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 - D-WIN001 Land to east of B4033, Great Horwood Road

Representation ID: 2683

OBJECT Amarillo Ltd & Scandale Ltd represented by Planning Prospects (Mr Chris Dodds)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2683

Representation ID: 2600

OBJECT Natural England (Ms Kirsty Macpherson)

Summary:

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
strategic GI.

More details about Rep ID: 2600

Representation ID: 2461

OBJECT Samuel White

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2461

Representation ID: 2040

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

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2040

Representation ID: 2039

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

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 2039

Representation ID: 1749

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

Summary:

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
risk.

More details about Rep ID: 1749

Representation ID: 1416

OBJECT Winslow Town Council (Dr Sean Carolan)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1416

Representation ID: 1242

OBJECT NHS (Helen Delaitre)

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 1242

Representation ID: 1168

OBJECT Sir/ Madam

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1168

Representation ID: 1166

OBJECT Gillian Mather

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1166

Representation ID: 1165

OBJECT Samantha Harris

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1165

Representation ID: 1164

OBJECT John Mather

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1164

Representation ID: 1162

OBJECT B Wells

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1162

Representation ID: 1006

OBJECT Land and Partners Limited (Mr Jonathan Harbottle)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 1006

Representation ID: 692

OBJECT Mr Alan Sherwell

Summary:

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

More details about Rep ID: 692

Representation ID: 657

OBJECT Great Horwood Parish Council (Mrs Mary Saunders)

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 657

Representation ID: 192

OBJECT Ms Tamara Butterworth

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 192

Representation ID: 129

OBJECT Mr Victor Otter represented by Mr Victor Otter

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 129

Representation ID: 127

OBJECT Yes 4 Winslow represented by Mr Victor Otter

Summary:

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.

More details about Rep ID: 127

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

Powered by OpusConsult