VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-07-12-00204

VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The sites identified are not in line with the Neighbourhood Plan and as such are not supported by the l

Trang 1

ID Respondent Name Comment

VALP16-07-12-00204 Kate Wright Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The Draft Plan states that 'The site has only recently, in 2016, been granted temporary

permission for 3 pitches The inspector concluded that the development would have a significant adverse visual appearance and materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area The site is not readily accessible to local amenities given its rural location.' It has been concluded that this will not be one of the sites which is considered for permanent occupation

This statement should be redrafted to include the following: This temporary site is planned for closure at the end of the existing term

ie 09 Feb 2019, or earlier, when the new VALP is in place

VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The sites identified are not in line with the Neighbourhood Plan and as

such are not supported by the local communityVALP16-07-22-00213 Geoff Pearman Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - I wish to be assured that the Gypsy Travellers site ( ref GT8 ) will continue to be

designated as temporary and as such will be forced close after three years i.e by early 2019

It is a far from ideal site and totally unsustainable for human habitation

Trang 2

VALP16-07-22-00216 Joanna Male (Gregory

Gray Associates)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Gregory Gray Associates is instructed to write on behalf of Wyevale Garden Centres Ltd owners of Worlds End Garden Centre, Aylesbury Road, Wendover, HP22 6BD

The garden centre occupies a site which extends a total of 4.84ha and which is located to the north of the settlement of Wendover

as shown on the attached site plan A significant part of the site comprises previously developed land, and whilst it is located beyond any current settlement boundary, it is not subject to the Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations that

constrain nearby sites

The spatial vision for the Local Plan seeks to achieve an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth based on an established settlement hierarchy By concentrating the majority of new development at the most sustainable settlements, it is recognized that the need to travel can be minimized, and the delivery of facilities and services can be achieved efficiently

My client considers that this stated approach is entirely compliant with the principles for sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, however does not consider that the proposed housing allocations provide the most appropriate means of implementing this vision in light of two other key tenets of national policy, namely the effective use of previously developed land and the permanence of the Green Belt

Policy S2 Spatial Strategy for Growth indicates that strategic growth and investment will be concentrated in sustainable locations and that Wendover will be expected to accommodate housing growth of 25% Table 1 indicates that such an increase on the existing housing stock in Wendover amounts to 834 dwellings, of which sites for 722 units still need to be identified as the HELAA failed to identify any suitable sites

However, Policy D4 confirms that the housing requirement for Wendover will potentially be met by a site for 800 homes subject to it being found suitable for release from the Green Belt The site in question is known as RSA-2 It extends 45ha and comprises an undeveloped ‘green field’ site located within the Green Belt

The NPPF makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in ‘exceptional circumstances’ (para 83) The Aylesbury Vale Green Belt Assessment Part 2 concludes in relation to site RSA-2 that “Exceptional circumstances are likely

to be justified if there is a large amount of outstanding housing need that cannot be met on land outside of the Green Belt” however it recognizes that the quantum of housing need has yet to be finalized and that “Consideration will need to be given to whether there are alternative sites outside of the Green Belt to meet this housing figure although the latest HELAA is showing this as being unlikely….”

Trang 3

VALP16-07-22-00216 Joanna Male (Gregory

Gray Associates)

My client disputes the findings of the HELAA which rejects the garden centre site as being suitable for housing and considers that their site provides a preferable alternative to site RSA-2 given its location outside of the Green Belt and status as previously developed land

One of the key strategic policies of the Draft Local Plan is Policy S8 which encourages the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land consistent with para 17 of the NPPF and which weighs significantly in favour of the future allocation of our client’s site for residential purposes when compared with greenfield alternatives

It is also noted that the assessment of site RSA-2 raises the issue of the capacity of the B4009 Tring Road to serve any future development Use of the garden centre site to contribute towards meeting future development needs helps to alleviate highway concerns since any increase in traffic generation associated with the proposed residential development would be partially offset by the removal of the traffic associated with the existing commercial use

The garden centre site is located to the north of the settlement of Wendover and provides easy access to this strategic settlement and the facilties it provides It is located within an existing enclave of development and given the scale, bulk and activity associated with the existing use, is capable of redevelopment for residential purposes with no additional impact upon the character and amenities of the area By contrast, site RSA-2 is currently undeveloped and any future built form will have a significant additional impact upon the character and amenities of the area

It is considered that Worlds End Garden Centre provides a suitable site to accommodate future housing needs given its previously developed nature As a result, it is considered erroneous to argue that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the release of RSA-2 on grounds of housing need, until optimum use has been made of previously developed sites such as that belonging to our client in accordance with the Council’s own draft policy and the NPPF

Whilst it is recognized that Worlds End Garden Centre is not capable of meeting in full, the housing requirement for Wendover, it provides a sequentially preferable site of a scale which could provide adequate infrastructure and services to serve future residents and it is requested that the Draft Local Plan be amended in order to include it as a residential housing allocation capable of

accommodating approximately 140 units

I would be grateful if you could take the foregoing comments into account in the finalisation of the Local Plan Should you have any queries regarding the above or relating to any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

Trang 4

VALP16-07-22-00218 Terry Benwell Settlement Hierarchy - I am resubmitting the Critique on the advice of Cllr Carole Paternoster, with whom I had occasion to seek

assistance in gaining acknowledgement of the issues raised in the Critique

I note that there has been little change in the July 2016 Hierarchy Assessment from the 2015 model, although some concessions have been afforded in Section 6.3 under Other Settlements, " some development could take place if deemed appropriate through the planning application process"

However the main thrust of my Critique is directed at the flawed reasoning with reference to schooling, class B1 business units and the 2km limitation, this should be inclusive regardless of which settlement the B1 units are sited I can understand that any re assessment on the classification of Rowsham will not impact on the development allocation, but I submit my evidence on the need for probity and rational application of the parameters set out in the Hierarchy Assessment

I am quite prepared to make myself available to debate these issues,^ Dear Sir,

I append below two errors I have discovered to date in the above draft

1 There is no record of Hulcott Village

2 Buckland Village has been awarded a points score of 3, one point being for a Public House, The Rothschild Arms in the village closed a few years ago Therefore the points allocation should be 2

Yours faithfully,Terry BenwellVALP16-07-29-00237 Sue Belgrove New Settlement Study - Stand alone development to East of Haddenham Aston Sandford

This is productive farm land within a superb landscape of small fields and hedgerows and it is completely outrageous that a new

"garden village"should be built here for the following reasons:

The unspoilt countryside of Aylesbury Vale should not be sacrificed to meet the needs of neighbouring Authorities

VALP16-08-04-00250 P M Silver Green Belt Assessment- I have in the past written about this issue I read in our local newspaper the Leighton Buzzard Observer it

has been suggested that the area (valley farm) seeks Green Belt status Since we live close to the proposed site of the housing, can see traffic problems for Leighton Buzzard would be immense The traffic already is almost at stand still now If there is a vote for Green Belt I strongly support it

Trang 5

VALP16-08-05-00261 B Knight (Ivinghoe

Parish Council)

Settlement Hierarchy - Re: Response to VALP Consultation

Ivinghoe Parish Council wishes to respond to the draft VALP and the draft settlement hierarchy assessment (July 2016)

Key services in Ivinghoe

1 Food Store Ivinghoe only has one food store – Best One located in High Street

The hierarchy criteria wrongly states 2 shops

1 Public HouseThe Rose & Crown PH, Ivinghoe is only Public House within the village of Ivinghoe

The hierarchy criteria wrongly states there are 2 The Kings Head, Station Road, Ivinghoe is a fine dining restaurant only

Connectivity and Public TransportArriva 61 Bus Service Aylesbury – Luton

This now terminates in Dunstable, not Luton This service does not run hourly please see attachment for timetable

Red Line Buses 164 Bus Service Leighton Buzzard – Aylesbury CANCELLED

From 28th August 2016 this service is cancelled Until the 28th August there was only one bus a day

Bus Service 50 Marsworth, RAF Halton & AylesburyOnly operates through Ivinghoe on a Sunday This is the only bus service that runs on a Sunday through Ivinghoe

Red Kite Bus Service 167This is only a one day one service to Leighton Buzzard only on a Tuesday

Trang 6

In summary Ivinghoe only meets 1 point within the connectivity and public transport criteria

Key Services: 6Ivinghoe only has 1 public house, 1 shop, 1 post office, 1 school, 1 village hall and 1 recreational ground A total of 6 key services.Non key services: 3

Ivinghoe has 3 non key services which are correctly noted

Therefore, Ivinghoe Parish Council request that Ivinghoe is categorised as a medium village in line with your criteria

Ivinghoe AstonConnectivity and Public TransportRedline Bus Service 175

This service was for a Thursday only, but no longer runs and is not shown on Bucks CC website

Summary – Ivinghoe AstonThere are no direct links to any major employment hubs

Parish Council)

Ivinghoe Aston is 4 miles away from Pitstone, it does not adjoin Pitstone as stated in your document

Ivinghoe Aston does not have mains gas and limited broadband service and several homes are classified as being within fuel poverty For these reasons Ivinghoe Aston should be graded as a settlement not a small village

Ivinghoe Parish Council dispute any link between Ivinghoe and Ivinghoe Aston and Luton Most residents travel for employment

Trang 7

VALP16-08-09-00275 Andrew Burnett Green Belt Assessment - See comments above regarding release of land from the green belt immediately to the north of

Wendover I strongly disagree with releasing this land, it meets the green belt criteria very well (you undervalue it) and government planning policy guidelines suggest that unmet housing need is not a good enough reason for 'exceptional circumstances' to apply This seems particularly true when the unmet housing need is caused by shortfalls in other local authorities as a result of their land being constrained by the green belt Or, to put it another way, why should we release green belt land when other authorities are not doing so, particularly when the land clearly meets the green belt criteria

VALP16-08-10-00290 Angus Smith Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Following a meeting at Grendon Underwood Village Hall, it is clear that the

vast majority of attendees would prefer to keep the linear nature of the village and not have new buildings behind the current building line The main suggestion of the group was to propose the land (owned by Marcello) North of Main Street at the East side of the village as one site to provide the shortfall of houses required over the next 17 years This site continues the linear nature of the village and would have the least impact on the majority

Trang 8

VALP16-08-13-00323 Guy Hawking New Settlement Study - Obviously as a local resident I wish to comment about the idea of a new settlement at Winslow

The scale of the suggested settlement would link Winslow with Great and Little Horwood and be at the edge of the western expansion of Milton Keynes This would create a new town larger than Buckingham and radically change the country town and village culture of those communities

There is reference to an "airfield" Is this a proposal to provide an airfield as part of a notional new settlement development? This seems to be an unnecessary transport option with Cranfield, Halton ad Luton airfields in the local area

The outline maps indicate that the "airfield" would be located on an area around Greenways Farm that is agricultural land and not listed as suited for development Is the intention to build on green belt/farmland if this option is considered??

