VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-07-13-00205 Terry Cavender Comments on Background - 1.64 There are 3 canal arms in the Vale and all three should be called out hence sentence two should (Buckingham Canal become: "The Grand Union Canal and its arms to Wendover, Aylesbury and Buckingham....." Society) VALP16-07-22-00212 Andrea Hughes Comments on Background - Totally against Paul Newman building 300 houses on beautiful countryside off Derwent Road, Linslade. I have lived in Linslade for over 33 years and love walking through fields and seeing all the trees and birds and wildlife. Also the building of the new homes would cause major disruption to the local community with no benefit to the town.

VALP16-07-22-00219 Chris Wright (Oxon and Comments on Background - Population growth needs to have infrastructure and public services in place to cope and need to avoid Bucks Rail Action catch up. East West Rail being a classic example with AVDC and BCC campaigning since 1987. Committee) VALP16-07-27-00225 Robert Willis Comments on Background - Commenting on application for land at Valley Farm, reference site 109 and 110, Aylesbury Vale Green Belt Assessment Part 2 Report, July 2016. VALP16-07-27-00226 Michael Wendt Comments on Background - Aylesbry Vale Green Belt Assessment part 2 Parcels of land for green belt provision designated 109 and 110 including Valley Farm Pages 38 to 41 VALP16-07-28-00233 David Ginnane Comments on Background - The suitability of site WGR001

VALP16-07-29-00241 Victoria Wright Comments on Background - I recognise the need to build more homes in the Aylesbury Vale.

VALP16-07-30-00242 Peter Rawcliffe Comments on Background - None

VALP16-08-03-00248 Marcia Davis Comments on Background - none

VALP16-08-04-00249 Alan Lambourne Comments on Background - No comments (Westcott Parish Council) VALP16-08-05-00254 Abigail Alderson Comments on Background - Section 1.9 – needs to refer to SFRA (Buckinghamshire Section 1.21 – SFRA – mention that level 1 is being prepared but this may well lead to level 2 SFRA which will be more detailed in a County Council) number of areas identified to be more at risk. Section 1.64 states that “most areas are in Flood Zone 1” this needs to be clarified as to which areas it is referring to and what “most” means. Statement is too vague and could be misleading and mis-representative of the flood risk and needs some context.

VALP16-08-05-00265 Michael Hobbs Comments on Background - The suggested figure for housing growth need of 30% has been plucked out of the air, a more normal figure would be 10%. This has no basis in reality.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 1 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-05-00266 Graham Winwright Comments on Background - The Councils would like to put on record at this stage of your emerging Plan that in both Chiltern and (Chiltern and South South Bucks Councils' view our councils have to-date successfully met the on-going Duty to Co-operate and have achieved Bucks District Councils) significant outcomes in terms of joint evidence base work, progressing duty to co operate understanding and statements/agreements, housing distribution across the Bucks HMA and in supporting meeting all of the Bucking hamshire district local plan timetables. This includes Aylesbury Vale District Council being able to positively respond to the decision of Chiltern and South Bucks to undertake a joint local plan. Our co-operation has been on-going and will no doubt continue. Aylesbury Vale's commitment to the Duty to Co-operate, as set out in paras. 1.10 -1.13 of the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, is therefore welcomed and reciprocated. The Councils are particularly grateful and supportive of Aylesbury Vale for recognising the constraints affecting the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan area and being able to take account of meeting Chiltern and South Bucks unmet development needs as a priority (being part of the Bucking hamshire HMA and FEMA). You will be aware that in accordance with our councils, and others, January 2016 Addendum to the Bucks Memorandum of Understanding the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan covers the plan period to 2036. Clearly this Memorandum of Understanding will need to be reconsidered now that Aylesbury Vale is bringing forward a plan to the earlier date of 2033.

Chiltern, South Bucks, Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale District Councils form a 'best-fit' housing market area and functional economic market area and, as such, it is the councils' view that the collective responsibility for the authorities is to try to meet the HMA's and FEMA's needs as defined in the Buckinghamshire HEDNA within their local plan areas through the delivery of sustainable development. Given this position it is the councils' view that the needs of the Buckinghamshire HEDNA authorities should first be met within the best fit Buckinghamshire HMA local plan areas before the unmet needs of other authorities should be considered. Aylesbury Vale District Council also appear to take this approach in the new draft VALP in that para. 1.13 includes the housing needs of the three districts. This is welcomed and should be continued as our respective plans progress.

