Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on VALP Proposed Submission - S1 Sustainable development for Aylesbury Vale

Representation ID: 2571

OBJECT Natural England (Ms Kirsty Macpherson)

Summary:

While impacts to biodiversity should
of course be minimised the wording
of this policy does not go far enough
to comply with the NPPF or policy
EN2.

More details about Rep ID: 2571

Representation ID: 2556

OBJECT Stoke Mandeville Parish Council (Mr. Tony Skeggs)

Summary:

Proposal to add a new factor for consideration when assessing development proposals, that due
regard be given to developments approved or built on sites within the Neighbourhood Plan Area or
Parish and not allocated by the VALP, such that the total number of new dwellings on allocated and
unallocated sites should not exceed the number allocated in the VALP.

More details about Rep ID: 2556

Representation ID: 2539

OBJECT Mr and Mrs J.R. and S. Taylor

Summary:

Any development should only go ahead if it is sustainable. We wonder how in 2008 we were advised that central government had dictated that we must build 10,000 extra houses in the Aylesbury area and in less than ten years this requirement has increased to 27,000 extra houses. We ask where are the jobs coming from, where are the schools, hospitals, doctor's surgeries and other services? Such enormous growth cannot be sustainable without vital services. We hear in the press how the existing services are stretched. We also are concerned about traffic problems. Where is the essential ring road?

More details about Rep ID: 2539

Representation ID: 2514

OBJECT Mr & Mrs John & Christine Raines

Summary:

The positioning of 1,000+ houses in the Hamden Fields area alone is going to create havoc for all of the Vale of Aylesbury and
is short sighted in the extreme. We know from the congestion currently experienced this will result in more gridlock - so how will the public get to work,
schools, hospitals etc - is there a plan we don't know about for this because I am extremely concerned about this.

More details about Rep ID: 2514

Representation ID: 2473

OBJECT Mr Damian Campbell

Summary:

There are too many houses in too small an area of development but which constricts flow and will ultimately lead to more traffic problems. Surely the economic growth hoped for will be suffocated. This is not an Effective strategy, nor is it justified.

More details about Rep ID: 2473

Representation ID: 2462

OBJECT Mr David Locke

Summary:

Placing 16,000 houses in a relatively small area with an incomplete and partly 'aspirational' road
network will only lead to congestion and stagnation. If the traffic situation is bad, people will simply
not want to live in Aylesbury, work in Aylesbury or shop in Aylesbury.

More details about Rep ID: 2462

Representation ID: 2410

SUPPORT Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Mr Jonathan Clover)

Summary:

We welcome the principle of sustainability underlying the whole plan and feel
all measures to meet the challenge of climate change should be taken.

More details about Rep ID: 2410

Representation ID: 2384

OBJECT Nash Parish Council (Mr John Hamilton)

Summary:

It is found that throughout the VALP there is no mention of enforcement as a topic; the word
appears twice once in relation to listed building, the other relating to work/living spaces. The whole
planning policy is merely an ambition unless there is some form of effective enforcement so it is
surprising that there is no policy at all relating to it. Unfortunately, this is even more important in
the case of Gypsy and Traveller, or mobile home, sites where the occupant's mobility means there is
a continual change of residents.

More details about Rep ID: 2384

Representation ID: 2351

OBJECT Mr Andrew Smith

Summary:

Recent planning applications for housing in and around Weston Turville for example, have resulted in developments advertising houses for sale in the £600,000 to £850,000 range. These are clustered around the village resulting in what will be the merging of the village into a greater Aylesbury. Local roads are becoming even more congested and our children are now in a position where it is hardly possible for them to consider buying a property in the village. As a consequence, local businesses cannot recruit the young people they require because they cannot afford the salaries necessary to live locally.

More details about Rep ID: 2351

Representation ID: 2252

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Chris & Shirley Bull

Summary:

so much development around Aylesbury that it will double in size. More development is currently being promoted for Aylesbury than for either Birmingham or Bristol. Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately cause so many traffic problems that economic stagnation will result. It is neither sustainable nor effective to plan to build two-thirds of the 27,000 new homes proposed in the Aylesbury Vale District in and around Aylesbury itself. More new homes should be built in the other identified growth areas, and also at Halton after 2022 when the RAF will vacate its base.