The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan indicated scope for an increase of 700 new houses in the period to 2020 There is wide support for expansion and growth in Winslow centred around the town centre and to support local amenities, shops and infrastructure

Phase 2 of WNP has yet to be produced and is contingent on the development of the E/W Rail link The date for the construction of this link has is has not been confirmed and may no longer be possible due to funding crisis and the forecast recession

I would suggest that the new settlement proposal would only be viable if the new station and rail link can be delivered within the plan timeframe to 2033 Is it possible to make development of the New Settlement conditional on the arrival of the rail link??

The traffic flow studies (GL Hearn) also highlights that existing road links and junctions on the A413 and the junction of Sheep Street and Horn Street could not cope with the increased traffic load from a new settlement A link road would be required to divert traffic away from Winslow High Street and "this option requires more study" I also assume that this is not funded in current transport budgets

A key part of WNP was to ensure expansion and house building supported the town centre facilities and retail businesses A new settlement on the outskirts of town would undermine the commerce in the town and affect the viability of a vibrant town centre The idea of an out of Town settlement was seen as a risk to Winslow High Street shops and this option is outcome was strongly rejected

by the residents in the consultation about WNP Phase 1 & 2

VALP16-08-16-00339 Robert John Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - See comment above

Also, designation of MAR005 as "Commitment" is nonsense as it is already developed

Also, disregarding MAR006 is both incorrect (part already has planning consent for 2 units) and the reasons given or ill-considered This is very much a part of the village and is a brown filed site, the remaining part being entirely asphalted Its development of 6 further small houses would be welcome and highly suitable as well as easily achieved

VALP16-08-16-00341 Elaine Standen Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Bulbourne Yard has been omitted from this map In fact it is currently

waiting for planning consent to redevelop which will include some new housing for the Marsworth Parish

Trang 9

VALP16-08-17-00362 Stephanie Lucas Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The gypsy, traveller and travelling show people sites should have good access to major

roads and/or public transport

It is going to be difficult to persuade developers to provide a small allocation on some of the larger housing sites

VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin

Family)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - There are factual inaccuracies in relation to site WIN022

Firstly, it says that the site is not well located to the settlement and separated by open fields This is incorrect The site is directly adjacent to sites WIN003 and WIN008, both of which are on site and under construction It also bounds a nursery and the East West Rail Link With the exception of the small Winslow graveyard, the site is not separated from the settlement by open fields Access to the high street would be a short walk or cycle ride to the high street or the new station, potentially via these new developments

Secondly, it says that for WIN022 to be developed, improvements to the access road (Furze Lane) would be required Yet according

to paragraphs 4.25, 4.26 and 4.27 of the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan, Furze Lane is already earmarked for upgrade to accommodate development to the east of the road

In terms of the site that has been added to the AV Draft Local Plan since it was revised (site WIN001) there is an inconsistency between what is in the HELAA and the draft local plan The site in the HELAA is larger than what is placed within the draft local plan, with the HELAA's version spanning across the parish boundary line Which version can accommodate 585 homes? Also, the HELAA appears to place quite a bit of emphasis on the neighbourhood plan, which was undertaken prior to the circulation of the AV Draft Local Plan Given Winslow has been identified by AV as an area of strategic growth, to only add one site that has been deemed

"part suitable" by the HELAA seems wholly inadequate

Sustainability Appraisal

As previously stated, the Sustainability appraisal states in paragraphs 3.44.1 to 3.44.5 that the development of site WIN001 will:

1 Mean the loss of good quality farm land

2 Mean the loss of habitats of principal importance

3 Present High Flood risk

4 May sterilise important mineral resourcesMuch of these go against the local plan and therefore why is WIN001 viewed as the best site available to accommodate the chronic shortage of housing in the area?

Trang 10

VALP16-08-19-00366 Mark Saccoccio

(Leighton-Linslade Town Council)

Green Belt Assessment - AVDC Green Belt Assessment Part 2 Report

Site Ref 109 Address:- Land West of Leighton-Linslade, south of Leighton Road

At its meeting held 11th August 2016, the Planning and Transport Committee resolved to support the proposed designation of the above land parcel as Green Belt land for the reasons set out within the background document report

VALP16-08-21-00411 Julia Robinson Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - p147 Site Assessment Cheddington - Given that there is a need for

bungalows and housing for the elderly, site CHE001 is a considerable distance from the village shop compared to sites CHE005 and CHE006 Site access is limited from the High Street - the site would have only one access road

The assessment that it would be possible to build 58 houses that meet VALP build critieria on CHE001 is open to considerable challenge

Also the assessment takes no account of fauna and flora value of this site which contributes to the village environment

VALP16-08-22-00416 John Currell Green Belt Assessment - It is hard not to feel that the proposed re-designation of RSA-2 is not a cynical exercise to release more

development land in Wendover The commentary on pages 9 & 10 could equally well be used to support retention of this area within the green belt

I presume that the area of RSA-2 as shown had been miss-drawn; as on page 11 it is stated that one of its durable boundaries (west) is the canal Another boundary (north) is the old railway line So the actual theoretical development area is much smaller than suggested by the plan on page 11

I assume that the last word on the first line under "Stage ! C: HELAA Site Assessment should be "west" rather than "east" The discussion in the following paragraphs about possible use of the site is interesting and maybe should be considered within a future Neighbourhood Plan It is pleasing to note that it is stated that here is "a shortage of parking within Wendover which needs to be considered"

However, I remain of the view that this site should not be released for developmentVALP16-08-23-00447 Alan Tipple Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Appd A Page 209 - object to Croft Meadow identified space for 58

dwellings when this is not in the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) Look again at identified sites in CNP if you really need another 35 - but ideally reject the whole idea of Unmet Need as this is purely AVDC sweeping up other authorities failure (by design

or other reason)VALP16-08-24-00448 Michael Henderson

(Dinton with Ford and Upton Parish Council)

New Settlement Study - See previous comments relating to policy D2.

VALP16-08-24-00472 Christine Fee Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Croft Meadows in Cheddington should be kept open as it is a significant

feature of the village in that it not only affords views towards the Chilterns, but as the area is grazed it gives people a unique opportunity, in this day and age, to view farm animals

VALP16-08-24-00494 William Hubbick Sustainability Appraisal - In my opinion, the village will not be able cope with the additional traffic and will place a further strain on

Trang 11

VALP16-08-25-00529 Lucy Murfett (Chilterns

VALP16-08-26-00536 Simon Vessey

(Cheddington Residents' Association)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The village voted strongly against development of any sort on Croft Meadows and this has been reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan and 100 houses are being sited elsewhere as a result

VALP16-08-27-00540 Rosanne Ward New Settlement Study - The New Settlement Scoping Study by G L Hearn is a very limited desk top study, which confines its range

to AVDC area only, dealing only with road and rail connections in AVDC, failing to give any regards to the wider picture of near by developments in adjoining District Councils and their impact See next section comments

Trang 12

VALP16-08-31-00568 Graham Tyack

(Haddenham Village Society)

Settlement Hierarchy - Scrutiny of the Selection of Haddenham as a Strategic Settlement

References:

A Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Plan Strategy September 2012

B The Vale of Aylesbury Plan Haddenham Fact Pack July 2011

Introduction

1 Reference A was a key document in the development of the strategy for Aylesbury Vale planning The assessment was informed

by documents such as Reference B

Analysis

2 As a result of this hierarchy assessment, Haddenham was categorised as a strategic settlement along with Aylesbury, Buckingham, Wendover and Winslow The details of the assessments are shown in Annex A to Reference A Haddenham apparently scores well for transport and connectivity and both key and non-key services However, as shown in the critique below, the qualitative assessment is inconsistent and insufficiently refined Its conclusions are therefore questionable

3 It is arguable that the set of strategic settlements should be split into two groups of more comparable size, namely Aylesbury and Buckingham on the one hand and Haddenham, Wendover and Winslow on the other – perhaps called respectively strategic settlements and small towns/larger villages

4 This would then allow a more realistic and detailed comparison of the pros and cons for future development For example, Wendover has a significant amount of designated green belt in its vicinity, Winslow has a disused airfield potentially available for development and Haddenham is surrounded by high grade agricultural land and has lower capacity roads with a growing traffic problem because of the Chiltern Railway area Parkway service

Trang 13

VALP16-08-31-00568 Graham Tyack

(Haddenham Village Society)

Population – comparative descriptions are inconsistent with the comparative valuesNamePopulation RangeQualitative Description

Aylesbury56,392 to 65,428Very large populationBuckingham10,445 to 11,572Large populationHaddenham3,651 to 4,834Large populationWendover7,237 to 7,619Very large populationWinslow3,818 to 4,519Very large populationFacilities – the crude scoring system suppresses some of the comparative strengths and weaknesses For example, although Haddenham is shown being served by 3 bus routes, in reality the 200 route is a variation of the very frequent 280 route and the third one, the 112 route, runs once on Wednesdays and Fridays

NameRail?Bus RoutesB Class UnitsKey ServicesScore (out of 11)Non-Key Services

AylesburyY21979641149

BuckinghamN9248381012

HaddenhamY38519116

WendoverY27323118

WinslowY (P)34217105Omissions – aspects such as the capacity local roads, the impact of local railway Parkways, the effect of capacity limitations of rail transport, and the continuing need for high grade agricultural land were omitted from the assessment

VALP16-08-31-00570 John Abra Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - Re: GT5 Land opposite Causter Farm, Nash - I do not agree with the Evidence Document

