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 - 4.158

Representation ID: 2130

SUPPORT Historic England (Mr Martin Small)

Summary:

we welcome the reference to the historic buildings in the core of Maids Moreton in paragraph 4.158 as part of the positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of, and the clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by paragraphs 126 and 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

More details about Rep ID: 2130

Representation ID: 2041

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: 2041

Representation ID: 1488

OBJECT The Fingask Association represented by Rural Solutions (Ms Kate Girling)

Summary:

As drafted at present we consider the allocation of the land at Walnut Drive is not positively prepared. As well as the impact on the landscape, the delivery of a number of smaller sites will offer a much more sensitive pattern of development for the village of Maids Moreton rather than one large allocation. Organic growth of village will be more sympathetic and in keeping with the local character of the village. The policy is not justified as there are alternative sites capable of delivering dwellings to meet the need of Maids Moreton.

More details about Rep ID: 1488

Representation ID: 865

OBJECT Mrs Kelly Ingle

Summary:

- I object to the scale of the development because it proposes a 61% increase in the village population, way above the average of 14% for all 'medium' villages. Therefore, the development would overwhelm the village both physically and in terms of community life.
- I object because village could not cope with the increased traffic - entry and exit roads for the village are already used as rat runs for neighbouring developments, and roads are narrow (Mill Lane) or full of parked cars (Main St, South Hall) making them dangerous.

More details about Rep ID: 865

Representation ID: 817

OBJECT Mrs Jacinth Appadurai

Summary:

I would like to object for the following reasons:

1)Incorrect classification as medium village and therefore increasing the population of the village by 60% (whereas the national average of population increase due to plan is 14%) is unfair and will destroy the feeling of a village community.
2)There is no road infrastructure and it is a safety issue for the infant school children who have to walk to school due to narrow roads.
3)Current homeolders will loose the parking space as the village main street is very narrow.
4) Will destroy the environment, visual aspect and distinct identity of Maidsmoreton.

More details about Rep ID: 817

Representation ID: 814

OBJECT Mr Immanuel Ashokaraj

Summary:

I object for the following reasons:

1)Increasing the population of maidsmoreton by 60% based on incorrect classification as medium village.
2)There is no employment in Maidsmoreton and so will become a commuter village &destroy the feeling of village community .
3)Will worsen existing traffic problem (i.e. only one lane is useable in the village main road)
4)Is a safety issue for school children when going to school due to increased traffic in narrow roads and insufficient street lighting.
5)Road to buckingham is a bottle neck &the other serpentine road is a safety hazard with accidents every day especially in winter.

More details about Rep ID: 814

Representation ID: 782

OBJECT Mr & Mrs David & Sheila Goodger

Summary:

The proposal to increase Maids Moreton on this scale is grossly unfair.
Does not have the infrastructure.
Existing traffic problems would only be worsened.
Proposal to road system would be hazardous & also cause hardship to existing small business & to householders.
Better suited sites in the area.
More appropriate site for Maids Moreton is Towcester Road.
Question that Maids Moreton is a small village & not a medium village.
Plan should be withdrawn.

More details about Rep ID: 782

Representation ID: 559

OBJECT Mr Mark Ballantyne

Summary:

This idea will cause too much traffic in a small village and increase risk to pedestrians on either side of the main thoroughfare.

You allow 5 cars to park at bottom of the hill (Buckingham approach) that already causes problems.

The facilities and infrastructure in Maids Moreton do not allow any more builds.

Maids Moreton needs to remain as-is

More details about Rep ID: 559

Representation ID: 537

OBJECT Miss Shirley Webb

Summary:

Overall, this proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 537

Representation ID: 524

OBJECT Mr Andy Hodgson

Summary:

I object to the recently published VALP as it proposes a 61% increase in population when the average growth for a medium village is 14%. Maids Moreton should be categorised as a small village as it achieves only 4 /6 characteristics. This is a patently unrealistic growth for Maids Moreton and will have a serious adverse impact on the village and its inhabitants.
It will further destroy the specific feeling of a village community and the distinct identity of Maids Moreton.
It will exacerbate already dangerous traffic problems.
The proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 524

Representation ID: 523

OBJECT Mrs Clare Krajnyk

Summary:

I object to the recently published VALP as it proposes a 61% increase in population when the average growth for a medium village is 14%.
Maids Moreton should be categorised as a small village as it achieves only 4 /6 characteristics.
This is a patently unrealistic growth for Maids Moreton and will have a serious adverse impact on the village and its inhabitants.
It will destroy the specific feeling of a village community and the distinct identity of Maids Moreton.
It will exacerbate already dangerous traffic problems.
The proposal does not meet the widely accepted definition of sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 523

Representation ID: 502

OBJECT Mr Peter Leyland

Summary:

To: the destruction of the natural environment and reduction of open spaces; the loss of pasture and farmland; the destruction of village community feeling and the identity of Maids Moreton; the increase in existing traffic problems. We find that overall the proposal does not meet the requirements of sustainable development.

