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 - 3.80
OBJECT Jackson Planning (Planning Manager
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
OBJECT South West Milton Keynes Consortium represented by Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium (Mr Brian Flynn)
(Ref: APP/J0405/V/16/3151297) and Aylesbury Road, Wendover (Ref: APP/J0405/W/16/3158833)
In the latter, the Inspector considered in detail the record of housing delivery in the District, concluding that there was evidence of persistent under delivery and that a 20% buffer was necessary. There is consequently a need to ensure that PSVALP allocates a variety of deliverable sites in sustainable locations to ensure that the planned increase in housing delivery is achieved. This must prioritise sites that are controlled by developers and housebuilders.
OBJECT CALA Homes represented by Pegasus Group (Ms Laura Humphries)
The VALP should include a 20% buffer due to the record of persistent under delivery.
OBJECT Amarillo Ltd & Scandale Ltd represented by Planning Prospects (Mr Chris Dodds)
Paragraph 3.80 acknowledge that achieving the level of housing delivery set out in the VALP is ambitious and will be a significant increase on past rates. With this in mind, we consider it necessary to identify additional allocations to provide a greater buffer and provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that the homes required in Aylesbury Vale are delivered in the Plan period.
OBJECT Persimmon Homes Ltd., and CALA homes Ltd represented by Turley Associates (Mr Christopher Roberts)
We raise a number of concerns in relation to the approach described above. Firstly, at
paragraph 3.80 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan, it is indicated that the Council
seeks to apply a 5 per cent buffer to address the NPPF's requirement to provide
flexibility and choice in the market.
However, we consider this to be surprising in view of recent appeal decisions which
confirm that Aylesbury Vale has suffered from persistent under delivery, such that the
Framework requires that a 20 per cent buffer be applied.
OBJECT The Fingask Association represented by Rural Solutions (Ms Kate Girling)
Paragraph 3.80 establishes how it intends to deliver housing in the Plan period. It states that this will be achieved through the delivery of two major developments in Berryfields and Kingsbrook along with various medium and small sites in the short term.
We consider that the plan is not positively prepared, effective or consistent with national policy as it fails to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for the market as set out in paragraph 47 of the NPPF, and would not meet the requirements of paragraph 49 of the NPPF
OBJECT Weston Mead Farm Limited represented by Nexus Planning Ltd (Mr Oliver Bell)
Our representations to Policy S2 detail that the Council's OAN is demonstrably too low. If this figure is accepted, the five-year housing requirement will significantly increase, and a 20% buffer will need to be applied for persistent under delivery, all of which will result in the VALP clearly failing to identify a five-year housing land supply, contrary to paragraphs 47 and 182 of the Framework.
OBJECT Bloor Homes (Emily Hale)
We question what provisions the Council is making to, firstly, ensure delivery of
already committed sites, but secondly, ensure that delivery rates are 'significantly
increased', particularly given the number of applications which have failed to be
determined by the Council or have been refused.
We challenge that the Plan should ensure that allocated sites are deliverable within
the expected time period, and that enough sites should be allocated to deliver
housing provision to ensure need is more than met.