(page 20) relating to this site known as Nash Park No reference is made to the Enquiry, on appeal, held on the 27th and 30th September 2011 The Planning Inspector concluded that the site caused considerable visual harm and was not a site that he would expect to be approved on a permanent basis The site is in open countryside with poor access to services and facilities The site lies within the Parish of Great Horwood which has its own Neighbourhood Plan The site lies outside the settlement boundary as defined in the plan There is no provision for travellers' sites or other forms of residential property in the plan for this part of Great Horwood The countryside adjacent to the site is designated by AVDC as an area of important character The site causes considerable environmental impact and is locationally unsuitable The Evidence Document refers to providing a settled base to those living on the site who have established connections to local schools, etc These connections have only been established because of the failure of AVDC to take the appropriate action, on what was initially an illegal site, at an earlier stage With regard to the Conclusions, page 66, I do not think that this particular chapter (4) is particularly well presented The site at Nash Park should,

in my opinion, not be included in the stated capacity of 55 pitches as a decision from the Planning Inspector is still outstanding, (and again no reference is made regarding this)

VALP16-08-31-00576 Mary and Allan

glendinning

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The agreed new housing is substanial for a village of our size and is likely

to have a negative impact on trafffic problems already being experienced in our village and our school It will also have an impact

on all roads in the area as an increased number of residents travel from the village to their work, for shopping and for doctors and hospitals apart from recreational reasons

Trang 14

VALP16-08-31-00581 Fiona Lippmann (Halton

Parish Council)

Green Belt Assessment - Contrary to NPPF C4

VALP16-09-01-00633 Frazer Hickling (Phillips

Planning Services (on behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs Church and Mr Davis of Corner Farm, Gib Lane Bierton))

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - This statement provides comments in relation to the draft ‘Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan’ on behalf of Sonia Davis, Fiona Church and Roger Davis the co-owners of Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton, Buckinghamshire As has been set out, it is considered that the proposed strategic expansion of Aylesbury to the south and east to form a Garden Town (which will also contain Bierton, Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville) to support the delivery of growth in the district is considered logical, however there is a clear shortfall of allocations in comparison to the identified residual housing

requirement (and the associated policy framework appears restrictive to the delivery of windfall sites within Bierton and Weston Turville) It is therefore considered that the council should seek to identify a greater number of allocations, and that Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton is ideally located and suitable to be identified for housing In regards to this, it will be noted, that the site sits

comfortably within the proposed urban expansion area, is surrounded on three sides by the existing built form of Bierton, whilst to the south will be a sports field on the north eastern corner of Orchard Green, one of the three new neighbourhoods consented as part of the Kingsbrook development The presence of the sports field also means that the existing village and new neighbourhood will be kept separate It will also be noted, that the site is identified as ‘suitable for housing’ in the Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment published in May 2016, (Reference number BIE027-Capacity 84 dwellings) This is further evidence supporting the case for the allocation of the site We trust that these comments will be taken into account through the further preparation of the plan (Site Location Plan (Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton) Appended)

VALP16-09-01-00634 Frazer Hickling (Phillips

Planning Services (on behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs Church and Mr Davis of Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton))

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - This representation has been prepared to provide comments on the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and to promote the inclusion of ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’ as an allocation for

development It is considered that the proposed expansion of Aylesbury to form a ‘Garden Town’ is a logical approach to delivery a substantial proportion of the district’s required growth, particularly given the committed development of ‘Kingsbrook’ providing 2,450 new homes to the east of the town It is however noted that there is a shortfall between the identified residual housing requirement and the sites identified for potential allocation, whilst the policy framework appears to promote a restriction on the delivery of windfall sites within Bierton and Weston Turville It is therefore considered that the council should be seeking to identify more sites for allocation, which concord with development strategy Given the context of ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’, in relation to the Kingsbrook development commitment, it is considered that this site clearly represents an ideal location for allocation In particular it

is identified that the site would sit within the expansion area, and provide dwellings with access to serives and facilities in both Bierton and the new neighbourhood of Orchard Green We trust that these comments will be of use in the further development of the emerging local plan ( Site Location Plan (Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton) Appended)

Trang 15

VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Comments on: “DRAFT Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.VALP

The need for new housing is unarguable and most people would accept a fair and proportionate increase in their local housing population, provided it does not destroy the character, environment and general well-being of their community

The parish of Newton Longville has a population of around 1900, approximately 1% of the total population of Aylesbury Vale, but is required to accommodate nearly 10% of the entire additional housing (excluding unmet need from other districts) required under the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Approximately one new house for each existing resident

This of course includes the 1885 houses treated in your document as a “separate” settlement, although it lies less than a quarter of a mile from Newton Longville’s village boundary and within its Parish boundary To view NLV001 in isolation without consideration for the monumental impact it would have on the village and residents of Newton Longville is incomprehensible

Section 3 (S3) of the Draft VALP states: “In considering applications for building in the countryside the council will have regard to maintaining the individual identity of villages and avoiding extensions to built-up areas that might lead to coalescence between settlements”

NVL001 contravenes this requirement in that it extends the built up area of West Bletchley and approaches Newton Longville’s border so closely that “coalescence” would be a real possibility in the future Furthermore, the creation of a large development, more than twice its size and adjacent to Newton Longville cannot fail to adversely affect the “individual identity” of the village

Many of the other sites under consideration for house building around this area were rejected under the Draft Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) for, among other reasons, that they were “exposed to views from surrounding settlements” The southern half of the NVL001 site, below Weasel Lane, is fully visible when leaving Newton Longville on Whadden Road and is exposed to views from dozens of properties in the north western part of Newton Longville

Under the VALP all proposed sites for housing are required to be “sustainable”

Whether NVL001 is sustainable is questionable for the following reasons:

Trang 16

VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock • The site is currently agricultural land with minimal requirement for essential services, drainage, water gas and electricity All of

which will have to be significantly upgraded

• The main burden of providing social, health and education services would fall not to AVDC, but to MK Council The premise of placing large developments on the boundary of neighbouring urban councils and remote from AVDC’s own stated “Strategic Settlements” is somewhat dubious

• Transport infrastructure to the east of NVL001 is good, however to the west the A421 leaves much to be desired The only road south from NVL001 is Whadden Road, a narrow minor road, currently over-used by HGV’s, LGV’s and private cars using it as a rat-run between the A421 and recently opened A4146 by-pass Newton Longville is an increasingly hazardous place for pedestrians, many of whom are elderly Indeed it has no form of pedestrian crossing or traffic calming anywhere within the village and yet vehicle throughput consistently runs in excess of 50,000 vehicles a month and speeding into and out of the village is an ongoing problem Any improvement to Whadden Road, outside the village, would be pointless as the main bottleneck is within Newton Longville itself Some form of by-pass or relief road is the only practical solution, other than to restrict through-traffic

Whilst perhaps not directly a planning consideration the loss of 144 hectares of arable farmland to housing is an ecological own goal Hardly a sensible deal for anyone other than the developer

The inclusion of NVL001 in the Draft VALP, which is already the subject of a planning application by South West Milton Keynes Consortium raises the prospect of a rubber-stamp approval of this very inappropriate development

Given that NVL001 is one of the largest developments outside of the Aylesbury area it seems ill-considered that Newton Longville village is also expected to accommodate the highest level of housing development of all the so-called “Medium” size villages (154) Surely placing two of the largest developments in the Draft VALP (NVL001 & WHA001) on the boundary of MK Council provides housing provision more appropriate to Milton Keynes itself rather than Aylesbury Vale Milton Keynes has plenty of development land within its own boundaries without neighbouring districts providing additional housing on its own doorstep

VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock In conclusion I believe the inclusion of NVL001 in the Draft VALP is inappropriate for the following reasons:

1.Extension of urban area of West Bletchley, contrary to S3

2.Danger of coalescence with Newton Longville village, contrary to S3

3.Serious adverse affect on the “individual identity” of Newton Longville, contrary to S3

4.NVL001 south of Weasel Lane is exposed to views by many properties within Newton Longville

5.Provision of social, health and education services largely provided by neighbouring district council

6.Location is more appropriate for Milton Keynes housing than Aylesbury Vale

7.One of the largest developments located remotely from AVDCs stated Strategic Settlements

8.Seriously deficient infrastructure, particularly transport links to the south of the development

9.Existing hazardous traffic environment within Newton Longville, increased significantly as a result of greater traffic volume and poor road infrastructure

Trang 17

VALP16-09-02-00647 Linda Currie

(Oxfordshire County Council)

Aylesbury Transport Strategy - 16 Regarding the Aylesbury Transport Strategy, the AVLP website states that “A transport strategy for Aylesbury Town is required in order to support and accommodate future Local Plan growth, with the current transport network already under pressure A strategic plan for transport has been lacking and is now vital for ensuring that opportunities associated with the growth of the town and district are realised, including necessary infrastructure enhancements The Strategy is being jointly developed by Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council using AECOM as consultants.” OCC requests involvement in these discussions given the impacts of growth on Oxfordshire strategic roads and the need for close working in this respect

17 In addition, the Stage 1 Technical Note produced as supporting evidence ‘Aylesbury Transport Strategy Note’, 29 March 2016 states that ‘The focus area of the strategy will be Aylesbury Town but it will be framed in the context of the wider Aylesbury Vale area

in developing the strategy.’ Again, OCC requests that this ‘frame’ is extended to include implications of housing/ employment growth and infrastructure proposals in the wider geographical area

Trang 18

New Settlement Study - Chapter 6 - Strategic Development at Haddenham

Para 6.3 mentions Thame Business Park and wider employment opportunities and services in Thame This reinforces the need to ensure that sustainable travel options between Haddenham and Thame are provided to reduce the amount of car travel between the two settlements

We agree with the assessment that the potential area for large scale development to the south east of Haddenham (site 6 on the Potential Options map) is less well connected to existing transport links (in comparison to other sites around Haddenham) and therefore is less accessible; connections to services, facilities and employment in Thame are not as good; and sustainable travel options would be more challenging to achieve

