VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-07-12-00204

VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-07-12-00204 Respondent Name Kate Wright Comment Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The Draft Plan states that 'The site has only recently, in 2016, been granted temporary permission for pitches The inspector concluded that the development would have a significant adverse visual appearance and materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area The site is not readily accessible to local amenities given its rural location.' It has been concluded that this will not be one of the sites which is considered for permanent occupation This statement should be redrafted to include the following: This temporary site is planned for closure at the end of the existing term ie 09 Feb 2019, or earlier, when the new VALP is in place VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton VALP16-07-22-00213 Geoff Pearman Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The sites identified are not in line with the Neighbourhood Plan and as such are not supported by the local community Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - I wish to be assured that the Gypsy Travellers site ( ref GT8 ) will continue to be designated as temporary and as such will be forced close after three years i.e by early 2019 It is a far from ideal site and totally unsustainable for human habitation Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-07-22-00216 Respondent Name Joanna Male (Gregory Gray Associates) Comment Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Gregory Gray Associates is instructed to write on behalf of Wyevale Garden Centres Ltd owners of Worlds End Garden Centre, Aylesbury Road, Wendover, HP22 6BD The garden centre occupies a site which extends a total of 4.84ha and which is located to the north of the settlement of Wendover as shown on the attached site plan A significant part of the site comprises previously developed land, and whilst it is located beyond any current settlement boundary, it is not subject to the Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations that constrain nearby sites The spatial vision for the Local Plan seeks to achieve an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth based on an established settlement hierarchy By concentrating the majority of new development at the most sustainable settlements, it is recognized that the need to travel can be minimized, and the delivery of facilities and services can be achieved efficiently My client considers that this stated approach is entirely compliant with the principles for sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, however does not consider that the proposed housing allocations provide the most appropriate means of implementing this vision in light of two other key tenets of national policy, namely the effective use of previously developed land and the permanence of the Green Belt Policy S2 Spatial Strategy for Growth indicates that strategic growth and investment will be concentrated in sustainable locations and that Wendover will be expected to accommodate housing growth of 25% Table indicates that such an increase on the existing housing stock in Wendover amounts to 834 dwellings, of which sites for 722 units still need to be identified as the HELAA failed to identify any suitable sites However, Policy D4 confirms that the housing requirement for Wendover will potentially be met by a site for 800 homes subject to it being found suitable for release from the Green Belt The site in question is known as RSA-2 It extends 45ha and comprises an undeveloped ‘green field’ site located within the Green Belt The NPPF makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in ‘exceptional circumstances’ (para 83) The Aylesbury Vale Green Belt Assessment Part concludes in relation to site RSA-2 that “Exceptional circumstances are likely to be justified if there is a large amount of outstanding housing need that cannot be met on land outside of the Green Belt” however it recognizes that the quantum of housing need has yet to be finalized and that “Consideration will need to be given to whether there are alternative sites outside of the Green Belt to meet this housing figure although the latest HELAA is showing this as being unlikely….” Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-07-22-00216 Respondent Name Joanna Male (Gregory Gray Associates) Comment My client disputes the findings of the HELAA which rejects the garden centre site as being suitable for housing and considers that their site provides a preferable alternative to site RSA-2 given its location outside of the Green Belt and status as previously developed land One of the key strategic policies of the Draft Local Plan is Policy S8 which encourages the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land consistent with para 17 of the NPPF and which weighs significantly in favour of the future allocation of our client’s site for residential purposes when compared with greenfield alternatives It is also noted that the assessment of site RSA-2 raises the issue of the capacity of the B4009 Tring Road to serve any future development Use of the garden centre site to contribute towards meeting future development needs helps to alleviate highway concerns since any increase in traffic generation associated with the proposed residential development would be partially offset by the removal of the traffic associated with the existing commercial use The garden centre site is located to the north of the settlement of Wendover and provides easy access to this strategic settlement and the facilties it provides It is located within an existing enclave of development and given the scale, bulk and activity associated with the existing use, is capable of redevelopment for residential purposes with no additional impact upon the character