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 - 1.14
OBJECT Newton Longville Parish Council (Mr Mike Galloway)
Paragraph 1.14 is headed "Employment" and paragraph 1.40 is headed
"Economy and employment". With this section figures are used from 2015
and 2016. More current figures ought to have been available at the time of
the production of the submission draft plan.
OBJECT Wendover Parish Council (Jane Ellis)
The provision of local jobs is supported by the WPC. The RAF Halton site, with its history of technological excellence, offers an opportunity to attract employers that offer quality jobs and above average pay rates.
The WPC have concerns over the coalescence of Halton Village and Wendover however, as a result of this development and who will gain S106 funds as both Parishes will be impacted.
SUPPORT Chiltern and South Bucks District Council (Ms Shereen Ansari)
Our Councils welcome the approach to employment land as set out in the Draft VALP. Paragraph 1.14 , and Policy S2 (Spatial Strategy for Growth) recognise that surplus employment land in Aylesbury Vale will play a crucial role in helping to make up for the shortfall in neighbouring authorities within the wider FEMA. The Draft VALP seeks the safeguarding of suitable key employment sites, and supports employment development in sustainable locations. This approach provides flexibility for changes/uncertainties in future economic growth both within Aylesbury Vale and within the wider economic area.
OBJECT Aviva Life & Pensions UK Limited represented by GL Hearn (Mr David Maxwell)
Paragraph 1.14 is supported in terms of new employment need being met by new
allocations to meet forecast need however Aylesbury Vale District is retaining historic employment land that is no longer suitable, or viable for current and future employment needs, specifically in Gatehouse Industrial Estate. This has been subject to incremental and piecemeal redevelopment, notably Brook Mews and Alton House. The land between these should be released for residential and mixed use. Retaining this as a key employment site is inconsistent with NPPF para 22. The councils evidence is out of date and should take account of residential developments.
SUPPORT Buckingham Town Council (Mr Christopher Wayman)
It is acknowledged that S1 does include site allocations within neighbourhood plans, in addition E2 is now worded to include "appropriate" allocations within neighbourhood development plans and thus may in fact be seen to be within the Local Plan now.
OBJECT Mr Alan Sherwell
Whist I think that the Council is right to continue with the technical oversupply of employment land to meet shortages elsewhere, I oppose the re-allocation of any of the Gateway site to housing. This is a coherent employment area as is and should not be reduced
OBJECT The Buckingham Society (Carolyn Cumming)
It is not clear whether the 27ha. identified employment land needs meets the OAN of 19,400 dwellings and whether it remains sufficient to meet the additional unmet needs. It is also not clear where the capacity of "over 100ha." is located
Officer Note: changed from support to Object - due to criticism
SUPPORT Stewkley Parish Council (Dr Gill Morgan)
Stewkley Parish Council welcomes the new employment in the Vale as this secures jobs for local people. However SPC notes that AVDC is also absorbing unmet employment land from our neighbouring councils, which will increase commuting traffic on AVDC roads. SPC request that sites identified for employment are located along the major trunk roads and main road networks to protect the rural village roads, and to reduce the impact of inward commuting on local roads and services.
OBJECT Crevichon Properties Ltd represented by Delta Planning (Maria Sheridan)
Objection is raised to the fact that land at Buckingham Road, Winslow has not be allocated for an alternative use. Representations have been submitted through earlier iterations of the Plan explaining that this site should no longer be protected for employment use and should be allocated for an alternative use. Full comments in respect of this site are provided in relation to comments made to para 4.139 of this plan