Para 6.20 states that an initial assessment of junction capacity and improvements necessary to support development has been undertaken, and considers the potential to accommodate 6000 homes The results of this are outlined in Table 10 and paragraphs 6.25 and show that the most problematic junction is the A418 / A4129 junction on the Thame bypass The modelling shows that significant queues form in all 2033 scenarios, even without the development Para 6.26 and Appendix F outline potential improvements to the junction involving widening on each arm of the junction and modifications to the central island

However, the New Settlement Scoping Study was published in June 2016 and therefore we assume it does not take into account proposed growth within SODC’s draft Local Plan 2032 Preferred Options document, including 600 additional homes to be allocated

to Thame, plus a potential strategic site at Chalgrove Airfield (or possibly at Junction 7 of the M40 / Harrington) It is anticipated that with this additional development, the transport impacts of housing growth in the area will be even more significant and more

extensive improvements will be needed at the A418 / A4129 junction

Therefore we recommend that further assessment is carried out and includes potential growth proposed in South Oxfordshire so that the impact on roads and junctions around Haddenham and Thame can be fully understood and can be used to help inform the decision regarding the location of a new settlement Furthermore, the impact of housing growth on other junctions in Thame should also be examined, not just the A418 / A4129 junction as the impacts of a new settlement are likely to affect a wider area

Table 13 outlines preliminary costs of junction improvements at £9.1 million These are likely to be higher, particularly the A418 / A1429 works, as the need for more extensive improvements may be identified once additional transport modelling is conducted which takes full account of all the proposed development in the area

Furthermore, the proposed improvements to the A148 / A4129 roundabout result in the junction performing in line with the Do Minimum modelling scenario i.e without development, and therefore would not be fit for purpose Para 6.26 acknowledges that further investigation will be needed to take account of the impacts of development here and at other locations, including Aylesbury,

on the capacity of the A418 junctions

Settlement Scoping Study Appendix E – Haddenham Options Assessment

OCC considers Option 2 least favourable from a transport point of view due to the fact that site 6 is further from Haddenham & Thame Station, existing highways infrastructure and public transport routes and therefore is not as accessible as the other options

Trang 19

Sites proposed in options 1 and 3 are more accessible and therefore have higher potential for sustainable travel options

Option 3 with the western expansion (site 7) may also aid the delivery of a Thame to Haddenham cycle path (linking Thame to Haddenham & Thame station) as one of the proposed routes of the cycle path might pass through site 7 NB: a number of different routes were proposed, but a preferred route was not agreed by OCC and Bucks CC and the scheme was not taken forward due to a lack of funding

Appendix F - Haddenham initial junction modelling These junction improvements have been proposed without taking proposed additional housing at Thame or potential strategic development sites at Chalgrove Airfield (or Junction 7 of the M40 / Harrington) into account Once the impacts of these have been fully modelled, in particular the impacts on the A418, they may find that different / more extensive highways infrastructure

improvements are needed

Education Infrastructure needed to support growth

OCC would like to see more detail about planned new or improved education facilities required to support proposed growth, including its phasing, funding and delivery mechanisms- Policy I3 covers Education infrastructure in very general terms

If the new settlement is located close to Haddenham, in addition to the other Haddenham development, it will be particularly important to know whether the new education infrastructure to go with this development will include a new secondary school, as would be expected for this scale of development Pupil census data from Sept 2015 shows there are a significant number of children currently travelling to Lord Williams’s School (LWS) in Thame from Haddenham (as well as from Aylesbury and Princes Risborough) Any new secondary school, particularly if comprehensive, might be expected to divert children from LWS, and need to be taken into account in both authorities’ school planning

Buckinghamshire villages such as Long Crendon and Brill are actually in the LWS catchment, and development there would be expected to increase demand for places at LWS, all other things being equal catchment map at

https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/childreneducationandfamilies/educationandlearning/schools/catchmentmaps/4580_all.pdf) However, if there were to be a new secondary school to serve Haddenham, then it may be likely to also draw from Long Crendon and Brill

VALP16-09-02-00652 Anthony Dlugosz New Settlement Study - Appendix E of the Settlement Study gives three potential options for expansion, two of which (options 1

and 3) appear to contradict the objections in HELAA to the western expansion of Haddenham (objections to sites HAD014 and HAD022 to HAD024) The objections in HELAA relate essentially to the fact that the sites are on the other side of the railway line to Haddenham and have poor highway access, whereas options 1 and 3 in the Settlement Study state that the western expansion (site

5 of option 1 and site 7 of option 3 "benefit from close proximity to existing transport infrastructure, including the A418 and rail station" These options appear to provide the most workable solution to the issue The garden village of option 2, in contrast, has none of the advantages: it is relatively remote from the railway line and has poor road connections to the A418 The existing road to the A418 through Ford, in particular, would be totally unsuitable to any increase in traffic volume in view of subsidence on the sides

of the road south of Ford caused by current relatively low traffic volume, the weight restriction on the road through Dinton and the width restriction in the road by the church in Dinton which scarcely allows two-way traffic flow

Trang 20

VALP16-09-02-00653 Quainton Parish Council Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The gypsy, traveller and travelling show people sites should have good access to major

roads and/or public transport Location is important to ensure these sites are successful in allowing integration rather than hostility.VALP16-09-02-00654 Tom Hutchinson (Land

and Partners Ltd)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - We will be submitting separate emailed comments for our promoted sites.VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons

Developments Ltd)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The HELAA concludes that a potential capacity for 25,882 dwellings on

239 sites can be delivered during the plan period to 2033 In addition to this, there is also planning permission for 22 dwellings on sites outside of HELAA settlements, permission for 353 dwellings (already reduced by 10% for non-delivery) on sites below 5 and evidence that 876 dwellings could be delivered on windfall sites Including this on top of the HELAA capacity, a total potential capacity of 27,133 dwellings is identified The HELAA further states that of the total potential capacity, approximately 10,315 dwellings could be delivered within the next five years and 16,818 dwellings from specific sites that are considered developable in the longer term have been identified for years 6-15 years Aylesbury Vale District Council published their Five Year Housing Land Supply Interim Position Statement in August 2016 The Statement identifies the Council’s housing completions for the past five years

to be 1,103 dwellings for 2011/12, 934 dwellings for 2012/13, 990 dwellings for 2013/14, 1,419 dwellings for 2014/15 and 1,191 dwellings for 2015/16 This equates to a total figure of 5,637 dwellings that were delivered over the past five years Furthermore, the Statement identifies the Council's deliverable supply from 2016–2021 to be 6,177 dwellings and deliverable supply from 2017–2022

to be 5,531 dwellings Based on the above information in terms of the Council's past year delivery rate and expected future year delivery rate, it is unrealistic to suggest that 10,563 dwellings could be delivered over the forthcoming five-year period as identified in the HELAA and this is very unlikely to happen without a step change in the identification and delivery of housing The HEDNA identifies the full objectively assessed need for housing (2013–2033) for Aylesbury Vale to be 21,289 dwellings The Draft Plan estimates a figure of 12,000 to meet unmet needs from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks Policy S2 identifies provision for 33,300 dwellings over the plan period to 2033 This figure does not account for additional need that may arise from Milton Keynes and therefore, in excess of 33,300 dwellings should be considered

five-Paragraph: 026, Reference ID: 3-026-20140306 of the Government's Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it may be concluded that insufficient sites/broad locations are identified against objectively assessed needs Plan makers will therefore need to revisit the assessment, for example changing the assumptions on the development potential on particular sites (including physical and policy constraints) including sites for possible new settlements If following this review there are still insufficient sites, then it will

be necessary to investigate how this shortfall should best be planned for If there is clear evidence that the needs cannot be met locally, it will be necessary to consider how needs might be met in adjoining areas in accordance with the duty to cooperate

Trang 21

VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons

Developments Ltd)

It is clear from above that the housing requirement for Aylesbury Vale District (including unmet need) far exceeds the total potential capacity identified in the HELAA It can therefore be deduced that insufficient capacity has been identified in the HELAA to meet the full objectively assessed housing need However, there is no clear evidence provided by the Council to suggest the housing need for Aylesbury Vale can be met and there are limited constraints/designations under footnote 9 of the NPPF Furthermore, the Council ave not considered how unmet need might be met from adjoining local authorities such as Milton Keynes, therefore resulting in a failure in the duty to cooperate It is therefore clear that additional land will need to be identified as suitable for development over and above that in the HELAA in order to meet the housing requirement for the District Larger medium and smaller villages will need to contribute towards meeting this housing requirement through allocations This is especially important as sites in villages (larger, medium and smaller) rather than just large, strategic sites will be required for housing development in the short term to meet the District's insufficient 5 year housing land supply Settlements such as Bierton are well-placed to identify suitable and deliverable sites for housing growth over the plan period

The HELAA identifies my client’s site (reference: BIE011) on Land between Barnett House and Barnett Way, Bierton For accuracy,

my client’s land interest only includes a site area of 4.07ha as shown in the site location plan (reference: A46702) This does not include the north eastern part of the HELAA site BIE011 For reference, I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 June 2016 clarifying this position The remainder of the site has not been put forward for consideration/assessment

The assessment of the site contained in the HELAA considers the site to be unsuitable for development Reasons for this includes: a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area; loss of landscape views of and from the northern part of the site; development would break the linear form of the village and would be likely to have a poor relationship to the character of the village as a result The assessment concludes that housing and/or economic development of the site is not achievable or suitable

The SHLAA identifies Bierton as a medium village This is contrary to the Issues and Options Consultation published in October

2015 which identified Bierton as a larger village We object to the re-categorisation of Bierton from a larger village to a medium village Notwithstanding, it is considered that, for Bierton to be identified as either a larger or medium village, housing growth is required over the plan period at the village of Bierton (and not Aylesbury) The above site represents a deliverable and suitable (for reasons explained below) site to support the necessary housing growth for Bierton and Aylesbury Vale District Indeed, part of the site is subject to a submitted outline planning application for residential development

Trang 22

Developments Ltd)

The site is currently subject to a submitted outline planning application (reference: 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up

to 70 dwellings and associated development Supporting evidence has been undertaken to inform the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan including Landscape Evidence in the form of a Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Advice to Aylesbury Vale DC (March 2015) and Areas of Attractive Landscape and Local Landscape Areas Advice to Aylesbury Vale DC – Final Draft Report (October 2015) The March 2015 report considers whether any update is required to specific parts of the 2008 Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Area Assessment (produced by Jacobs) as a result of change since the on site assessment fieldwork on 2007-

