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 - 3.32

Representation ID: 1577

SUPPORT Wendover Parish Council (Jane Ellis)

Summary:

The WPC fully endorses the removal of the site for 800 dwellings from the Plan as it involved using Green Belt land.

The WPC welcomes the decision to leave the Green Belt status of Land around Wendover unchanged. Access to unspoiled and undeveloped countryside draws visitors to the Wendover area and enhances the quality of life for our residents.

More details about Rep ID: 1577

Representation ID: 1395

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: 1395

Representation ID: 898

SUPPORT Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Board (Dr Lucy Murfett)

Summary:

The Chilterns Conservation Board supports the Council's decision to drop the greenfield site north of Wendover, this was also in the setting of the Chilterns AONB. RAF Halton is a better option. Both together would have a negative cumulative effect.

More details about Rep ID: 898

Representation ID: 683

SUPPORT Whaddon Parish Council (Ms Suzanne Lindsey)

Summary:

WPC not only wish the Inspector to understand our support for the RAF Halton site, but also our reasons as to why this general location must also be considered in the future - and not automatically excluded.

More details about Rep ID: 683

Representation ID: 516

OBJECT Mrs Roz Green

Summary:

I do not agree with any redefinition of the Green Belt boundaries. The purpose of the Green Belt is and has always been, to protect the countryside and the defining areas between villages and small towns. This protection is of paramount importance and is still needed. The boundaries should never be changed.

Officer Note: changed from support to Object - due to criticism

More details about Rep ID: 516

Representation ID: 504

OBJECT Mrs Nicky Gregory

Summary:

I do not agree with any redefinition of the Green Belt boundaries. The Green Belt was original brought into being to protect the countryside and definition of villages and small towns. This protection is still needed and for this reason the boundaries should not be changed.

More details about Rep ID: 504

Representation ID: 159

SUPPORT Mrs Sheila Bulpett

Summary:

I fully endorse the removal of the site for 800 dwellings from the Plan as it involved using Green Belt land.

More details about Rep ID: 159

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

Powered by OpusConsult