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 - 3.22

Representation ID: 2713

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Roger & Reidunn Green

Summary:

"Seeking to preserve" does not ensure that coalescence of villages will not occur. Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville will be subsumed into Aylesbury.
The proposed plan does not adequately address the inevitable increase in volume of traffic not prevent coalescence of communities. It is poorly prepared and completely ineffective.

More details about Rep ID: 2713

Representation ID: 2541

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

Summary:

From our perspective this ideal is not going to happen given the areas that are designated for housing. Our own village "Weston Turville" will be compromised by the Hampdon Fields development and Woodlands will join up with Aston Clinton. Growth in Aston Clinton has been allowed by AVDC without check, ignoring the lack of what can be accommodated within the existing supporting services within this village.

More details about Rep ID: 2541

Representation ID: 2516

OBJECT Mr & Mrs John & Christine Raines

Summary:

Developments such as Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville will change the aspect of the Vale totally - that is what we are made up of - villages with
our own identity.

More details about Rep ID: 2516

Representation ID: 2502

OBJECT Unknown (Mr Peter Bantham)

Summary:

The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities.
This is not strong enough; you are already trying to coalesce Aylesbury with Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with the Hampden Fields development.

More details about Rep ID: 2502

Representation ID: 2475

OBJECT Mr Damian Campbell

Summary:

As with many points of the plan the weak wording "will seek to preserve"is totally unacceptable as a strategy. There is no guidance as to what will, and more importantly, what will NOT be allowed as regards preserving identity of the villages. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely subsume the villages with Aylesbury. This is by no means an effective approach at providing guidance through the planning stages of any developments. VALP therefore does not meet requirements and is certainly not effective.

More details about Rep ID: 2475

Representation ID: 2254

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Chris & Shirley Bull

Summary:

The wording "will seek to preserve" separate village identities is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields will entirely remove open countryside between Stoke Mandeville, Western Turville and Aylesbury which will then become one vast conurbation. In our view, a firmly worded commitment is required to retain the character of these villages.

More details about Rep ID: 2254

Representation ID: 2239

OBJECT Mrs Jane Chilman

Summary:

I support this policy but AVDC do not comply with it. AVDC do not seem to have any intention of fulfilling
their commitment to resist development that does not comply with this policy instead AVDC openly
support schemes which coalesce with settlements.

More details about Rep ID: 2239

Representation ID: 2229

OBJECT Melvyn Gibbons

Summary:

We need to preserve and not seek to preserve the open spaces between settlements, for example the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville will mean that the villages of Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville will now coalesce with the town of Aylesbury.

More details about Rep ID: 2229

Representation ID: 2166

OBJECT Michelle Hughes

Summary:

The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 2166

Representation ID: 2089

SUPPORT Historic England (Mr Martin Small)

Summary:

Historic England welcomes and supports the commitments to protecting the character (and setting) of settlements in Policy S3 and its supporting paragraphs as part of the positive strategy for conserving and enjoying, and clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by paragraphs 126 and 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

More details about Rep ID: 2089

Representation ID: 1924

OBJECT mR. Cameron Sinclair

Summary:

I am concerned that the wording 'seek to preserve' with reference to maintaining open countryside and the identities of affected communities is inadequate and far too open to interpretation, and should be altered to an unequivocal statement of 'will preserve'.

More details about Rep ID: 1924

Representation ID: 1874

OBJECT Unknown (Mr Paul Pelling)

Summary:

term 'will seek to preserve' is virtually meaningless and lacks any form of substance. One of the key attractions of Aylesbury Vale is the unique and individual character of the surrounding villages. My understanding has always been that the Council both recognised and endorsed this.The planned developments at both Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville, in particular, will totally undermine the principle of retaining individuality. They will both be entirely coalesced with Aylesbury and completely lose their status as being separate villages. If allowed, this would be absolutely contrary to the policy of resisting developments that compromise open countryside between developments.

More details about Rep ID: 1874

Representation ID: 1857

OBJECT Ms Maureen Simmons

Summary:

"The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities. The Council will resist development that would compromise the open character of the countryside between settlements, especially where the gaps between them are already small." This paragraph should state that the Council will preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities. The current wording is ineffectual: the planned development of Hampden Fields demonstrates how the current weakness in the wording in this paragraph allows villages such as Weston Turville to be coalesced with the main conurbation of Aylesbury.