08 The Jacobs report identifies the site to form part of Bierton Ridge (9.11) in the context of Landscape Character Types and Areas The report identifies the character of landscape associated with the site and its immediate setting is considered to be of medium value Likewise, the landscape character of Bierton Ridge is also considered to be of medium value, taking into consideration the presence of individual elements that may be highly valued in their own right It is with consideration that the landscape of the site and its local setting cannot be described as particularly rare in overall terms, and its features are both common and widespread in the locality

The October 2015 report seeks to define and recommend the special qualities of local landscape designation in Aylesbury Vale District, including Areas of Attractive Landscapes (AALs) and Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) The report does not recommend the site or surrounding area of Bierton Ridge be considered as an AAL or LLA Part of the site is currently subject to a submitted outline planning application (reference: 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up to 70 dwellings and associated development The planning application is accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence The proposed Concept Masterplan has been informed by landscape and heritage constraints Supporting documents include a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and Heritage Statement, which have both identified the suitability of the site for the proposed

development in landscape and visual terms and in the context of the CA and surrounding heritage assets respectively

Trang 23

Developments Ltd)

The LVA submitted in support of the outline planning application states that, whilst the development of the site will result in material loss of pasture land adjoining the settlement, this loss is restricted to a site level and not considered to be of significance to the decision making process The consideration of local landscape features and landscape character has assisted in limiting any adverse effects to both individual features and the overall character of the immediate landscape setting and wider setting of the Bierton Ridge The assessment found the visual appraisal identified short-term effects of some significance that are limited to the receptors at the immediate boundaries of the site and the sections of public rights of way crossing the site These effects are not considered to be uncommon or unexpected and are on the whole generated by virtue of the proximity of the receptor to the proposed change The loss or change of these views will not affect visibility to or from particularly valued features within the local landscape setting There is no sufficient supporting evidence to suggest the site is of significant valued landscape and is not recommended to

be designated as either an AAL or LLA In terms of landscape designation, the site is not covered by any specific landscape designation that would suggest an increased value As such, the assessment of the site provided in the HELAA is misleading and the identified loss of landscape views of and from the northern part of the site cannot be reasonably justified to find the site unsuitable for development in the context of supporting evidence The site lies at the northern edge of Bierton to the rear of houses along Aylesbury Road and directly north of modern residential development The site lies adjacent but not within the Conservation Area (CA) The significance of the CA partly reflects the development of settlement along the main artery of Aylesbury Road This has already been somewhat altered by residential developments along roads leading off the main road to the north and south The suggestion therefore that development would break the linear form of the village is incorrect and again misleading

Development of the site would represent another example of the outward growth of the settlement However, as the development is set back from the main road and not within any important lines of sight or viewpoints, the potential impact on the CA would be slight The suggestion therefore that development would have a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area sufficient enough to find the site unsuitable for development has not reasonably been justified and potential mitigation measures have not been

accounted for It is also relevant to note that Bierton Clay Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located in close proximity to the site A letter dated 9 November 2015 from Natural England in response to the above planning application confirmed development

of the site, carried out in strict accordance with details of the application, would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the SSSI has been notified I enclose a copy of this letter

Developments Ltd)

At present, the Council are unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the housing policies of the adopted Local Plan are not up to date For the purposes of determining the planning application, paragraph 14 of the NPPF is applicable, whereby planning permission for proposals which are demonstrably sustainable should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted The technical reports which accompany the planning application confirm that there are no adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole The benefits resulting from the development including provision of market and affordable housing are considered to be sufficient to justify the granting of the proposals in the planning balance

In view of the above, the site represents a suitable and deliverable site for housing development that should be strongly considered for allocation in the VALP Draft Plan

Trang 24

Developments Ltd)

Settlement Hierarchy - It is considered that there is no evidence to suggest why Bierton has been downgraded from a larger village

to a medium village without any clear justification and an objection is raised

Developments Ltd)

Sustainability Appraisal - Davidsons Developments Limited has interest in respect of Land between Barnett House and Barnett

Way, Bierton This site is presently the subject of a submitted outline planning application (reference 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up to 70 dwellings and associated development On behalf of my client, we have made a number of comments in respect of how this site has been assessed within the HELAA (Site BIE011) which currently asserts that this site is unsuitable for development on landscape grounds, concluding that housing and/or economic development of this site is not achievable or suitable Our objections to the HELAA should be read in conjunction with our comments on the SA

The role of the SA in plan making is considered vital and the appraisal of emerging and preferred options of the plan is a central pillar of the SA process The SA process is intended to add a different perspective on why certain approaches to addressing planning issues may be preferred over and above others It should not, in our view, be constrained by artificially imposed policy constraints or predetermination of options The Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives, in our view, does not meet this overall aim and objective of the SA process

The NPPG, at paragraph 11-018-20140306 states, “Reasonable alternatives should be identified and considered at an early stage in the plan making process” Paragraph 11-018-20140306 goes on to provide clarity on what is meant by ‘reasonable’, it states: “The sustainability appraisal needs to compare all reasonable alternatives including the preferred approach and assess these against the baseline environmental, economic and social characteristics of the area and the likely situation if the Local Plan were not to be adopted […] The development and appraisal of proposals in Local Plan documents should be an iterative process, with the proposals being revised to take account of the appraisal findings This should inform the selection, refinement and publication of proposals (when preparing a Local Plan, paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework should be considered).”

(emphasis added)

We note that it may not be practicable to assess every small-scale site against every other site across the district However, as a site that extends to 6.5ha, part of which is my client’s land interest at 4.07ha, close to Aylesbury and presently subject to a live

application for 70 dwellings, we are surprised that this site has not been subject to an assessment to see how it performs against the

SA criteria As stated previously, in the Issues and Options consultation in October-December 2015 and the HELAA submission, we have expressly requested (copy of letter dated 7 June 2016) that clearly sets out that is should be the 4.07ha site hat should be assessed and considered My client is concerned that, in light of our objections to the HELAA, the approach being taken is unnecessarily precluding reasonable sites and options for delivering development from assessment It is not ‘iterative’, in that it is only considering favourable sites This approach is not compliant with the SA regulations, nor is it in the spirit of the online Planning Guidance

Trang 25

Developments Ltd)

Moreover, m yclient is surprised that, at no point has the SA process sought to assess a strategic option for growth that allows for modest development within the village of Bierton In line with its considered status as a larger village, and proposed status as a medium village (which is objected to above), Bierton is a sustainable location which should be considered suitable for growth As discussed above, Bierton should expressly be dealt with as a separate settlement as the village must meet its own growth needs in order to sustain existing amenities and services and ensure the village contributes towards Aylesbury Vale’s overall housing figure through the delivery of market and affordable housing The identification of a range of medium sites, such as BIE011 (the 4.07ha site) to meet this need, has different sustainability implications to the option within the draft plan, particularly in respect of social sustainability

Finally, my client observes that the HELAA does not identify sufficient land to meet the identified housing need There is, therefore

an urgent requirement for additional sites to be considered and released The premature rejection of sites and preclusion from assessment leads us to conclude that the process cannot be considered ‘sound’ and will need to be revisited in due course We would respectively request AVDC to re-assess site BIE011 (the 4.07ha site) taking consideration of the evidence which has been submitted in respect of the current outline planning application which clearly identifies as a site able to deliver up to 70 dwellings Please note that the housing growth identified in the Draft Plan is not the final figure and further evidence is required In view of the above, the site represents an achievable, suitable and deliverable site to support the necessary housing growth for Aylesbury Vale District

Trang 26

VALP16-09-02-00670 Ken Barnes Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The published draft of the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan for Stoke Mandeville

has at least two major omissions that render the plan unfit for public consultation because members of the public cannot make a valid and objective assessment when the information they are given is incomplete and misleading Local residents commenting on the plan in its present form will not be aware that what they see is not what they are going to get

The first of these major omissions is any reference to HS2 and the associated infrastructure work which is expected to begin as early

as next year It is as if HS2 has done the vanishing act! But this is, of course, far from the truth and when construction gets underway it will have a huge impact on this community In preparing a Local Government plan for future development it is absurd to act as if a Central Government plan for development over the same area does not exist That HS2 does not fall within the remit of local planners and that it has yet to receive Royal Assent is not justification for air-brushing out of existence this crucial area of forward planning – nor is it right or fair to Stoke Mandeville to do so It is not right because the HS2 development and the Local Plan development are unavoidably interconnected and to pretend otherwise will result in confusion and poor planning decisions It is not fair because those living on the route of HS2 will be subjected to significant disruption and stress and do not deserve to be further assaulted by yet more development that takes no account of the burden that HS2 will inflict on the community The communities bearing the brunt of HS2 will pay a heavy price which they are told is a sacrifice that must be made in the national interest It is not then unreasonable to expect them to be given some relief from the ravages of additional major development, at least until HS2 has been completed and the dust has settled At that time the picture will be much clearer and wise decisions based on known outcomes can be made for future development that is both integrated with HS2 and sympathetic to local communities For local planners to ignore this major parallel development amounts to a form of corporate madness that would not be tolerated in any other business or industry and it cannot be justified

The second serious fault with the draft plan is that it does not give a complete and accurate picture of the full extent of proposed building development It shows only that some of the green fields that separate the village of Stoke Mandeville from Aylesbury have been identified as suitable for building and that these fields are at the hospital end of the site What the Local Plan does not reveal is that planning permission for a substantial development of 117 houses is also being granted at the village end of this site on farm land east of Lower Road, which is not shown on the plan as being designated as suitable for housing Before being asked to respond

to the consultation local people are entitled to know that what is in fact being proposed is that this rural village, which has existed for nearly a thousand years, shall be consumed by urban sprawl and turned into a suburb of Aylesbury

VALP16-09-02-00670 Ken Barnes Many Stoke Mandeville residents will be given false assurance by what they see in the draft Local Plan and feel no need to comment

and those that do respond to the consultation will do so on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate information As a result the consultation process for the draft Local Plan, in so far as Stoke Mandeville is concerned, cannot give a valid indication of public opinion and should be disregarded and re-run with the full facts made clear