The statement in the draft VALP (para. 1.17) about the provision of infrastructure being essential to support new housing needs is supported however it is unclear what level of work has been undertaken other than traffic modelling and a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. It would be useful if Aylesbury Vale could provide further detail as to what they intend to do to address this issue prior to Submission and for discussions under the Duty to Co-operate to take place where there are potential cross border matters to consider.

VALP16-08-06-00270 Malcolm Oliver Comments on Background - 1.56 / 1.57 (Transport) makes reference to the lack of good communications in the north of the District. There is no mention of the lack of investment north & east from the major Aylesbury Growth Area to the improved network in Bedfordshire - the Leighton South & West by-passes giving access to MK, the currently being developed M1/A5 link & the expanded Luton Airport. This undermines the dialogue being carried out as described by Peter Williams to get the A421 trunk redevelopment to be rerouted to cater for the major growth area in the district & create a major link from the E-W developments in Bedfordshire to the improved networks in Oxfordshire. 1.61. The express bus between Aylesbury & MK via Wing has been discontinued for some years.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 2 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-08-00274 Russell Cooper Comments on Background - We write to oppose the planned developments in Haddenham.

The draft Aylesbury Vale Local Plan shows that one of the reasons for the proposal for a new settlement of 4,500 or more houses is the wish by Wycombe District Council that 5,000 houses needed in their district should be provided in Aylesbury Vale. In total, the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) includes 10,000 "unmet needs" from surrounding districts.

Our review of the draft Wycombe Plan shows that Wycombe are assuming much lower densities for new housing developments in their district than those which have been assumed around Haddenham. The Haddenham plan assumed, on advice from AVDC, that the density should be 30 houses per hectare while Wycombe appear to be assuming about 12. I recognise that Wycombe is constrained by green belt land and has proximity to the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty however, in my view, it is not reasonable for you to seek to offload your requirements onto a neighbouring district such as Haddenham.

In short you will be ruining a beautiful rural village, which will be over-populated, lack the essential infrastructure and negatively impact the children and families.

VALP16-08-09-00275 Andrew Burnett Comments on Background - 1.13 It is suggested that 1200 homes are needed to meet the unmet needs of other local authorities. One reason for these unmet needs may be that the land required is green belt land. In this case, it would be absurd to use green belt land in AVDC to meet this need. VALP16-08-09-00276 David Warburton Comments on Background - I attended the meeting arranged by Haddenham Parish Council in association with the Haddenham Village Society last night and wish to pass on our comments about the new local plan; VALP16-08-09-00281 Simon Dackombe Comments on Background - Paragraphs 1.17 - 1.19 (Thames Valley Police) TVP note that there is a significant emphasis on the delivery of transport Infrastructure as a key requirement. Whilst acknowledging the importance this has It is considered that it would be appropriate to also highlight at this early stage in the document the need to deliver other key infrastructure components including Policing and other Emergency Services infrastructure.

VALP16-08-10-00282 Michael Dickson Comments on Background - None

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 3 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-10-00284 Roz Owens Comments on Background - I note the requirement to co-operate with other local authorities, but we must push back against the beautiful productive countryside around Aylesbury and Buckingham being covered in houses and ending up acting as an extended suburb of London. Growth in the borough should be to support local needs as spreading housing further afield brings greater likelihood of requirements to travel (often by car) to reach employment or keep up established social connections. I know there is an obligation to help with unmet need but this is only where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with sustainable development. Some of the proposals in the plan do not hold with this and the additional 12,000 can clearly not be met without imposing a new settlement for which no natural and truly sustainable location can be found. I understand that one of the issues is that WDC have used very low assumed densities on sites that they have identified for development, even within the urban area of High Wycombe itself. Average densities across the draft WDC Plan are in the range of 10 to 15 dph. In Haddenham, a village, densities in the draft VALP are of 35 dph. If WDC adopted a more realistic approach to density and a luxurious requirement for 25% tree cover in new developments they could accommodate their needs within their borders and not impose an unwanted settlement on the open countryside of Aylesbury Vale.

VALP16-08-13-00324 Stephen James Comments on Background - I am broadly in favour of the plan as laid out and accept that difficult decisions must be made. The District is taking a pragmatic view, but I would urge we steadfastly resist unreasonable pressure from neighboring districts.

VALP16-08-16-00338 Darryl Willis Comments on Background - Environment, Infrastructure, History, Preservation.