More details about Rep ID: 1857

Representation ID: 1788

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Peter & Jane Chilman

Summary:

The planned development of Hampden Fields completely coalesces the villages of Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville with Aylesbury. Weston Turville and Aylesbury are already linked at Broughton Crossing with the approved MDA site and developments in New Road. Any development (including Hampden Fields) that brings housing further along New Road should be resisted. The same can be said at Hampden Hall where there is only a small gap with Aylesbury. This cannot be disputed so why is there the insistence to cram in thousands of houses to the south of Aylesbury.

More details about Rep ID: 1788

Representation ID: 1658

OBJECT Mr William Spear

Summary:

'Seeking to preserve' is an aspiration rather than a specific strategy, and leaves little confidence that AVDC will effectively maintain the individual identity of the villages around Aylesbury. A more robust strategy is required.

More details about Rep ID: 1658

Representation ID: 1652

OBJECT Mrs Ann Webbley

Summary:

A commitment to "seek to preserve" is a weasel phrase, building in the acceptability of failure. It is not a sound, thorough commitment. This is shown in the way the plan states a wish to preserve identities of neighbouring settlements, and to avoid compromising open countryside between developments, and yet permission has been granted for developments which cause coalescence for Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville, Aylesbury, Halton and Aston Clinton. Planning in this way is not justified or effective

More details about Rep ID: 1652

Representation ID: 1627

OBJECT W K Boxhall

Summary:

Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements.

This has not been shown to date, eg Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville. The statement 'will seek to preserve' demonstrates yet again that words and actions are not aligned.

More details about Rep ID: 1627

Representation ID: 1576

OBJECT Wendover Parish Council (Jane Ellis)

Summary:

The WPC would request there is no development between the 2 Parishes of Wendover and Halton, and that Babbington Road remains the Border.

More details about Rep ID: 1576

Representation ID: 1539

OBJECT Mr Richard Wise

Summary:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The planned Hampden Fields development will not only coalesce the villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with Aylesbury but will also swamp all surrounding areas in unacceptable extra traffic.
This is not an effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1539

Representation ID: 1421

OBJECT Mr Marcus Joy

Summary:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is very ambiguous and does not provide any assurance on preserving the countryside.

More details about Rep ID: 1421

Representation ID: 1407

OBJECT Mr Steven Hyams

Summary:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements

Saying that you "will seek to preserve" is too open and too easy to back out of subsequently. This needs to be guaranteed, otherwise everything will surely end up amalgamating into one amorphous lump. It is not an Effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1407

Representation ID: 1380

OBJECT Mr Keith Waterman

Summary:

Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is meaningless and too easy to circumvent early on, with a weak excuse on "economic or practicability" grounds. A firm commitment linked to action is required to avoid an unacceptable fudge later on. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1380

Representation ID: 1364

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Liam & Catherine Hyland

Summary:

We are fortunate to live in an area of outstanding beauty and are able to enjoy the individual character of the villages adjacent to our own. The proposed development will see an inevitable coalescence of these villages and the promise of "seeking to preserve" does not provide much comfort.

More details about Rep ID: 1364

Representation ID: 1318

OBJECT Mrs B Daniel

Summary:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1318

Representation ID: 1304

OBJECT Mr John Day

Summary:

Object, 3.22

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1304

Representation ID: 1297

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Philip & Tina Brown

Summary:

Object, 3.22

3.22:
The planned developments to the south and Stoke Mandeville are particularly worrying to me, the undertaking "will seek to preserve" is worthless.

More details about Rep ID: 1297

Representation ID: 1281

OBJECT Mrs Pauline Day

Summary:

Object, 3.22

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 1281

Representation ID: 1246

OBJECT Sarah Way

Summary:

The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. These villages are vital to the character of Aylesbury Vale and by enveloping these villages with new houses, completely spoils the living environment of the people already living within these villages and Aylesbury Vale as a whole. I understand that new housing is needed, but it needs to be done in a thoughtful/considered way. By tacking on huge estates to small villages it is completely ruinng the environment for those living within the village.

More details about Rep ID: 1246

Representation ID: 1209

OBJECT Mr A.P. Smart

Summary:

Keeping the identity of villages and separate developments is very important and there should be a very strong statement or guarantee that such gaps are to be preserved. I have already seen many planned schemes which seek to undermine this objective (Hampden Fields being one such example, A41 Woodlands is another). This must stop. The assurance given are too weak.