Trang 27

VALP16-09-02-00675 Mr and Mrs Hudson Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - With reference to ICK003 - We believe the comments made by HELAA are

correct They state - Unsuitable - "The site is in an exposed location at the entrance to the village without any corresponding development opposite in Sheldon Road Developing the site would not relate well to the character and townscape established in the village" This is backed up by the Jacobs Landscape Character & Sensitivity Report 2008 - Site classed as highly sensitive Its important to note that ICK003 is situated before the entrance of the village which is known as Little Ickford Little Ickford sits in its own identity with village pond and thatched cottages Should ICK003 be developed Little Ickford would lose its historical identity by

no longer being at the end of the village The site ICK003 is also of archaeological interest with specific evidence recorded It has

an abundance of nature with regular visitors such as barn owls roebucks foxes, great crested newts and bats (evidence of the nature is available) The footpath follows the width of the field through the middle of site ICK003 which is an open and extremely scenic space The site is enjoyed and well used by walkers, ramblers and visitors to the village The site is subject to significant flooding in the winter and the furrows can be completely full These furrows hold back the flooding so other surrounding areas don't suffer It would be a travesty to allow planning on ICK003 as it would have a detrimental effect on the countryside and overall character of the village Therefore we fully support the views of HELAA whereby they state ICK003 is Unsuitable

VALP16-09-04-00744 Cllr David Finch Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The land at Croft Meadow affords an extremely important contribution to

the character of the village The views it affords across to the Chiltern Hills are Areas of Natural Beauty; plus the historic example of ridge and furrow cultivation contained therein The land is of significant value to the local community as an important open space and should be designated a Local Green Space In any event it should be removed as a site for housing from the Cheddington Potential Housing Allocations map (Croft Meadow is site CHE001)

VALP16-09-04-00745 Marianne Faux Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The land at Croft Meadow affords an extremely important contribution to

the character of the village The views it affords across to the Chiltern Hills are Areas of Natural Beauty, plus the historic example of ridge and furrow (See Additional Notes)

VALP16-09-04-00753 Alan Branch Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Don't know if this is right place to re-inforce my previous comments but the

Newton Longville site map would seem to indicate a potential for protecting the village by closing off Whaddon Road at the old railway bridge!

VALP16-09-04-00755 Joyce Docherty Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Croft Meadows Site (CHE001) should not be a Potential Housing

Allocation - it should be kept open because of: its significant contribution to the character of the village; the views which it affords to the Chiltern Hills AONB; and the example of historic ridge and furrow cultivation which it contains The land is of significant value to the local community as an important open area and should be designated a Local Green Space and in any event removed as a site for housing from the Cheddington Potential Housing Allocations map

VALP16-09-04-00756 Andrew Docherty Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Croft Meadows Site (CHE001) should not be a Potential Housing

Allocation - it should be kept open because of: its significant contribution to the character of the village; the views which it affords to the Chiltern Hills AONB; and the example of historic ridge and furrow cultivation which it contains The land is of significant value to the local community as an important open area and should be designated a Local Green Space and in any event removed as a site for housing from the Cheddington Potential Housing Allocations map

Trang 28

VALP16-09-04-00757 Steve Heath Transport Modelling - Why is it that transport modelling reports are always written to hide and make obscure data The Plots are

provided in blocks for the whole county and therefore the relevant charts for a particular area are scattered throughout the different files and over many hundred pages

For Newton Longville, the volume demands exceed the current road capacity without taking into account some of the proposed developments impact As a result village life is effectively being sacrificed to developments that do not have suitable transport infrastructure improvements to reduce the impact For a plan that is supposed to be preserving rural life, this is a major discrepancy There also appears to be no checking on the estimates from previous plans to see how accurate(or not) they have been Instead the models are taken as gospel yet like all models, are only as good as the information put into them and the accuracy of the way the reality is measured

Judging by the recommendations and guidance that is provided by the model suppliers e.g TRL and the comments that they are being used incorrectly and blindly, I have little faith that the model data bears any relationship of reality

The Newton Leys development that used Plan data predictions for 2015 traffic in Newton Longville are a gross underestimation of what is experienced today None of it predicted the rise in traffic using the village as a Bletchley bypass or the increase in HGV traffic What confidence is there that this information is any better

VALP16-09-04-00787 John Bromley Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Various proposals to overturn the provisions set out in the Winslow

Neighbourhood Plan agreed and ratified in accordance with Local planning policies set out be then UK Government with regard to provision of housing on land designated for commercial / industrial / non-housing purposes Winslow has presently little employment opportunities and those proposed in the approved Winslow planning document seek to provide local employment within the Winslow area The VALP does not respect these agreed objectives as employment is centred away from Winslow and therefore is in danger

of turning Winslow from a balanced and thriving community into a soulless commuter housing estate Thus repeating the mistakes

of other communities up and down the UK in accordance with the then current planning policies

VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Green Belt Assessment - page 9, RSA-2, southern part of parcel 7a - land north of Wendover: I object to this being taken out of its

current Green Belt status - the main field bordering the John Colet School, the canal and Tring Road, as well as the land on the opposite side of the canal (bordering Water Meadow Way) Building 800 houses on this site would be detrimental to Wendover and

to the views from Bacombe Hill

There is already severe pressure on local schools and the town centre parking is already inadequate and another 800 houses would make these much worse Tring Road, between Manor Road and the High Street, the High Street and the mini-roundabout by the clock tower is frequently congested / clogged up at peak times and would be even worse with the proposed development

Why take this land out of Green Belt, yet look to extend the Green Belt to cover plot 105 (page 26)?

Trang 29

VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Housing & Economic Land Availability Document shows / states that

most sites in and around Wendover are unsuitable for development, including RSA-2, Parcel 7a, so even if taking this plot out of Green Belt status, that shouldn't then make it suitable for development

VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Sustainability Appraisal - The Sustainability Document clause 3.46.8 refers to the frequent bus service that would serve this

development if it goes ahead - but current timetables show it's only frequent during the working week / hours and is very limited outside these hours and also at weekends

VALP16-09-05-00812 Simon Russell

(Amethyst Planning)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - As above the evidence base should reflect that the commitments for retail development at the Tesco site on London Road, Buckingham (having been implemented) effectively precludes B class development from being realised on the site

The housing assessment aspect of the associated appraisals should be revisited prior to the allocation of greenfield sites in settlements lower in the hierarchy than Buckingham

VALP16-09-05-00856 S Raven Settlement Hierarchy - We agree with Nash’s designation as a Smaller Village in the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment However,

we request that the connectivity assessment is updated to reflect that Winslow, approximately 4 miles away, is more local to Nash as

a main Service Centre and strategic settlement with benefit of the proposed East-West rail link than Milton Keynes, which is more than 7 miles away

VALP16-09-05-00865 Jo Tiddy Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Despite the fact that sites in Ickford have at present been deemed

unsuitable for future housing development, due to the tenacity of housebuilding firms and planning consultants, I would like to state the following in terms of particularly Site ICK004 and ICK005:

The open land to the rear of Worminghall Road is essential for the overall character of this part of the village Worminghall Road is defined as having a linear pattern that has developed piecemeal over time Modern infill has been permitted on sites between older historic buildings, but this has not impinged on longer range views across the countryside, or detracted from the historic character.This part of the village is a conservation area, centred on the Rising Sun PH, and incorporating pockets of listed historic buildings both to the west and east of the road The overall character of the area is of a rural leafy lane which leads to the more built up village core These ribbon developments are a pattern of the settlement of Ickford, and can also be seen on Bridge Road

Increasing the built up envelope of the village to the east of Worminghall Road will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents and the historic environment Access to any new development would impact on the existing road layout to a great extent due to the requirement for sight lines etc The village roads are busy enough, with inadequate footpaths in places, and would not cope with the additional traffic generated

The school in Ickford is at full capacity

The drainage system in the village has no additional capacity

Trang 30

VALP16-09-05-00888 Josephine Bromley Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Various proposals to overturn the provisions set out in the Winslow

Neighbourhood Plan agreed and ratified in accordance with Local planning policies set out be then UK Government with regard to provision of housing on land designated for commercial / industrial / non-housing purposes Winslow has presently little employment opportunities and those proposed in the approved Winslow planning document seek to provide local employment within the Winslow area The VALP does not respect these agreed objectives as employment is centred away from Winslow and therefore is in danger

of turning Winslow from a balanced and thriving community into a soulless commuter housing estate Thus repeating the mistakes of other communities up and down the UK in accordance with the then current planning policies

VALP16-09-05-00904 Christopher Wayman

(Buckingham Town Council)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The final HELAA draft contains (at pages 118 to 135) a total of 68 sites in Buckingham having been considered for future development Of these, 42 are considered unsuitable, leaving 26 sites allocated for either housing or economic development (12 for housing only, 9 for employment only, and 5 mixed)

Housing Numbers:

From the Table, it will be noted that:

1 Some sites allocated in the draft VALP have already been developed, or are under development Additional “new” housing will therefore be less than the total shown;

2 Nevertheless, the housing numbers proposed by the draft VALP far outweigh BNDP expectations Whereas the BNDP allocates land for 617 new dwellings (plus a reserve for 300 dwellings), the draft VALP anticipates 2,376 new homes – an increase of over 60% Even including the additional 400 student rooms that BNDP allows for in addition to new dwellings, and ignoring that they would thereby release dwellings for residential, rather than student, use, Buckingham is expected to absorb well over 50% more

“accommodation units” than anticipated in BNDP;

3 In particular, site BUC051 proposes a huge estate of nearly 300 additional houses extending unbroken from north of BNDP site H (Tingewick Road) to the Brackley Road, and east into a great swathe of Radclive In view of the traffic infrastructure implications for Buckingham town centre alone, this should be resisted

Employment Provision:

The HELAA raises few concerns about draft VALP employment provision; although it is perhaps worth noting that completed developments at the Royal Latin School and outstanding development of the London Road Tesco site are included in the Table.(Table Reproduced)

Unlike some more specific parts of the plan, some of these items are more commentaries rather than leading to specific policies:

