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-NLV005 Land south of Whaddon Road and west of Lower Road, Newton Longville
OBJECT O&H Properties Ltd. represented by David Lock Associates (Heather Pugh)
O&H does not agree with the single sole allocation for the village of Newton Longville identified in the Proposed Submission Plan (site reference NLV005). This site does not represent the most appropriate growth location for Newton Longville and would fail to deliver the necessary identified infrastructure improvements for the village of Newton Longville which could have been realised as part of a larger, more considered allocation. NLV008 remains available for development, has no deliverability constraints and would deliver already-identified and much-needed infrastructure in line with the Housing White Paper. The allocation of Site D-NLV005 is unsound.
OBJECT Mr Tim Welch
allocation as unsound for environmental reasons. This land was
identified as having ecological value (see the ecological impact assessment under planning application 15/00195/APP) but was subsequently ploughed. I cannot find the reason why this land was ploughed within the public domain. The land should not undergo development and should be given time to recover.
If development were to take place here, a much more suitable compromise may be to mirror the existing development on the north side of Whaddon Road and not extend past the western edge of the existing building line
OBJECT Corbally Group represented by Lone Star Land (Mr Reuben Bellamy)
An ecological assessment undertaken in 2015 found that the site contained species rich grassland that is very uncommon in Aylesbury Vale. An archaeological assessment undertaken in 2014 found the the allocated site contained medieval ridge and furrow. Therefore the allocated site is of ecological value and contains a non-designated heritage asset. It is not the most sustainable site, when all three dimensions of sustainable development are considered. The allocation of the site is not consistent with national policy designed to enhance bio-diversity and will destroy a heritage asset. Alternative sites are available.