More details about Rep ID: 1209

Representation ID: 1021

OBJECT Robin Garside

Summary:

intention to "seek to preserve" is not a reasonable target. It does not show any real intent at all. The Hampden Fields and other development already under discussion will serve to remove the 'wedge' between, for example, Aylesbury and Weston Turville.
There should be open countryside between villages and the town of Aylesbury (settlements) and this principle should be given the highest priority to preserve the character and desirability of The Vale.
also applies to potential development at Halton and thus identity of Halton and Weston Turville.
Please beef up the statement in clause 3.2.2 and then stick to it!

More details about Rep ID: 1021

Representation ID: 1001

OBJECT Barbara White

Summary:

A commitment to "seek to preserve" is a weak phrase and suggests that there is an acceptability of failure. The plan states a wish to preserve identities of neighbouring settlements, and to avoid compromising open countryside between developments. However a significant section of the VALP concerns building some 16,000 houses to the South of Aylesbury. Permission has already been granted for developments which cause significant coalescence for Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville, Aylesbury, Halton and Aston Clinton. Planning in this way is not justified or effective.

More details about Rep ID: 1001

Representation ID: 994

OBJECT Mrs Stephanie Schneider

Summary:

The phrases in this section 'seek to preserve' and 'The Council will resist development ....' are not strong enough to provide protection from the coalescence of settlements. Already, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville would join these villages to Aylesbury so this policy is currently failing. This is not an effective approach.

More details about Rep ID: 994

Representation ID: 992

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Christine and Dennis Clarke

Summary:

I am concerned that developments such as Hampden Fields and Woodlands will impose on the identity of villages such as Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville and Wendover as building on such a large scale will cause a "blurring" of the borders of these villages with Aylesbury itself.

More details about Rep ID: 992

Representation ID: 937

OBJECT Mr Stuart Twigg

Summary:

The local plan plans to fill in the gaps between Aylesbury and its surrounding villages.

More details about Rep ID: 937

Representation ID: 762

OBJECT Mr R Horton

Summary:

The loss of good arable farming land, which is currently producing must needed crops for the food chain, open countryside and wildlife habitats. Reducing the number of local communities and making them part of Aylesbury i.e. the planned developments of Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville.

More details about Rep ID: 762

Representation ID: 679

SUPPORT Whaddon Parish Council (Ms Suzanne Lindsey)

Summary:

WPC wish to ensure that the Inspector fully understands - as previous inspectors have done in recent years - the importance of the green gap that currently exists between Whaddon and Milton Keynes, which will both stop coalescence and ensure that this important and historic landscape is enjoyed by generations to come .

More details about Rep ID: 679

Representation ID: 605

OBJECT Mr Trevor Toms

Summary:

The plans shown for Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville directly conflict with Policy S1 para e.
The plans will connect the main body of Aylesbury with these villages completely, losing both the character and identity of these two communities.

More details about Rep ID: 605

Representation ID: 602

OBJECT Mr Andrew Burnett

Summary:

I agree with this, but the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville are contrary to the policy and would result in the disappearance of open countryside between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville and Aston Clinton. It is essential that these communities remain separate and do not end up as part of an expanded Aylesbury. It is also essential that the existing clear separation between Wendover, Weston Turville and Halton continues, and that no green belt land is released for housing, now or in the future.

More details about Rep ID: 602

Representation ID: 481

OBJECT AD Fanthorpe

Summary:

More needs to be done than "seek to preserve". The character of Weston Turville will be totally obliterated by Hampden Fields, and coalescence with Bedgrove/Aylesbury Inevitable. A planning inspector refused an application for 50 houses on Marroway because it would impact on the character of Weston Turville, and lead to coalescence. How much greater would be the impact of 3000 houses on Hampden Fields?

More details about Rep ID: 481

Representation ID: 427

SUPPORT Hampden Fields Action Group (Dr Glynn White)

Summary:

We support the policy but AVDC do not stick to this policy. The Council "will seek" to preserve is a meaningless expression. The wording suggests they have no intention of fulfilling and does not provide a clear enough policy platform on which to resist development when the NPPF would complement / endorse / support such a policy. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This cannot be disputed so why do AVDC insist on cramming the large amount of houses to the South of Aylesbury.

More details about Rep ID: 427

Representation ID: 352

OBJECT Mr Phil Yerby

Summary:

policy is weak and needs stronger definition

More details about Rep ID: 352

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

Powered by OpusConsult