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.
OBJECT Amarillo Ltd & Scandale Ltd represented by Planning Prospects (Mr Chris Dodds)
We support allocation WIN001 but consider the accompanying site criteria to be unnecessarily restrictive and should be reviewed to ensure the development potential of WIN001 is maximized. We are particularly concerned that WIN001 does not restrict potential future development to the north of WIN001 which we consider is the most sustainable and deliverable New Settlement option for Aylesbury Vale and should be allocated in the VALP now to ensure delivery of the homes required in the District during the Plan period.
As currently drafted the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan will not deliver the homes required in the District and has not considered fully all of the reasonable alternative options available to the District.
OBJECT Natural England (Ms Kirsty Macpherson)
Section of these sites contain BMV
land. In order to preserve as much
BMV land as possible and use
areas of poorer quality agricultural
land these areas should the focus of
OBJECT Samuel White
opposition to the Local Plan as part of the Regulation 19 consultation as I do not believe it is positively prepared in relation to site WIN001. This is because the allocation of the site goes against the wishes of local people as expressed in our 201 4 Neighbourhood Plan.
I would also like further explanation as to how the Council justified its decision to remove the large site near Milton Keynes from its plan, when this allocation could have made our one unnecessary.
OBJECT Crest Strategic Projects represented by Savills Southampton (Mr Jon Gateley)
Option 5 is therefore clearly identified in the SA as the worst-performing of the alternatives at Maids Moreton, and yet despite this, is selected to be taken forward into the VALP. In effect, then, the only justification for the selected site relates to the provision of housing per se. However, with the redistribution of housing across the plan, particularly towards Milton Keynes, the same level of development can be achieved without the adverse effects identified in the Council's own SA.
OBJECT Crest Strategic Projects represented by Savills Southampton (Mr Jon Gateley)
The allocation of a further site at Winslow is therefore unnecessary at this stage. A more effective strategy, proposed by CSP, is to defer the allocation of further sites at Winslow until the intended review cycle within the existing NDP. There is sufficient time for this to take place, and bring land forward for development before the mid-2020s potential opening of the railway line.
OBJECT Persimmon Homes Ltd., and CALA homes Ltd represented by Turley Associates (Mr Christopher Roberts)
No planning application has been submitted on this site and therefore it appears
doubtful that 50 dwellings will be delivered before 2022. The policy pertaining to this
proposed allocation suggests that there is also a requirement to deliver highways
improvements and a need to account for climate change impacts when assessing flood
OBJECT Winslow Town Council (Dr Sean Carolan)
A report to AVDC's Scrutiny Committee for VALP in September 2017 said that: the Council has worked with town and parish councils to identify sites which can be allocated through revisions to their neighbourhood plans. Winslow is not alone in being able to confirm that no such consultation took place. If the process has been simply to establish a suitable site for housing growth and use its capacity as the level of housing growth to be proposed for a community, then this process would appear to be fundamentally unsound.
OBJECT NHS (Helen Delaitre)
a new build surgery will be required in the future to cope with future expansion. For some time the people of Winslow and their representatives on the Council and the practice's patient participation group have called for a new purpose built health centre. Not only would this give the practice scope to manage current demand, they would be able to cope with future population expansion and deliver more services in the primary care setting.
Delivery will be subject to the availability of funding and developer contributions
OBJECT Sir/ Madam
objection towards the development of site WIN001 which is proposed in the Local Plan.
The decision to allocate this housing is completely premature, as the reopening of Winslow railway station has no firm date. Without it, the site will be unsuitable, so the site should not be included until firm plans are known.
I do appreciate that there is a need for housing, but I believe the Council should consider putting it near Milton Keynes, which already has the infrastructure to support new developments.
OBJECT Gillian Mather
I am writing to you to express my concern for the Great Horwood Road site in Winslow, which the Council plans to build 585 houses on in the local plan. This proposal goes against the idea of localism, as it is not in our adopted neighbourhood plan, and also therefore against government planning policy.
OBJECT Samantha Harris
Winslow should not receive allocation WIN001 in the VALP, the town has already had growth in a neighbourhood plan. WIN001 would have an overbearing impact on the town's infrastructure. Instead more housing should be allocated to south of Milton Keynes.
OBJECT John Mather
I am writing in opposition to the allocation on Great Horwood Road, Winslow, in the VALP. The site is not in the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan, but will come forward at the same tiem as sites which are, meaning there will be a rush of development in the near future.
OBJECT B Wells
allocation reference number WIN001. I object to this allocation as I do not think it is sustainable to agree a new development in Winslow until the details for the reopening of the railway station have been agreed.
Finally, the Council seems to be ignoring the fact that many local people work in Milton Keynes. I cannot see evidence to support the Council's decision not to allocate more housing in that part of the district, which is concerning as it could prevent increases in traffic congestion during busy times.
OBJECT Land and Partners Limited (Mr Jonathan Harbottle)
Land and Partners support the allocation of this site however we consider amendments to the
detailed policy criteria E, F and H to be necessary as detailed below.
OBJECT Mr Alan Sherwell
I do not object to the eventual development of this site but, currently, the traffic through the centre of Winslow is dire at busy times and should not be made worse by local building. In the absence of a relief road or the promised reopening of the east-west railway and the new Winslow station, this development should be put on hold
OBJECT Great Horwood Parish Council (Mrs Mary Saunders)
GHPC is concerned about the proposed additional 585 houses at Winslow (D-WIN001 Land to east of B4033, Great Horwood Road) referred to at paragraph 4.124. This is firstly because of the lack of infrastructure in the area and in particular road capacity whether travelling to Aylesbury, or, as is more likely, to Milton Keynes. Secondly GHPC is concerned about the process used for selecting this site and the lack of consultation with Winslow Town Council about a site outside the made Winslow Neighbourhood Plan.
OBJECT Ms Tamara Butterworth
1. Roads cannot accommodate extra homes/cars.
2. GP services at breaking point.
3. No provision/plans for extra/new recreational facilities.
4. Current bus service unreliable.
OBJECT Mr Victor Otter represented by Mr Victor Otter
Section 1.3 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) "sets out the long-term vision and strategic context for managing and accommodating growth within the district until 2033." To my mind, the allocation of specific sites for housing (paragraphs 4.120 and 4.121) is a tactical, rather than strategic, matter, so is inappropriate in a strategic document such as VALP. It makes no attempt (in paragraph 4.140) to work with the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan.
Consequently, as an ordinary resident, it is unclear to me whether or not the DPD is legally compliant or complies with the duty to co-operate.
OBJECT Yes 4 Winslow represented by Mr Victor Otter
Where "made" Neighbourhood Plans (NPs) are part of the development plan, the allocation of sites for housing should be determined by local residents through the mechanism of their NP.
The Local Plan (LP) should not impose such sites - there should be a greater degree of partnership/co-operation between LP and NP.
A specific example of this is in the site allocation for Winslow at para 4.140. But the general site allocation policies at 4.120 and 4.121 are inappropriate in an LP.