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 - S5 Infrastructure

Representation ID: 2549

OBJECT Buckinghamshire County Council (SA Sharp)

Summary:

School place provision - BCC have set out a position statement for education provision across
the district, highlighting where infrastructure proposals for new or expanded schools have been
agreed and included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

More details about Rep ID: 2549

Representation ID: 2470

OBJECT Jackson Planning (Planning Manager

Summary:

The plan completely fails to recognise the on-going work by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) to accommodate
over a million new homes in the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc. There needs to be greater acknowledgement about
the role Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) must play in shaping the future of the city as part of the 2050 spatial vision
and the plan needs a specific policy that deals with how this will be accommodated until 2033 which is the time period for the
plan.

More details about Rep ID: 2470

Representation ID: 2464

OBJECT Mr David Locke

Summary:

Many parts of the link roads forming the proposed orbital route are said to be 'aspirational'. This
means that they are not funded. Who is supposed to be paying for them? Will they ever be built?
Even those parts of the orbital route that are supposedly funded, will be built at different times. The
whole thing will not be opened in one go. What consideration has been given to the effect on traffic
of a partly completed road system?

More details about Rep ID: 2464

Representation ID: 2418

OBJECT Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Mr Jonathan Clover)

Summary:

We have concerns about the adequacy of the IDP (given the very strong concerns
over existing as well as potential infrastructure needs identified by the community),
and make the following bullet points:-

More details about Rep ID: 2418

Representation ID: 2362

OBJECT The Environment Agency (Michelle Kidd)

Summary:

The third paragraph of Policy S5 does not recognise where it may not be feasible to provide the sewage infrastructure in time for development phases. For example where sewer upgrades are planned as part of a water companies Asset Management Plan (AMP) these will be budgeted in advance where lead in time and planned upgrades may not be in-line with the proposed timescales of development.

More details about Rep ID: 2362

Representation ID: 2330

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

Summary:

S5 & Paras 3.36 -3.46

IDP makes reference to both East West Rail and the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. The Consortium considers that both projects would be supported by additional development adjacent to Milton Keynes. The land at South West Milton Keynes (Site Refs. NLV001 and NLV020) is located adjacent to the route of East West Rail and would be adjacent to or provide for the preferred route of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, which in our opinion supports the allocation of both these sites for development to contribute towards the funding of the planned improvements along these transport corridors.

More details about Rep ID: 2330

Representation ID: 2250

OBJECT Mrs Jane Chilman

Summary:

Please also see my comments under 3.15 New Settlement.
The Government supports this scheme, therefore AVDC needs to capitalise on this opportunity and plan for transport, housing etc. that this scheme will bring forward.

More details about Rep ID: 2250

Representation ID: 2249

OBJECT Mrs Jane Chilman

Summary:

Please also see my comments under 3.15 New Settlement.
The VALP does not seem to recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale of Aylesbury. It is a major infrastructure project which should be embraced.

More details about Rep ID: 2249

Representation ID: 2205

OBJECT North Bucks Parishes Planning Consortium (Mr Geoff Culverhouse)

Summary:

All of the strategic locations offer primary care services but with significantly varying levels of provision. Haddenham performs best with a relatively recently built facility. Motor car journey times from the north to the two major hospitals providing specialist care for Aylesbury Vale (Stoke Mandeville and Wycombe General) are double those from Haddenham.

More details about Rep ID: 2205

Representation ID: 2024

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

Summary:

CSP does not object to this policy, however, we note that several of the site-specific allocations in the plan (notably RAF Halton, and the proposed additional allocations at Buckingham, Winslow and Milton Keynes) fail to demonstrate adherence to its objectives, in terms of ensuring adequate planning for future infrastructure needs. In contrast, the infrastructure requirements of CSP's proposed site at Shenley Park are well understood and have been factored into the emerging masterplan and EIA scoping (set out later in this document and in accompanying Appendices).