More details about Rep ID: 2252

Representation ID: 2236

OBJECT Mrs Jane Chilman

Summary:

The plan to build so many houses squeezed in around Aylesbury will lead to major traffic issues which will ultimately affect the local economy. This is not an effective strategy and cannot be justified.

More details about Rep ID: 2236

Representation ID: 2228

OBJECT Melvyn Gibbons

Summary:

Building too many houses in too small an area will undoubtedly lead to further traffic problems and will present more problems for the town centre leading to economic stagnation.

More details about Rep ID: 2228

Representation ID: 2189

OBJECT Ether Solutions (Mr David Martin)

Summary:

Placing too many houses in close proximity to Aylesbury centre will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic misery for everyone.

More details about Rep ID: 2189

Representation ID: 2083

OBJECT Historic England (Mr Martin Small)

Summary:

we appreciate the intention and sentiment behind the priority to be given to "Minimising impacts on heritage assets..." in assessing the most sustainable locations for new development, but priority should be given in the first instance to avoiding harm to heritage assets. Paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment and, in doing so, to "recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance".

More details about Rep ID: 2083

Representation ID: 2030

OBJECT Manlet Group Holdings represented by Barton Willmore LLP (Ms Jane Harrison)

Summary:

Policy should address points on Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives

More details about Rep ID: 2030

Representation ID: 2019

OBJECT Crest Strategic Projects represented by Savills Southampton (Mr Jon Gateley)

Summary:

The specific modifications to the VALP that we believe are necessary fall mainly into site-specific policies dealt with later in this document, however a modification is proposed to Policy S1 below, to ensure that the VALP adequately acknowledges the presence of Milton Keynes which is a key social, economic and infrastructure hub for the region. The change will more clearly highlight that development at existing major settlements is a key component of a sustainable spatial approach.

More details about Rep ID: 2019

Representation ID: 1900

OBJECT Thornborough Parish Council (Maggie Beach)

Summary:

* Enforcement Issues. Throughout the VALP there is no mention of enforcement as a topic; the word appears twice, once in relation to listed building, the other relating to work/living spaces. The whole planning policy is merely an ambition unless there is some form of effective enforcement so it is surprising that there is no policy at all relating to it. This has been a continuing issue in Thornborough for many years with notable lack of enforcement at sites with un-approved building.

More details about Rep ID: 1900

Representation ID: 1895

OBJECT Thornborough Parish Council (Maggie Beach)

Summary:

concerned about current plans that will have an impact on sustainability. There are currently several developments in the north of Buckinghamshire that will not count towards the Aylesbury Vale Housing numbers but will have an impact on local roads leading to more congestion and a worsening living environment. New housing estates should be environmentally sustainable and ecologically rich, for example hard surfacing should be permeable to allow water to permeate to the water-table and not be lost as run-off with the consequent effect of flooding. This needs strong and robust policies to force developers to design well.

More details about Rep ID: 1895

Representation ID: 1872

OBJECT Unknown (Mr Paul Pelling)

Summary:

the quantity of properties being proposed is too much for the corresponding areas. This will add considerable traffic congestion to the local area(s). Aylesbury is already both suffering from lack of infrastructure and is extremely problematical when travelling in and out of the region. Adding these developments, on the scales proposed, will only lead to further congestion that will become deterrents to both employees and employers based or basing themselves within the area. This will then have a negative impact on the local economy.

More details about Rep ID: 1872

Representation ID: 1856

OBJECT Ms Maureen Simmons

Summary:

Allowing too many houses to be built in too small an area will lead to even more traffic problems in Aylesbury; also health issues caused by an increase in air pollution. This situation will lead to a reduced quality of life for all inhabitants and considerably reduce the town's attractiveness for inward investment by businesses. This will downgrade the town's economic base. Allowing too many houses to be built in too small an area is contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

More details about Rep ID: 1856

Representation ID: 1785

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Peter & Jane Chilman

Summary:

The plan to build so many houses squeezed in around Aylesbury will lead to major traffic issues which will ultimately affect the local economy. This is not an effective strategy and cannot be justified.

More details about Rep ID: 1785

Representation ID: 1757

OBJECT Ainscough Strategic Land represented by Turley Associates (Taylor Cherrett)

Summary:

urge that point (d) "giving priority to the reuse of vacant or
underused brownfield land" is fully acknowledged by the Council in the preparation of its
Plan and that land at the former MArsworth Airfield is allocated for residential led mixed
use development.