• MK comments that the HEDNA doesn't refer to the impact of the MK HMA on the Vale

• Luton says that its needs have not been considered

• No other organisation seems to understand the calculation of the 10,000 unmet need

• No comment is made on the impact of the planned 10,000 houses at Bicester, almost on the boundary of the Vale

• There is little mention of Silverstone and the huge importance of the motorsport economy in this area (most of which goes to surrounding Districts perhaps due to the apathy of AVDC as illustrated here) It is also a huge leisure destination

Trang 31

VALP16-09-05-00909 Jean Watson Settlement Hierarchy - I write with reference to the development of Cuddington ,now termed a middle sized village I disagree that

the village should be moved from 'small village' designation.Although the village has certain facilities access to the nearby large village of Haddenham is not good for older folk who do not drive The infrequent bus service does not go to Haddenham and the narrow lane along which many lorries and the double decker bus thunder has no footpath Dadbrook ( the name of the lane) is used

as a "rat-run" to Bicester ! Also crossing the main road A418 to access Haddenham is exceedingly dangerous on foot

If a large number of houses was to be built leading on to Dadbrook or the Chearsley road access would be difficult and create further danger

I appreciate housing is a priority but I feel that there would be many accidents arising due to the high volume of traffic and the narrowness of the roads

VALP16-09-05-00910 Nick Shute (Nick Shute

Associates)

Green Belt Assessment - See comments under S4 Green Belt above

Trang 32

VALP16-09-05-00916 Alan & Kathleen

Jackson

Settlement Hierarchy - Page 2 District Key Diagram

We would like to lodge our objections to Whitchurch being classed as a large village within the VALP Whitchurch is not a large village having only:

1 Public House

A post office which is only open half a day for 5 days offering limited services and housed in the local Petrol Station

No shop but a small selection of groceries and small off licence can be bought from the local Petrol StationThis does not compare with other large villages, ie Aston Clinton which has:

2 Hotels

3 Public HousesPost office which is open 5.5 days a week all day for 5 days half a day for Saturday and offersMail:

- Drop & Go

- Parcelforce Express ServicesDriving:

- Vehicle TaxTravel:

- Foreign Currency - Euros only

- Travel Money Card Plus

- National Express - TicketsFinances:

- Current Account - Servicing

- Savings application forms

- Lotto prize payments

- Lotto ticket sales

Trang 33

VALP16-09-05-00916 Alan & Kathleen

Jackson

Aston Clinton Stores opening 7 days a week from 7pm until lateAston Clinton Coffee Shop

Bridal StoresAston Clinton VetsTransport TreasuresHome Furniture and Interiorsand numerous other opportunities for employment nearbyOther villages marked as large also encompass several public houses, shops and employment opportunities, namely Long Crendon, Waddesdon, Wing, etc

It is only fair, therefore, that Whitchurch be classed as a small/medium village as is North Marston, which has 1 public house, school, local shop run voluntarily and small amount of employment opportunities, which is comparable with Whitchurch

I would therefore request that further investigation is undertaken with regard to the classification of Whitchurch as a large village

Trang 34

VALP16-09-05-00927 James Yeoman (Savills

on behalf of Lands Improvement Holdings (LIH))

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The selected Spatial Option taken forward by the VALP must take into account the deliverability of sites for development and the lead-in time associated with strategic site delivery A balance needs to be achieved between shorter term site release at existing settlements where delivery is less constrained (for example the northern parcel of the Airfield site), versus the potential long term delivery of large scale strategic sites where infrastructure requirements may dictate delivery later in the plan period

The northern parcel of the Airfield site is a deliverable housing site that provides a unique opportunity to provide new homes and supporting facilities in a highly suitable location LIH are confident it can be delivered in the short-term and as such it provides an excellent opportunity to the Council to assist with meeting the serious existing housing shortfall

LIH and its consultant team have undertaken some initial high-level design work, alongside various technical assessment work The enclosed Concept Masterplan illustrates the potential of the site to deliver a residential-led mixed use development LIH would like to discuss the development options with the Council and local community but at present this broadly comprises of the following:

in the region of 700 new homes, of a variety of types and tenures, including affordable housing provision;

scope for an extension to the existing Haddenham Business Park;

scope for a new primary school and additional community facilities, linking to those already provided in the southern parcel consented scheme; and

scope to expand the extensive formal and informal recreation facilities, again linking to those already provided in the southern parcel consented scheme;

LIH is keen to work with the Council to ensure any development proposals on the Airfield site respect local landscape character and are sensitively designed to reinforce the distinctive local character of Haddenham

We trust the above comments clearly communicates LIH’s position at this stage LIH look forward to engaging with AVDC through the continued preparation of the VALP

LIH formally responded to the Draft HELAA (October 2015) at the VALP I&OCD consultation period Subsequent detailed representations were submitted to AVDC’s Planning Department, outside of the formal consultation period, in March 2016 The purpose of this submission was to assist the Council in respect of the HELAA Version 3 document preparation These

representations provided a Masterplan Concept Document and Landscape Representations concerning the Airfield Site

The HELAA Version 3 (May 2016) assesses the Airfield under Site Reference HAD005 – Land North of Pegasus Way, Haddenham Airfield As per the HELAA Version 2 (October 2015), the document reports a site area of 68 hectares Only the southern parcel of the site (26 hectares) is assessed by AVDC (October 2015) as being suitable for residential, retail and employment development The Council’s assessment reports:

Trang 35

a) Site is part suitable – 26 ha of the site is allocated in the neighbourhood plan for mixed use development including 300 dwelling and 4.85ha of employment land The site has planning permission for 233 dwellings, 6,456 sqm B1 uses, 4,366sqm B2 uses, 9,661sqm B8 uses, 418sqm D uses and 501sqm A1 uses;

b) the northern part of the site is unsuitable due to landscape impacts;

c) development should protect the openness and views into the village from the north and reflect ecological interests

The Council’s assessment of the northern part of the Airfield is unchanged between Version 2 and 3 of the HELAA, albeit a reduced capacity from 300 to 233 residential units is reported to reflect the consented scheme

Both the Neighbourhood Plan and 14/03289/AOP confirm the sustainable credentials of the site and the suitability of the southern parcel of the Airfield for development These conclusions are supported by the HELAA and in turn by LIH The same sustainable credentials (i.e employment provision, facility provision and transport service) are applicable to the northern parcel of the Airfield site, owing to its location immediately adjacent to consented scheme 14/03289/AOP, and the ability to provide further facilities as part of any development proposal

Owing to its own extensive landscape and visual assessment work associated with the Airfield site, LIH strongly objects to the Council’s conclusions at bullet (b) and (c) above for the following reasons:

1 There is limited landscape evidence (either relative to the emerging VALP or within the withdrawn documents) to substantiate these bullets;

2 There are no landscape designations which cover the Site;

3 Whilst the Brill-Winchendon Hills AAL lies to the north of the airfield (the southern boundary of which follows the A418), the emerging policy does not look to resist the principle of development, but for development to have ‘regard to distinctive features and key characteristics’ Furthermore, the emerging planning policy does not seek to protect the setting of the AAL;

4 The ‘ridgeline’ present within the Site is not perceived in elevated views from the north The ridge is perceived as following the A418 as a skyline element views from within the Thame valley to the north The skyline is formed of a varied combination of treebelts, hedgerows and woodland blocks This pattern can be continued through the introduction and careful design and management of new planting along the northern edge of the Site to continue this varied treatment;

5 The existing edges of Haddenham are visible in views from the southern edge and elevated views within the AAL to the north (as set out in the Landscape Representations, March 2016, enclosed, and demonstrated in the LVIA submitted with the consented scheme Ref.14/03289/AOP) This includes the large sheds associated with the Business Park, the existing residential edge to the south-east of Site and also the recently completed residential areas of Chilworth Gate;

6 The consented scheme, in the short term, will come forward in the long distance views from the north, but will not extend the visual envelope associated with the current or future northern edges of Haddenham The consented scheme includes a 10m wide landscape buffer along the northern boundary;

Trang 36

7 The New Settlement Scoping Study (June 2016) sets out that constraints and environmental impact can be addressed, in part, through careful masterplanning and appropriate mitigation (para 2.30) Similarly, these techniques can be applied to further development at the Airfield Site;

8 the Airfield Site is suitable for development through the evolution of a sensitively designed, high quality scheme that reflects the key characteristics of Haddenham The development of the Site could be set back from the northern edge of the site for the combined retention of the existing

vegetation and the inclusion of further mitigation measures, such as additional native structure planting (consistent with the advice received on the consented scheme) to:

minimise the impact of development in views from the north and in particular those views from the valley;

continue the existing well treed edge character to the northern edge of Haddenham; and provide a robust and defensible green framework to this side of the village (in accordance with the spatial vision of the VALP) to provide a landscape buffer to the AAL; and therefore

overall, considering the above in place, would result in no greater impact than the development of the current consented area

Trang 37

VALP16-09-05-00928 Tim Northey (Rectory

Homes Limited)

New Settlement Study - The objective of the New Settlement Study is to consider the feasibility of delivering a new settlement

within the district as a important housing delivery option for the plan period In the context of this study, a new settlement is considered both a freestanding community or an enlargement of an existing community by over 50% The study identifies a number

of potential candidate location options across the district and consideration was given to amongst other things, whether they would

be of an appropriate scale, largely free of significant environmental and policy constraints, served by high quality public transport services and able to make a substantial contribution towards housing delivery over the plan period

The study concludes that the two strongest performers in terms of location are Haddenham and Winslow and that further work is required to assess in further detail these options The identification of Haddenham as the preferred option is fully supported with the study as it relates more strongly to the higher-value markets, is well related to the unmet housing needs in districts to the south and has established rail and road connections to major employment markets which may itself help aid its ability to develop a stronger employment offer itself

Three separate growth options at the village were identified in the study which included; grow Haddenham / northern eastern expansion; a new garden village; and western expansion However, it is considered that a combined approach is required to support both development needs in the short to medium term, together with a separate longer term strategy