More details about Rep ID: 2024

Representation ID: 1916

OBJECT Home Builders Federation Ltd (Mr Mark Behrendt)

Summary:

Whilst we support the encouragement of self-build housing through the local plan we consider the requirement for sites of over 100 to provide an unstated number of self-build plots is not justified and inconsistent with national policy. Whilst we recognise that Local Planning Authorities now have a duty to promote self-build housing we do not consider the Council to have looked at sufficient options with regard to how it can provide plots to support self-builders.

More details about Rep ID: 1916

Representation ID: 1915

OBJECT Gallagher Estates Ltd represented by Barton Willmore (Mr Michael Knott)

Summary:

2.18 The delivery of development through
the allocation of land at Eaton Leys could
contribute towards the infrastructure
needs of the area including any obligations
required to mitigate the impact of the
development e.g. off-site improvements to
the highway network.

More details about Rep ID: 1915

Representation ID: 1868

OBJECT Halton Parish Council (Fiona Lippmann)

Summary:

Any direct linkage between Halton and Wendover should be removed from the VALP; notwithstanding regional transport requirements, each village should be separately sustainable and each should have appropriate infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 1868

Representation ID: 1735

OBJECT Persimmon Homes Ltd., and CALA homes Ltd represented by Turley Associates (Mr Christopher Roberts)

Summary:

Proposed Policy S5 (as cross-referenced in Proposed Policy D1) indicates that
development proposals shall provide appropriate on and off-site infrastructure (in
accordance with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan). It is clear from the wording of the
policy and its supporting text, that developer contributions (in the form of Section 106,
Section 278 and Community Infrastructure Levy payments) are envisaged as playing a
major role in funding key infrastructure. Conversely, the draft policy also infers that
where infrastructure contributions render a development unviable, such contributions
may not be sought in full

More details about Rep ID: 1735

Representation ID: 1718

OBJECT Wates Developments Ltd. represented by Boyer Planning Ltd (Jonathan Liberman)

Summary:

The Policy should include reference to the fact that any planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms , directly related to the development, fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development and in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

More details about Rep ID: 1718

Representation ID: 1692

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

Summary:

Whilst the provision of infrastructure is supported along with phasing of provision, the policy should not inhibit development coming forward in different timescales. The Council should acknowledge that on many sites, and in particular areas around Aylesbury, due to different ownerships, land will come forward in an independent manner. This is not unusual at all, but the Council needs to ensure, through either S106 or CIL and via its intended SPD, it has mechanisms in place to coordinate the funding of infrastructure and ensure that independent development sites do not prejudice delivery of wider land parcels.

More details about Rep ID: 1692

Representation ID: 1579

OBJECT Wendover Parish Council (Jane Ellis)

Summary:

In planning terms for a new development, regard should be given to existing deficiencies in services and infrastructure, hence new car parking facilities (or extension of existing parking facilities) and extra health facilities should be provided.

More details about Rep ID: 1579

Representation ID: 1349

OBJECT Gleeson Strategic Land represented by Nexus Planning Ltd (Mr Steven Doel)

Summary:

Object, S5: That development should not be expected to resolve deficiencies in existing infrastructure and that references to the impact on existing communities should refer specifically to an 'unacceptable' impact.

More details about Rep ID: 1349

Representation ID: 1196

OBJECT Newton Longville Parish Council (Mr Mike Galloway)

Summary:

AVDC should adopt all infrastructure before expansion in planning and funding new
development. Infrastructure requirements should be embedded with appropriate level of detail within the Local Plan, so there is a clear policy expectation from the outset of what is to be delivered, when and how it is to be funded. Far more robust policy positions must be in place and not leave infrastructure requirements to a planning application. It cannot and must not be assumed that all infrastructure will be provided by developer contributions. There must be detail of how infrastructure will be funded.

More details about Rep ID: 1196

Representation ID: 1067

OBJECT Mr John Oliver

Summary:

1. Good access needed for commerdal success. Congestion affects everyone.
2. Uncertainty about when anything will be done.
3. Traffiic model is unreliable as a basis fur highway infrastructure planning and design.
4. A41 is a particular problem. Road is too narrow for bus lane and cycle routes.
5. LEPs' policy is to use Eastern & Stocklake Unk Roads to relieve A41, not mitigation measures.
6. Importance of correct design for Woodlands roundabout for effective diversion of A41 traffic.