More details about Rep ID: 1757

Representation ID: 1625

OBJECT W K Boxhall

Summary:

Traffic problems within Aylesbury continue to increase and building more houses in this area will escalate them even more so

More details about Rep ID: 1625

Representation ID: 1363

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Liam & Catherine Hyland

Summary:

The intention to accommodate such a large number of houses in a relatively small geography will inevitably lead to significant traffic congestion. The backlog of traffic in peak periods is already causing issues and if VALP goes ahead in its current form the impact on the local economy could prove stifling.

More details about Rep ID: 1363

Representation ID: 1207

OBJECT Mr A.P. Smart

Summary:

Building more houses will not make the Vale area more prosperous and a better place to live. Cramming ever more houses into an area that already suffers from traffic issues will not bring growth. I am already making day-to-day choices about whether it is worth going into Aylesbury because of the traffic. More houses will make this worse. This extra housing does not offer any solution, only further worsening of current problems. This is not an effective strategy. The transport problems have to solved first. It is not adequate to hope that somehow more building will eventually solve the problem.

More details about Rep ID: 1207

Representation ID: 1192

OBJECT Newton Longville Parish Council (Mr Mike Galloway)

Summary:

Amendment to condition relating to Neighbourhood Plans

More details about Rep ID: 1192

Representation ID: 1190

OBJECT Newton Longville Parish Council (Mr Mike Galloway)

Summary:

An updated HELAA should have been issued to accompany the
submission VALP.

More details about Rep ID: 1190

Representation ID: 1146

OBJECT Unknown (Mrs S Pearce) represented by RPS Group (Mr Nick Laister)

Summary:

The sustainability objectives of Policy S1 are supported. However, the Policy should
fully reflect the needs and services that are required to support development proposals
as well as take account of the core planning principles contained in paragraph 17 of
the NPPF. In particular, it should reflect the importance of land performing
leisure, tourism, recreational and cultural functions to improve health, social well-being
and culture. These features help create well-balanced and highly sustainable
communities and their support is encouraged in the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 1146

Representation ID: 1116

OBJECT Manlet Group Holdings Ltd. represented by Boyer (Alice Davidson)

Summary:

Manlet Group suggest that although the submission of the VALP prior to the 31 March 2018 will mean
that Aylesbury Vale do not need to utilise the new standardised methodology for calculating OAN,
AVDC should consider increasing the number of dwellings allocated within the VALP. An increased
number of allocations in sustainable locations would reduce the likelihood of the VALP being outdated
as soon as it is adopted with regards to OAN.
Manlet Group are keen to secure additional allocations at the sustainable location of Cheddington,
including an allocation for Land at Station Road, Cheddington.

More details about Rep ID: 1116

Representation ID: 1113

SUPPORT Paul Newman New Homes. represented by Development Planning and Design Services Ltd (Mr Neil Arbon)

Summary:

PNNH support the principle of Policy S1 Sustainable Development for Aylesbury Vale in so far as it is consistent with the NPPF and the general presumption in favour of sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 1113

Representation ID: 1093

SUPPORT Careys New Homes represented by Bidwells (Mr Robert Love)

Summary:

Overall, we are supportive of Policy S1 as this sets out the Council's aspiration to deliver sustainable
development which is in accordance with national planning policy and the NPPF's requirement (paragraph
6) for the planning system to contribute towards achieving sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 1093

Representation ID: 1091

OBJECT Persimmon Homes Midlands represented by Bidwells (Mr Robert Love)

Summary:

Overall, we are supportive of Policy S1 as this sets out the Council's aspiration to deliver sustainable development which is in accordance with national planning policy and the NPPF's requirement (paragraph 6) for the planning system to contribute towards achieving sustainable development. We are also supportive of the prioritisation of the redevelopment of brownfield sites under limb 'd' of Policy S1 and Objective 1 of the VALP.

More details about Rep ID: 1091

Representation ID: 1063

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Philip & Tina Brown

Summary:

Object, S1 + 3.3

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development:
building more homes in too small an area will increase the already severe traffic problems, I experience this every weekday and so speak from experience.

