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 - S4 Green Belt

Representation ID: 2591

OBJECT Natural England (Ms Kirsty Macpherson)


This policy offers an opportunity to
address NPPF Para 117 and
mitigate for any losses to
biodiversity i.e. NPPF Para 109.

More details about Rep ID: 2591

Representation ID: 2417

SUPPORT Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Mr Jonathan Clover)


We agree the general principles.

More details about Rep ID: 2417

Representation ID: 2334

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


The proposal to include threshold increases does not align with the approach to Green Belt openness as explained in John Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, East Dorset Council [2016] EWCA Civ 466 - see attached. As made clear in the judgment, the question of impact on the openness of the Green Belt is not restricted to a volumetric approach and has a visual dimension to it.

d) departs from the NPPF, paragraph 89, e.g. the 4th bullet point does allow for the replacement of a building subject to certain caveats, these are not suitably reflecte

More details about Rep ID: 2334

Representation ID: 2269

SUPPORT DIO represented by Jones Lang LaSalle (Mr Tim Byrne)


As set out above part of the site has limited value in terms of the role and function of the Green Belt. AVDC should continue to remove part of RAF Halton from the Green Belt as it is built up and has an urbanising effect within the Green Belt. It is the right time in the planning process to promote the redevelopment of the site and a Local Plan review would be too late in the process.

More details about Rep ID: 2269

Representation ID: 2023

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


the Council is seeking to circumvent the need to make out an exceptional circumstances case for bringing forward a Green Belt site as an allocation. The VALP should have encompassed a proper and robust Green Belt assessment to consider the allocation (or otherwise) of RAF Halton. Since it has not done so, the only acceptable way forward is for the allocation of RAF Halton to be removed from the VALP as a formal allocation and noted only as a potential future mixed-use site, pending the Plan's 'early review'.

More details about Rep ID: 2023

Representation ID: 2018

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


VALP allocates RAF Halton (a Green Belt site), the correct (and sound) approach would be to justify any redevelopment of that site via exceptional circumstances, and hence to remove the appropriate areas of land from the Green Belt. It has been acknowledged by AVDC that there is not the evidence base to justify the allocation / amendment of Green Belt boundaries at this time. Thus, the allocation is premature, and the proper approach, as advocated by the NPPF, is to consider major development in the Green Belt only in 'exceptional circumstances'.

More details about Rep ID: 2018

Representation ID: 1905

SUPPORT Central Bedfordshire Council (Ms. Sally Hicks)


We fully support the conclusions of the Council with regards to Green Belt, and in particular welcome the extension of the Green Belt West of Linslade in order to provide a comprehensive approach to Green Belt policy.

More details about Rep ID: 1905

Representation ID: 1870

OBJECT Halton Parish Council (Fiona Lippmann)


Remove all references to lifting of Green Belt or other protected status on land within Halton.

More details about Rep ID: 1870

Representation ID: 1836

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


The Council have failed to demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' to justify inclusion of the sites west of Leighton-Linslade, particularly given the justification to 'balance the loss of the Green Belt in other areas' despite the VALP abandoning proposals to remove Green Belt land at Wendover. The flawed assessment relies on an out of date and withdrawn policy context and it is clear from the planning history that normal development management policies have been adequate in protecting the site from development. Furthermore it is considered that sites which perform equally or more strongly than these sites should be considered preferable.

More details about Rep ID: 1836

Representation ID: 1691

OBJECT Richborough Estates represented by RPS Planning & Development (Mr Cameron Austin-Fell)


It is noted that some 800 dwellings are proposed to be placed in land which is currently occupied by the Green Belt. Given the Spatial Vision (Criterion a) is to 'strongly protect the Green Belt', RPS would suggest there exists the potential for conflict within the Plan.

Given this potential conflict RPS would suggest the Council give greater consideration to the positive allocation of additional land on land outside the Green Belt in settlements in the south of the District, including Haddenham

More details about Rep ID: 1691

Representation ID: 1271

OBJECT Arnold White Estates (Bob Williams) represented by Gardner Planning Ltd (Mr Geoff Gardner)


The text at para 3.31 and 3.33 is supported, but S4 needs to refer to a change of Green
Belt boundary.

More details about Rep ID: 1271

Representation ID: 1259

OBJECT Chiltern Society (Mr Colin Blundel)


We consider that the RAF Halton site should remain within the Green Belt in the long term and that any development should not reduce the openness of the Green Belt. The plan should remove the reference to removing the site from the Green Belt in the future.
We support the proposal to prepare a Masterplan to design a high quality scheme with landscaping and green infrastructure to avoid detrimental impacts on the setting of the Chilterns AONB.

More details about Rep ID: 1259

Representation ID: 1195

OBJECT Newton Longville Parish Council (Mr Mike Galloway)


The review carried out for the four Buckinghamshire districts was not robust or thorough. The housing density should be consistent. Assess the contribution Green Belt sites make to the Green Belts purposes and identify the exceptional circumstances needed to release Green Belt land. Give more consideration to the issue of the lack of suitable sites as being exceptional circumstances which justify the release of some Green Belt land. Green Belt within southern Aylesbury Vale could meet housing need around Aylesbury. Consider a new Green Belt in northern Aylesbury Vale on the Milton Keynes boundaries. Consider a Strategic Green Gaps policy.

More details about Rep ID: 1195

Representation ID: 1108

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


Green Belt Assessment Part 2 - RAF Halton (July 2016)

do not consider conclusions of assessment to be sound. a site already previously developed is not in itself justification for its removal from Green Belt. It is the contribution towards openness that the site makes that should be assessed. The assessment undertake suggests the site contains substantial built-form. This is disputed, whilst a number of the buildings are substantial in their own right (up to three storeys in height) they are concentrated in a small part of the site and are listed. Their setting is protected by the surrounding openness.

More details about Rep ID: 1108

Representation ID: 684

SUPPORT Whaddon Parish Council (Ms Suzanne Lindsey)


WPC Support.

More details about Rep ID: 684

Representation ID: 632

OBJECT Mr Andrew Docherty


The 25-30% extension/replacement building guideline should be expressed as excluding, or after, permitted development rights, which do not require express planning permission.

More details about Rep ID: 632

Representation ID: 552

SUPPORT Chiltern Society (Mr Colin Blundel)


We strongly support the inclusion of a specific policy in relation to the Green Belt, which is consistent with national policies in paragraphs 79 - 91 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In particular, it is important to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and fulfil the 5 purposes for including land within it.

More details about Rep ID: 552

Representation ID: 515

OBJECT Mrs Roz Green


I am concerned about the word 'inappropriate' in the statement 'The Green Belt will be strongly defined and protected from 'inappropriate' development'. It is ambiguous and can be interpreted to give a desired answer. The Green Belt should be protected without any alteration to its boundaries.

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

More details about Rep ID: 515

Representation ID: 124

OBJECT Penny Miles


I do not feel that the removal of the Green Belt restrictions from RAF Halton adheres to the national guidelines relating to removal of this status

More details about Rep ID: 124

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

Powered by OpusConsult