The short to medium term housing needs would be delivered through the expansion of Haddenham which already has the infrastructure in place to enable housing delivery in this timeframe In particular, option 1 involving growth to the north and east is considered the most suitable option as it has the least environmental and policy constraints, and would also have a lesser landscape impact as the topography of the land is more able to mitigate the impact of development The longer term option would be the provision of a new garden village to the south east of Haddenham (aligning the A4129 and close to the railway to allow development

of a new dedicated rail station), but at this stage the plan should not be overly reliant upon this option until it has been proven as capable of delivery through confirmation of willing landowners and developers and due to the fact that it is highly unlikely to deliver anywhere near the anticipated 4,500 dwellings required over the plan period as housing delivery would be many years away with the majority of housing likely to come forwards in a future plan period In promoting this option in the plan, the Council should be seeking to engage with relevant landowners at this stage as it will be fundamental in demonstrating that the housing requirement will

be met and thus, the plan will be found to be sound

VALP16-09-05-00932 Gerald Eames Sustainability Appraisal - This site is unsuitable for housing due to traffic issues on an already overloaded ring road and the

Gawcott Road is also unsuitable for increased traffic movements The direct route into the town centre via Gawcott Hill is unsuitable for the existing traffic use and more housing in this area will exacerbate the problem Pedestrian access to the town centre entails crossing the ring road and the existing planting on the Gawcott Road roundabout makes visibility difficult

VALP16-09-05-00951 Charles Robinson (DLP

Planning Limited)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The proposed housing sites for Grendon Underwood are considered to be inappropriate for the following grounds :

(i) The sites are small and will fail to deliver the affordable housing required to meet identified local needs;

(ii) additional sites are required; and (iii) The identified sites will affect the setting and morphology of the historic part of Grendon Underwood

There is a large site adjoining the Springhill Estate in Grendon Underwood, currently the subject of an outline planning application, that would address these points and which should be identified as a potential allocation

Trang 38

VALP16-09-05-00955 Jonathan Clover Aylesbury Transport Strategy - As I understand this the first 3 stages have been completed and there are 3 further stages to go A

number of issues have been raised It seems at this stage that no ideas have been decided on to encourage effectively more public transport use and walking/cycling options Is there scope for public education, and the use of forums or parish councils to do work on this as part of the Neighbourhood Plan review or as a separate exercise following this up Are the stakeholders referred to simply council officers/councillors or is there public participation on the stakeholder groups

Given that no final strategy exists I reserve comments although I think there should be a public consultation exercise to develop a strategy as soon as possible I have made comments on the need to improve public transport use in the main document

VALP16-09-05-00959 Penny Pataky

(Edlesborough Parish Council)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - HELAA suitable/part suitable sites under countedThe table on page 79 shows Edlesborough as having potential for 96 houses and Appendix A identifies the relevant sites as EDL002 (10 dwellings), EDL020 (6 dwellings) and EDL021 (80 dwellings) What appears to have been overlooked is that only part of site EDL003 has been committed under application 14/01261/APP and the remaining one third of the site still has potential for the remaining 15 houses of the 45 originally identified by the HELAA

The correct HELAA figure for Edlesborough in the table on page 79 should therefore be 111

VALP16-09-05-00967 James Robinson Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Do not agree with the HELAA The discussion of the HELAA does not refer

to the involvement of neighbourhood plans despite in the identification and prioritisation of potential development sites Unless this occurs and the local communities are involved, at every stage, in site identification, the process will be driven by owners and predatory developers and will not command public assent

VALP16-09-05-00971 James Cadwallader New Settlement Study - I would like to comment on the possible new ‘Garden Village’ to the southeast of Haddenham

1 Any proposal for such significant development must be seen in the context of the proposed development of Princes Risborough and Longwick These latter developments will on their own cause traffic problems on the A4129, B4009 and A4010 as people must travel to work, much of which is by car Several thousand new households southeast of Haddenham will use these same roads to get

to south Bucks, the M40 eastwards and Greater London

2 As someone who walks the footpaths between Longwick and Haddenham, I know that the land is boggy under foot outside the summer months It is a flood plain Building on such land is likely to cause flooding problems elsewhere

3 One of the joys of the local AONB is to look out from vantage points on the Chilterns ridge across the Vale of Aylesbury This visual amenity would be lost for ever, negating the AONB protection

4 It is suggested in the document that the hamlets of Aston Sandford, Owlswick, Ford etc would be protected by a buffer With a settlement of 7000 houses (nearly twice the size of Thame!) southeast of Haddenham, protection of the character of the local hamlets will be impossible

Trang 39

VALP16-09-05-00972 Samuel Dix (Smith

Jenkins)

Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Our client welcomes the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment although it should be updated to include details of additional sites that have come forward This will assist the Council in demonstrating that it has considered all ‘reasonable alternatives’ Enclosed is a map of our client’s land (outlined in red), which is 3Ha and therefore able to accommodate around 90 dwellings It is solely owned by our client and is available immediately for development or alternatively later in the plan period It is not under option to any developer at this time The site is presently used for

an existing dwelling and outbuildings, along with stables and paddock land with two existing accesses from Lower Road It is therefore partly previously developed land, which in combination with its sustainable location makes it suitable for development There are no other physical or legal constraints to development so we trust that the HELAA may be updated in due course to confirm that the site is available and potentially suitable, either on its own or in combination with other strategic sites around Stoke

Mandeville

VALP16-09-05-00991 Ron Busby Settlement Hierarchy- See Attached

VALP16-09-05-00994 Sue Busby Settlement Hierarchy- See attached letter

VALP16-09-05-01012 Alysoun Glasspool New Settlement Study - Whilst I appreciate the council has legal obligations to deliver VALP within certain time constraints, to have

a consultation period over the summer holidays on such a contentious and substantive topic is poor timing Residents have had relatively very little time to discuss a range of developments that will substantially alter people's lives, their village, and the immediate countryside in which they live

There is strong local feeling that AVDC is using the government's obligations on it to consult with other local authorities as crude means of pushing through unwelcome and insensitive developments that have hitherto been successfully opposed

The weblink here: https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.780247,-0.923872,-151.54h,-9.48p,1zshows the view of the conservation area and its protecting Wychert wall What a pity if all this is lost

VALP16-09-05-01014 Gavin Gallagher (Barton

Willmore)

Settlement Hierarchy - Please refer to attached letter

VALP16-09-05-01016 Gordon Pell Settlement Hierarchy - The Settlement Hierarchy document is substantially flawed Basing the selection of village size on a limited

number criteria places a number of small settlements into the large category As examples both Ivinghoe and Whitchurch are approximately half the size of some of the more developed locations Indeed in Aylesbury Vale's own Village Fact Pack for Whitchurch the village is "relatively small" (AVDC Village Fact Pack - Whitchurch p.19) which counters the decision to nominate Whitchurch as 'large' In comparison to neighbouring large and medium settlements villages such as Brill (population, number of homes, 3 pubs, numerous employment opportunities, Post Office and shops) is substantially larger in almost any measure than Whitchurch, and yet is classified as 'medium' It is obvious that Whitchurch with its population of less than 1000 should not be in the same category as settlements such as Wing, Aston Clinton and Waddesdon Indeed certain medium villages are significantly larger (double the size) of Whitchurch and are thus more capable of integrating growth than the "relatively small" Whitchurch (and

Ivinghoe)

VALP16-09-05-01032 Helen Cleaveley New Settlement Study- Please see previous comments regarding unsuitability of Winslow

VALP16-09-05-01045 Richard Boother (RPS

Planning and Development)

Sustainability Appraisal - see accompanying statement

Trang 40

VALP16-09-07-01109 John Hamilton (Nash

Parish)

Sustainability Appraisal - Sustainability Appraisal of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Reasonable Alternatives: Sites Reasonable

Alternatives SA Report July 2016’ The above lists Site NSH003 However as the report states at paragraph 3.22.6 ‘There are no train stations within 1km of Nash No frequent bus services stop in the village, therefore access to public transport is limited As residents of Nash are likely to rely on travel by car, development at NSH003 may lead to an increase in traffic and associated greenhouse gas Emissions.’ It then goes on to state at paragraph 3.22.7 that ‘There is not a leisure centre within 2km of Nash, but the village has a playing field and a children’s play area There are no GP surgeries in Nash and no hospitals within 8km of the village As such, access to healthcare is considered poor from NSH003 (SA Objective 11).’ The development of this site would presumably give rise to approximately 15 new dwellings which would be a considerable increase to the housing stock of Nash both in numbers and percentage The Report does not mention drainage from the site and whether the drainage infrastructure in the High Street (onto which any development would drain) would be able to cope with the increased demand Nor does the Report consider the suitability, or otherwise, of access to the site Without detailed consideration of both of these it would be premature to consider the site is ‘sustainable’

VALP16-09-07-01121 Ken and Viv Birkby Settlement Hierarchy Cuddington does not satisfactorily meet 4 of the 5 criteria for a medium village in the settlement hierarchy:

-•Size – Population is 569 It would be the smallest of the medium villages and less than half the average of 1152 (in a range of 2115) for the proposed medium villages

680-•Connectivity – Whilst only being 1.5 miles from Haddenham, there is no public transport to Haddenham, no footway and the necessity to cross the dangerous A 418 at an accident black spot The public transport to Aylesbury is infrequent This is not being

‘well connected’

•Employment – None Insufficient weight has been given to the lack of employment – most of the settlements in the medium village group have some employment This is an important issue

•Facilities – Key services are - Food store, Pub, Post Office, General Practice, Village Hall, Recreation, Primary School Non - Key Services are - Pharmacy, Library, Places of worship, Secondary schools

Cuddington is assessed to score 6 of the 7 on the list of key services (no GP) However, the system gives one point irrespective of how many shops/ pubs etc there are in the village Various of the medium villages have greater numbers of each of these services but still the same score applies

The Cuddington school site is not a full Primary School, in that Cuddington and Dinton School is located on two sites, the junior school being in Dinton, with infants in Cuddington The school is also heavily over- subscribed It serves not only Cuddington but also Dinton, Chearsley and Lower Winchendon and these primary pupils are bused-in or driven to school

•Qualitative assessment – recommends, throughout, small village status The description of being ‘well connected to a service centre’ is incorrect

Định dạng
Số trang	485
Dung lượng	2,29 MB