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 - 1.19

Representation ID: 2651

OBJECT FCC Environment represented by Sirius Yorkshire (Joanna Berlyn)


It is questioned whether any 'further detailed work' was undertaken in order to consider the options associated with a greater dispersal of growth; options which would be supported by policy set out in the NPPF and thus should have been considered 'reasonable alternatives' warranting further examination. Whilst it is stated that a dispersed growth strategy will be considered in further detail for potential to be a 'reasonable alternative', it appears that this further analysis was not undertaken and consideration was not given to the strategic context of enabling development at smaller villages to facilitate and enhance sustainable communities.

More details about Rep ID: 2651

Representation ID: 2332

OBJECT South West Milton Keynes Consortium represented by Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium (Mr Brian Flynn)


The SA should reassess NLV001 in combination with NLV020 with specific reference to the planning application for SWMK Phase 1 and the emerging evidence base reports for SWMK Phase 2 that accompany the Consortium's representations.

More details about Rep ID: 2332

Representation ID: 1873

OBJECT GRE Assets represented by Lichfields (Mr. Myles Smith)


The assessment and reasonable alternatives set out in the SA Technical Annex for Aston Clinton in support of the SA , is underpinned by a point in time assessment of need s, does not consider how population and new development within the district (including the provision of new schools) may affect the District needs and provision, and does not consider a smaller scale growth alternative for Aston Clinton. As such, the VALPs proposed spatial strategy, set out in Policy S2 has not been informed by robust evidence or an objective view on the reasonable alternatives, and is therefore not justified.

More details about Rep ID: 1873

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

Powered by OpusConsult