and amenities of the area By contrast, site RSA-2 is currently undeveloped and any future built form will have a significant additional impact upon the character and amenities of the area It is considered that Worlds End Garden Centre provides a suitable site to accommodate future housing needs given its previously developed nature As a result, it is considered erroneous to argue that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the release of RSA-2 on grounds of housing need, until optimum use has been made of previously developed sites such as that belonging to our client in accordance with the Council’s own draft policy and the NPPF Whilst it is recognized that Worlds End Garden Centre is not capable of meeting in full, the housing requirement for Wendover, it provides a sequentially preferable site of a scale which could provide adequate infrastructure and services to serve future residents and it is requested that the Draft Local Plan be amended in order to include it as a residential housing allocation capable of accommodating approximately 140 units I would be grateful if you could take the foregoing comments into account in the finalisation of the Local Plan Should you have any queries regarding the above or relating to any other matter, please not hesitate to contact me Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-07-22-00218 Respondent Name Terry Benwell VALP16-07-29-00237 Sue Belgrove VALP16-08-04-00250 P M Silver Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Comment Settlement Hierarchy - I am resubmitting the Critique on the advice of Cllr Carole Paternoster, with whom I had occasion to seek assistance in gaining acknowledgement of the issues raised in the Critique I note that there has been little change in the July 2016 Hierarchy Assessment from the 2015 model, although some concessions have been afforded in Section 6.3 under Other Settlements, " some development could take place if deemed appropriate through the planning application process" However the main thrust of my Critique is directed at the flawed reasoning with reference to schooling, class B1 business units and the 2km limitation, this should be inclusive regardless of which settlement the B1 units are sited I can understand that any re assessment on the classification of Rowsham will not impact on the development allocation, but I submit my evidence on the need for probity and rational application of the parameters set out in the Hierarchy Assessment I am quite prepared to make myself available to debate these issues,^ Dear Sir, I append below two errors I have discovered to date in the above draft There is no record of Hulcott Village Buckland Village has been awarded a points score of 3, one point being for a Public House, The Rothschild Arms in the village closed a few years ago Therefore the points allocation should be Yours faithfully, Terry Benwell New Settlement Study - Stand alone development to East of Haddenham Aston Sandford This is productive farm land within a superb landscape of small fields and hedgerows and it is completely outrageous that a new "garden village"should be built here for the following reasons: There is no infrastructure, No local facilities for such a population increase, Railway stations are already at capacity, Other local areas (Longwick, Princes Risborough , Haddenham and Thame) are having to have more housing resulting in a conurbation, The unspoilt countryside of Aylesbury Vale should not be sacrificed to meet the needs of neighbouring Authorities Green Belt Assessment - I have in the past written about this issue I read in our local newspaper the Leighton Buzzard Observer it has been suggested that the area (valley farm) seeks Green Belt status Since we live close to the proposed site of the housing, can see traffic problems for Leighton Buzzard would be immense The traffic already is almost at stand still now If there is a vote for Green Belt I strongly support it Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-08-05-00261 Respondent Name B Knight (Ivinghoe Parish Council) Comment Settlement Hierarchy - Re: Response to VALP Consultation Ivinghoe Parish Council wishes to respond to the draft VALP and the draft settlement hierarchy assessment (July 2016) Key services in Ivinghoe Food Store Ivinghoe only has one food store – Best One located in High Street The hierarchy criteria wrongly states shops Public House The Rose & Crown PH, Ivinghoe is only Public House within the village of Ivinghoe The hierarchy criteria wrongly states there are The Kings Head, Station Road, Ivinghoe is a fine dining restaurant only Connectivity and Public Transport Arriva 61 Bus Service Aylesbury – Luton This now terminates in Dunstable, not Luton This service does not run hourly please see attachment for timetable Red Line Buses 164 Bus Service Leighton Buzzard – Aylesbury CANCELLED From 28th August 2016 this service is cancelled Until the 28th August there was only one bus a day Bus Service 50 Marsworth, RAF Halton & Aylesbury Only operates through Ivinghoe on a Sunday This is the only bus service that runs on a Sunday through Ivinghoe Red Kite Bus Service 167 This is only a one day one service to Leighton Buzzard only on a Tuesday Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-08-05-00261 Respondent Name B Knight (Ivinghoe Parish Council) Comment Redline Bus Service 175 This service was for a Thursday only, but no longer runs and is not shown on Bucks CC website No bus services run between Ivinghoe and Tring Railway Station or Cheddington Railway Station Summary - Ivinghoe Connectivity & Public Services: In summary Ivinghoe only meets point within the connectivity and public transport criteria Key Services: Ivinghoe only has public house, shop, post office, school, village hall and recreational ground A total of key services Non key services: Ivinghoe has non key services which are correctly noted Therefore, Ivinghoe