More details about Rep ID: 502

Representation ID: 497

OBJECT Mr Anthony Wilcox

Summary:

I am concerned that the introduction of more homes could impact the life that my family and I are building. I believe that the village will be unable to cope with the increase in traffic among other things.

More details about Rep ID: 497

Representation ID: 444

OBJECT Ms Janet Rosemary Hawkins

Summary:

I disagree the main centre of the village is around the church, away from the development. I believe it is around the village hall, the Wheatsheaf and the small industrial units around Vitalograph. The proposed entrance to the site is in the same location. This is a busy and vibrant area and is the core of village life. The proposed entrance/exit onto an already very busy Main Street is ill conceived and the land is not suitable for development as it is prime farming land.

More details about Rep ID: 444

Representation ID: 408

OBJECT Mrs Carolyn Roberts

Summary:

I object to the proposal to build 170 houses in Maids Moreton, making it more than half as large again.
- The village would be sacrificed in order to accommodate housing requirements identified for South Buckinghamshire.
- It borders open countryside and farmland - (not brownfield land) which would be destroyed under the new proposals, at a loss to the natural environment.
- Traffic problems are already untenable with access to the A421 and travel along it during peak periods seeing traffic at a standstill. This could only get worse.

More details about Rep ID: 408

Representation ID: 346

OBJECT Mr Russell Tobin

Summary:

I object to this development because:
1. Traffic problems: no work here so more cars travelling and more pollution.
2. The village has insufficient parking space.
3. Main street is a bus route.
4. Walnut Drive would be a bottleneck; Foscote Road is too narrow and broken in places.
5. The farmland will be lost for ever.

More details about Rep ID: 346

Representation ID: 245

OBJECT Mr Max Nagy

Summary:

61% increase on the population of the village will be its death. There are no jobs in the area so all of these people will be commuting out of the village to Milton Keynes or the south of the county and the infrastructure is already creaking.

More details about Rep ID: 245

Representation ID: 244

OBJECT Mr Daniel Nagy

Summary:

Too many houses for a small village: 61% increase on the population will more than double the size of the village when the existing infrastructure is already creaking. The rest of the counties villages have an average increase of 14% so this is incredibly disproportionate especially with the work is not in this area.

More details about Rep ID: 244

Representation ID: 243

OBJECT Ms Vanessa Nagy

Summary:

A 61% increase in the village population will be the death of the village, it will become a dormitory of Buckingham.
The road infrastructure is creaking already with the new houses on Moreton Road.
There are no jobs or employment opportunities in the vicinity with work being south of county and Milton Keynes.

More details about Rep ID: 243

Representation ID: 242

OBJECT Mrs Jane Harman

Summary:

I object to the VALP Proposal to increase the population of Maids Moreton by 61%.
I object as the proposed VALP will destroy the natural environment and reduce open vistas.
I object as the proposed VALP intends to build on pasture & farmland, not brownfield sites.
I object as the proposed VALP will destroy the specific feeling of a village community.
I object as the proposed VALP as it will increase demand for medical/social services that are already overstretched.
I object as the proposed VALP will compromise the clearly defined boundary and individual character of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 242

Representation ID: 231

OBJECT Dr Audrey Coatesworth

Summary:

I object on the following grounds :-
1) Little employment in and around Maids Moreton. Hence MM will be used simply as a convenience for MK and also, with MK or Bicester rail links, to southern areas and will become a dormitory village.
2) Using pasture and farmland - not a brown fill site
3) Traffic is already a continual problem with existing population in MM - this will worsen dramatically as exit/entry roads can not be widened at critical points.
4)Increase in demand for medical services and school places - these are already overstretched.

More details about Rep ID: 231

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

Powered by OpusConsult