More details about Rep ID: 1063

Representation ID: 1050

OBJECT Mr John Day

Summary:

Object, S1

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 1050

Representation ID: 1049

OBJECT Mrs Pauline Day

Summary:

Object, S1 + 3.3

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 1049

Representation ID: 1045

OBJECT Mr William Spear

Summary:

The strategy presented will not work because the building of too many houses in an area that is clearly too small will lead to severe traffic problems. Consequently rather than attract new business the increased congestion will have the opposite effect and thus reduce the level of economic activity. This is not to mention the impact on existing businesses that may consider relocating because of the increased congestion.

More details about Rep ID: 1045

Representation ID: 1013

OBJECT Gladman Developments Ltd (Ms Nicole Penfold)

Summary:

S1(d) seeks to prioritise use of brownfield land. This is not consistent with the Framework which outlined that development of PDL should be encouraged.

More details about Rep ID: 1013

Representation ID: 981

OBJECT Thornborough Parish Council (Maggie Beach)

Summary:

* The overall numbers of new houses for the Vale is unsustainable without major infrastructure changes and not enough thought has been taken for major infrastructure changes. Thornborough Parish Council are not confident that what has been proposed will cope with the extra people, traffic, demand on services etc.

More details about Rep ID: 981

Representation ID: 979

OBJECT Unknown (Mr Peter Bantham)

Summary:

The increase is housing in the area is currently not sustainable as there has been no improvement in the road network there is increasing congestion in Aylesbury. I've been living in the area for 25 years and other than minor changes to road junctions there have been no major improvements to reduce congestion. Reading the proposals there is no sign of a comprehensive by-pass within a reasonable timescale. The by-pass needs to be in place before all the proposed development.

More details about Rep ID: 979

Representation ID: 936

OBJECT Mr Stuart Twigg

Summary:

Collusion and risk of allowing ill conceived applications with much left to reserved matters.

If the planning department allows and assists applications, there is a risk of conflict of interest and corruption allegations.

More details about Rep ID: 936

Representation ID: 855

OBJECT Mr Richard Wise

Summary:

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development
How can such a building plan in any way support Biodiversity? The traffic issues cause by this plan will in fact have the opposite effect.
A strong and vibrant community can only be built if surrounding villages are allowed to remain their individuality and building on this scale can in no way produce this 'community'.
This is neither justified nor an effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 855

Representation ID: 834

OBJECT AB Planning & Development Ltd (Mr Andrew Bateson)

Summary:

The reference to "approved without delay" is welcomed, as it is consistent with national guidance. In practice however, AVDC hardly determines any application without significant delay and it appears from regular use of the service that rarely does the Council meet the Government's 8 and 13-week determination targets.

More details about Rep ID: 834

Representation ID: 821

SUPPORT Mr Mark Winn

Summary:

The Government needs to support this plan by ensuring the area gets the necessary infrastrucrute the link roads, east west rail rail east west expressway. Also hospital provision is missing from the plan. Without it the plan could not be considered sustainable.

More details about Rep ID: 821

Representation ID: 785

OBJECT Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose) represented by Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose)

Summary:

Bovis Homes object to Policy S1, which is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- is inconsistent with national policy in that it does not fully reflect the Government's priorities and policies in terms of enabling sustainable development and boosting the supply of housing to meet identified needs.

More details about Rep ID: 785

Representation ID: 754

SUPPORT Peter Brett Associates LLP (Mr Tim Coleby)

Summary:

BA supports Policies S1 and S2 in respect of sustainable development and the spatial strategy for growth, especially now the earlier draft VALP's reference in S2 to no more than 27ha of new employment land being required has been tempered with "and additional provision of employment land to contribute to the employment needs of the wider economic market area". This is particularly relevant to the employment provision envisaged within the Woodlands development.

More details about Rep ID: 754

Representation ID: 746

OBJECT Mr R Horton

Summary:

The Road Infrastructure cannot cope with anymore traffic. New business's will not come to the area because they are unable transport their goods to and from Aylesbury. This will not create economic growth. This is not an effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 746

Representation ID: 729

OBJECT Cerda Planning Limited (Tina Pearsall)

Summary:

Particular objection is made to Paragraph A which sets out the tilted balance. Whilst the way in which the tilted balance is to be applied reflects the NPPF, the trigger mechanism does not; Paragraph A states that the only circumstances by which the tilted balance will engage is where there are no policies relevant to a planning application.
This does not reflect the provisions of the NPPF which sets out that the tilted balance should apply where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date

More details about Rep ID: 729

Representation ID: 713

SUPPORT Rockspring Hanover Property Unit Trust represented by Castle Planning (Mrs Julia Riddle)

Summary:

Support flexible employment provision and the delivery of associated ancillary facilities, particularly where these improve the sustainability of that employment function.