Parish Council request that Ivinghoe is categorised as a medium village in line with your criteria Ivinghoe Aston Connectivity and Public Transport Redline Bus Service 175 This service was for a Thursday only, but no longer runs and is not shown on Bucks CC website Summary – Ivinghoe Aston There are no direct links to any major employment hubs VALP16-08-05-00261 B Knight (Ivinghoe Parish Council) Ivinghoe Aston is miles away from Pitstone, it does not adjoin Pitstone as stated in your document Ivinghoe Aston does not have mains gas and limited broadband service and several homes are classified as being within fuel poverty For these reasons Ivinghoe Aston should be graded as a settlement not a small village Ivinghoe Parish Council dispute any link between Ivinghoe and Ivinghoe Aston and Luton Most residents travel for employment either North or South, there is no link to Luton for employment or otherwise Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-08-09-00275 Respondent Name Andrew Burnett VALP16-08-10-00290 Angus Smith Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Comment Green Belt Assessment - See comments above regarding release of land from the green belt immediately to the north of Wendover I strongly disagree with releasing this land, it meets the green belt criteria very well (you undervalue it) and government planning policy guidelines suggest that unmet housing need is not a good enough reason for 'exceptional circumstances' to apply This seems particularly true when the unmet housing need is caused by shortfalls in other local authorities as a result of their land being constrained by the green belt Or, to put it another way, why should we release green belt land when other authorities are not doing so, particularly when the land clearly meets the green belt criteria Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Following a meeting at Grendon Underwood Village Hall, it is clear that the vast majority of attendees would prefer to keep the linear nature of the village and not have new buildings behind the current building line The main suggestion of the group was to propose the land (owned by Marcello) North of Main Street at the East side of the village as one site to provide the shortfall of houses required over the next 17 years This site continues the linear nature of the village and would have the least impact on the majority Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-08-13-00323 Respondent Name Guy Hawking Comment New Settlement Study - Obviously as a local resident I wish to comment about the idea of a new settlement at Winslow The scale of the suggested settlement would link Winslow with Great and Little Horwood and be at the edge of the western expansion of Milton Keynes This would create a new town larger than Buckingham and radically change the country town and village culture of those communities There is reference to an "airfield" Is this a proposal to provide an airfield as part of a notional new settlement development? This seems to be an unnecessary transport option with Cranfield, Halton ad Luton airfields in the local area The outline maps indicate that the "airfield" would be located on an area around Greenways Farm that is agricultural land and not listed as suited for development Is the intention to build on green belt/farmland if this option is considered?? The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan indicated scope for an increase of 700 new houses in the period to 2020 There is wide support for expansion and growth in Winslow centred around the town centre and to support local amenities, shops and infrastructure Phase of WNP has yet to be produced and is contingent on the development of the E/W Rail link The date for the construction of this link has is has not been confirmed and may no longer be possible due to funding crisis and the forecast recession I would suggest that the new settlement proposal would only be viable if the new station and rail link can be delivered within the plan timeframe to 2033 Is it possible to make development of the New Settlement conditional on the arrival of the rail link?? The traffic flow studies (GL Hearn) also highlights that existing road links and junctions on the A413 and the junction of Sheep Street and Horn Street could not cope with the increased traffic load from a new settlement A link road would be required to divert traffic away from Winslow High Street and "this option requires more study" I also assume that this is not funded in current transport budgets A key part of WNP was to ensure expansion and house building supported the town centre facilities and retail businesses A new settlement on the outskirts of town would undermine the commerce in the town and affect the viability of a vibrant town centre The idea of an out of Town settlement was seen as a risk to Winslow High Street shops and this option is outcome was strongly rejected by the residents in the consultation about WNP Phase & VALP16-08-16-00339 Robert John VALP16-08-16-00341 Elaine Standen Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - See comment above Also, designation of MAR005 as "Commitment" is nonsense as it is already developed Also, disregarding MAR006 is both incorrect (part already has planning consent for units) and the reasons given or ill-considered This is very much a part of the village and is a brown filed site, the remaining part being entirely asphalted Its development of further small houses would be welcome and highly suitable as well as easily achieved Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Bulbourne Yard has been omitted from this map In fact it is currently waiting for planning consent to redevelop which will include some new housing for the Marsworth Parish Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-08-17-00362 Respondent Name Stephanie Lucas VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin