their views and concerns before a final decision is made.

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