More details about Rep ID: 1067

Representation ID: 1046

SUPPORT Anglian Water Services Limited (Planning Liaison Manager

Summary:

Reference is made to the need for developments to be phased to ensure the timely provision of infrastructure. We support this requirement as it is important that development is phased to ensure that it is aligned with water and water recycling infrastructure which is required to serve the new development.

More details about Rep ID: 1046

Representation ID: 845

SUPPORT The Canal & River Trust (Jane Hennell)

Summary:

The Council and Buckinghamshire County Council are well aware of the issues surrounding developer funding for the towpath improvement work on the Aylesbury Arm. Whilst existing commitments should finish the section from College Road North into the town centre there is less certainty for funding for the remainder of the Aylesbury Arm or for the other two legs of the Grand Union Triangle. We would wish to be assured that the proposed changes to the CIL and developer contributions regime will not result in this important multi functional Green Infrastructure project not coming to fruition.

More details about Rep ID: 845

Representation ID: 836

SUPPORT The Canal & River Trust (Jane Hennell)

Summary:

The Canal & River Trust fully support this policy and we recognise and thank the Council for it continuing support of the give to improving the Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal as multi functional infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 836

Representation ID: 788

OBJECT Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose) represented by Define (on behalf of Bovis Homes) (Mr Mark Rose)

Summary:

Bovis Homes object to Policy S5, which is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- has not been positively prepared as it is not based on a strategy that will ensure that the objectively assessed housing needs will be met within the plan period;
- is not effective in ensuring that sustainable development can be delivered in the Plan Period; and
- is inconsistent with national policy in that it does not fully reflect the Government's priorities and policies in terms of enabling sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 788

Representation ID: 757

SUPPORT Peter Brett Associates LLP (Mr Tim Coleby)

Summary:

Policy S5 'Infrastructure': BA supports, although suggests there should be specific mention here of the outer orbital route being a key infrastructure element - this is referred to elsewhere in the VALP and for consistency should be added here.

More details about Rep ID: 757

Representation ID: 685

OBJECT Whaddon Parish Council (Ms Suzanne Lindsey)

Summary:

Whaddon PC are very concerned about the provision of new infrastructure and the improvement of existing infrastructure , especially in the rural areas that are often impacted the most by major development, because little if anything has been done to upgrade existing roads etc for many years and are unable to cope with both the amount of traffic and the increase in 'short-cutting' HGV's etc.

More details about Rep ID: 685

Representation ID: 641

OBJECT J & J Design (Mr John Shephard)

Summary:

The policy is unsound and incompatible with NPPF paragraph 204 in that the Council are seeking to have regard to existing deficiencies in services and infrastructure provision, whereas NPPF paragraph 204 indicates that planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the relevant tests.

More details about Rep ID: 641

Representation ID: 592

OBJECT The Buckingham Society (Carolyn Cumming)

Summary:

Policy S5 seeks to ensure that ALL new development must provide appropriate on and off-site infrastructure in order to avoid placing additional burden on the existing community. BUT who is to assess what is "appropriate" and who is to assess what is meant by "on site" and "off site" infrastructure. As it is bound to vary within each settlement large and small, it should be co-ordinated with the parish councils, civic societies, residents' associations and use LOCAL KNOWLEDGE to deliver the assessments.

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

More details about Rep ID: 592

Representation ID: 455

SUPPORT Thames Water (Sir/ Madam )

Summary:

Thames Water support proposed Policy S5 on Infrastructure and its supporting text.

More details about Rep ID: 455

Representation ID: 297

SUPPORT Mr John Currell

Summary:

Strongly support - developers must not be allowed to avoid or under provide for necessary infrastructure.

More details about Rep ID: 297

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

Powered by OpusConsult