Family) Comment Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The gypsy, traveller and travelling show people sites should have good access to major roads and/or public transport It is going to be difficult to persuade developers to provide a small allocation on some of the larger housing sites Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - There are factual inaccuracies in relation to site WIN022 Firstly, it says that the site is not well located to the settlement and separated by open fields This is incorrect The site is directly adjacent to sites WIN003 and WIN008, both of which are on site and under construction It also bounds a nursery and the East West Rail Link With the exception of the small Winslow graveyard, the site is not separated from the settlement by open fields Access to the high street would be a short walk or cycle ride to the high street or the new station, potentially via these new developments Secondly, it says that for WIN022 to be developed, improvements to the access road (Furze Lane) would be required Yet according to paragraphs 4.25, 4.26 and 4.27 of the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan, Furze Lane is already earmarked for upgrade to accommodate development to the east of the road In terms of the site that has been added to the AV Draft Local Plan since it was revised (site WIN001) there is an inconsistency between what is in the HELAA and the draft local plan The site in the HELAA is larger than what is placed within the draft local plan, with the HELAA's version spanning across the parish boundary line Which version can accommodate 585 homes? Also, the HELAA appears to place quite a bit of emphasis on the neighbourhood plan, which was undertaken prior to the circulation of the AV Draft Local Plan Given Winslow has been identified by AV as an area of strategic growth, to only add one site that has been deemed "part suitable" by the HELAA seems wholly inadequate Sustainability Appraisal As previously stated, the Sustainability appraisal states in paragraphs 3.44.1 to 3.44.5 that the development of site WIN001 will: Mean the loss of good quality farm land Mean the loss of habitats of principal importance Present High Flood risk May sterilise important mineral resources Much of these go against the local plan and therefore why is WIN001 viewed as the best site available to accommodate the chronic shortage of housing in the area? Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents ID VALP16-08-19-00366 Respondent Name Mark Saccoccio (Leighton-Linslade Town Council) VALP16-08-21-00411 Julia Robinson VALP16-08-22-00416 John Currell Comment Green Belt Assessment - AVDC Green Belt Assessment Part Report Site Ref 109 Address:- Land West of Leighton-Linslade, south of Leighton Road At its meeting held 11th August 2016, the Planning and Transport Committee resolved to support the proposed designation of the above land parcel as Green Belt land for the reasons set out within the background document report Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - p147 Site Assessment Cheddington - Given that there is a need for bungalows and housing for the elderly, site CHE001 is a considerable distance from the village shop compared to sites CHE005 and CHE006 Site access is limited from the High Street - the site would have only one access road The assessment that it would be possible to build 58 houses that meet VALP build critieria on CHE001 is open to considerable challenge Also the assessment takes no account of fauna and flora value of this site which contributes to the village environment Green Belt Assessment - It is hard not to feel that the proposed re-designation of RSA-2 is not a cynical exercise to release more development land in Wendover The commentary on pages & 10 could equally well be used to support retention of this area within the green belt I presume that the area of RSA-2 as shown had been miss-drawn; as on page 11 it is stated that one of its durable boundaries (west) is the canal Another boundary (north) is the old railway line So the actual theoretical development area is much smaller than suggested by the plan on page 11 VALP16-08-23-00447 Alan Tipple VALP16-08-24-00448 VALP16-08-24-00472 Michael Henderson (Dinton with Ford and Upton Parish Council) Christine Fee VALP16-08-24-00494 William Hubbick Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 I assume that the last word on the first line under "Stage ! C: HELAA Site Assessment should be "west" rather than "east" The discussion in the following paragraphs about possible use of the site is interesting and maybe should be considered within a future Neighbourhood Plan It is pleasing to note that it is stated that here is "a shortage of parking within Wendover which needs to be considered" However, I remain of the view that this site should not be released for development Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Appd A Page 209 - object to Croft Meadow identified space for 58 dwellings when this is not in the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) Look again at identified sites in CNP if you really need another 35 - but ideally reject the whole idea of Unmet Need as this is purely AVDC sweeping up other authorities failure (by design or other reason) New Settlement Study - See previous comments relating to policy D2 Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Croft Meadows in Cheddington should be kept open as it is a significant feature of the village in that it not only affords views towards the Chilterns, but as the area is grazed it gives people a unique opportunity, in this day and age, to view farm animals Sustainability Appraisal - In my opinion, the village will not be able cope with the additional traffic and will place a further strain on the local amenities, which the current resdidents have worked hard to develop over many years Page 10 of 100