More details about Rep ID: 713

Representation ID: 673

SUPPORT Whaddon Parish Council (Ms Suzanne Lindsey)

Summary:

S1 Whaddon PC Support.

More details about Rep ID: 673

Representation ID: 599

OBJECT Mr Keith Waterman

Summary:

Placing too many houses within this small area will compound the current traffic problems and will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 599

Representation ID: 595

OBJECT Mrs B Daniel

Summary:

3.3 and Policy S1 places too many houses in small area. Will lead to traffic problems and economic stagnation. Not justified nor effective.

More details about Rep ID: 595

Representation ID: 587

OBJECT The Buckingham Society (Carolyn Cumming)

Summary:

We object to the fact that the implication in S1 is that Council will seek involvement with the applicant before parish councils are allowed to comment.

More details about Rep ID: 587

Representation ID: 581

OBJECT Michelle Hughes

Summary:

Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 581

Representation ID: 565

OBJECT Mr Marcus Joy

Summary:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Far too many houses are being built in an area that will not be able to accommodate the traffic. Non effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 565

Representation ID: 558

OBJECT Mr Steven Hyams

Summary:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development

This is too many houses in a very small area. It will cause traffic chaos amongst an already fragile traffic situation. It is not Justified or Effective.

More details about Rep ID: 558

Representation ID: 551

OBJECT Sarah Way

Summary:

Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. The traffic situation in Aylesbury is dire at best. Every day there are queues of traffic to get into Aylesbury, both in the morning and the evening. It only takes one car to break down, anywhere within Aylesbury and it leads to complete gridlock, EVERYWHERE. Aylesbury Vale cannot even contemplate building more houses with building new roads FIRST. Some of the roads are aspirational, basically they will never happen! This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

More details about Rep ID: 551

Representation ID: 424

OBJECT Hampden Fields Action Group (Dr Glynn White)

Summary:

See comments in relation to 3.3 above

More details about Rep ID: 424

Representation ID: 397

OBJECT AD Fanthorpe

Summary:

The development cannot be regarded as sustainable if too many houses results in a huge increase in traffic which is already causing existing residents to travel elsewhere for shopping and entertainment, as the journey into Aylesbury become increasingly congested.,

More details about Rep ID: 397

Representation ID: 356

OBJECT Mr Phil Yerby

Summary:

See comments in relation to 3.3 above

More details about Rep ID: 356

Representation ID: 281

SUPPORT Garden Cities LLP represented by Carter Jonas LLP (Mr Mark Utting)

Summary:

The following representations are submitted on behalf of Garden Cities LLP in response to consultation on Vale of Aylesbury District Council's Proposed Submission of the Local Plan 2011-2033.

Garden Cities LLP welcomes the publication of the Proposed Submission Plan and is pleased that Aylesbury Vale District Council is seeking to positively plan for the long-term future growth of the District.

Garden Cities LLP also welcomes the Council's intention to review the Plan soon after adoption which will be essential if the District is meet its long-term growth aspirations up to 2033, and beyond.

More details about Rep ID: 281

Representation ID: 253

OBJECT Mr Terry Benwell

Summary:

AVDC has misrepresented the Aylesbury Golf Centre site at Bierton/Hulcott in the HELAA wrongly determined the site is unsuitable for redevelopment. The site should be reconsidered for a Continuing Care Retirement Community.

More details about Rep ID: 253

Representation ID: 141

OBJECT Ms Patience Skillings

Summary:

Not sure what this means: 'minimising impacts on local communities' and 'minimising impacts on heritage assets, sensitive landscapes and biodiversity' . If it means minimising 'negative' impacts then perhaps its not strong enough. Is it possible that some impacts could be positive - in which case should they be minimised?

Planning officer note: originally supported but the above change was suggested therefore amended to object in order to be considered by Planning Inspector.

More details about Rep ID: 141

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult