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 - 4.30

Representation ID: 649

OBJECT Mr Michael Donnachie represented by Smith Jenkins (Mr Samuel Dix)


In summary our client does not consider the draft submission plan is sound as it has not been properly justified. In respect of site SMD017 the HELAA assessment is unsubstantiated and misleading. A proper consideration would indicate the site is suitable for development and should either be allocated or held in reserve for a possible future plan period, pending a review of VALP.

More details about Rep ID: 649

Representation ID: 610

SUPPORT Mr Trevor Toms


The proposals for South Aylesbury effectively annexes Stoke Mandeville into the main town of Aylesbury with no true green field space.
This contravenes the overriding Policy S1.e.

More details about Rep ID: 610

Representation ID: 355

OBJECT Mr Phil Yerby


There is too great an allocation to the South of Aylesbury. The jobs are no more than allocations on map which AVDC have a particularly bad track record of delivering. This is obviously because Aylesbury is no more than a dormitory town for London, Milton Keynes and Oxford commuters. They plan will lead to more local traffic in the peak times as people commute out of the town. The placement of large housing development which do not have sufficient public transport links which ensure very high car car usage and exacerbate the problem.

officer note: reassigned from S2 to 4.30

More details about Rep ID: 355

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

Powered by OpusConsult