VALP16-08-17-00359 Angela Lucas Comments on Background - P.11 paragraph 1.3 33,000 has been previously declared, now reduced to 31 or even in some information 30,000, this should therefore mean that the percentages given to villages should be adjusted downwards to match, i.e. medium villages down from 19%. 1.10 I agree that AV have cooperated with neighbouring districts. 1.13 I think it is unacceptable for 12,000 extra dwelling to be passed to A.V. District from Wycombe and South Bucks and totally agree with AV instigating an independent report by G.L. Hearn to examine where neighbouring areas could find dwelling and employment spaces in their own districts. 1.13 I agree that research shows that people want to live where there are good transport links in the south of Bucks. The density in these areas is half the rate of AV. Neighbouring areas need to increase their affordable housing provision by re-examining sites and increasing density.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 4 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-17-00361 Ella Jones (Wendover Comments on Background - 1.8: The NPPF states that the planning system should positively conserve historic environments, so Parish Council) building 800 houses in Wendover's historic parish and so close to the conservation area will only increase traffic and vibrations in the heart of this area. Along with the implications of HS2 for Wendover putting a strain on already exhausted infrastructure and causing noise and vibrations along the edge of the conservation area it seems that Wendover would be negatively impacted from all sides. 1.16: Wendover needs huge enhancement of parking both on and off street, there is a constant stream of complaints and parking on double yellow lines. This problem will only get worse with the proposed housing Wendover is expected to take on. 1.18: Although Wendover has a bypass from North to South there is still an incredible amount of traffic crossing the parish from East to West which would increase again if the proposed area (S4) on Tring Road was to take the 800 houses suggested for that area. The areas suggested by Wendover Parish Council are hoped to draw traffic to the bypass or direct to Aylesbury as the closest town, avoiding Wendover's centre and conservation area. 1.27: Wendover Parish Council are in the very early stages of their Neighbourhood Plan. The Steering group is not yet fully formed and it has not been launched so the areas Wendover Parish Council are suggesting may vary from areas finally proposed by the Neighborhood Plan. The Parish Council accepts that Wendover has been categorised as a strategic settlement and would therefore be expected to take 25% growth but the HELAA did not find any suitable land so suggestions are being made. 1.35: Although Wendover is one of the larger settlements in the district the infrastructure is not suited to more houses. Wendover is already short of services such as parking, schools and doctors. The area is congested with little suitable land. The removal of Green Belt on Tring Road would cause coalescence with Halton. 1.36: Agreed, which is why it makes more sense to build settlements in the north of the district and screen the vista with trees as in the case of Calvert Green. 1.62: Wendover has a conservation area and is surrounded by the Green Belt, damaging this with more traffic and flooding it with even more people would change Wendover as a town.

VALP16-08-17-00362 Stephanie Lucas Comments on Background - p. 11 1.3 I see that it is now 31,000 dwellings that need to be accommodated so that should mean the percentage number of dwellings suggested for each large, medium and small village should also decrease. 1.13 I think it is not acceptable for Wycombe and South Bucks to push their unmet need of 12,000 onto AV. These districts should look again at where dwellings could be placed, maybe look at increasing the density in some cases. VALP16-08-18-00363 Charlotte Newman Comments on Background - Now that the total number of houses has been reduced, so the percentage given to large, medium and small should also be reduced. I agree that AV should challenge the 12,000 of unmet need from Wycombe and South Bucks. 2.6 3 I agree that well-located provision of infrastructure Objective 6 - I agree that protection should be given to the historic and natural environment in both towns and villages

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 5 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.3: 31,000 homes are required in the district - therefore there needs to be a concerted Family) effort to find sites suitable for immediate development (i.e. over the next 5 years).

Paragraph 1.14: This mentions the consideration of sites in the Greenbelt. Given there are plenty of sites that could accommodate housing need which are not in the greenbelt this seems unnecessary.

Paragraphs 1.25 and 1.26: The fact that the Neighbourhood Plans were undertaken prior to the Aylesbury Vale Draft Local Plan creates an obvious disconnect in the process. Winslow's Neighbourhood Plan does not fulfil the required level of housing now being proposed by Aylesbury Vale's revised Draft Local Plan, yet documents such as the Housing and Economic Land Assessment appear to rely too heavily on what has been said in the Neighbourhood Plans. Winslow has been identified by Aylesbury Vale (AV) as an area of strategic growth. The independent planning inspector rejected AV's first attempt at a Local Plan, because it did not adequately address housing need. Given Winslow has been identified as an area of strategic growth by the AV Local Plan, the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan is therefore a key component of the AV Local Plan. Surely on this basis the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan has to be revised?

Paragraph 1.27: This says that the council will work with towns and parish councils to identify sites which can be allocated through revisions to their neighbourhood plans. In Winslow, only one additional site has been identified in the AV draft Local Plan beyond those identified in the 2014 Winslow Neighbourhood plan. This despite the fact that Winslow has been identified as an area of strategic growth. We would disagree with the statement that the council has worked to identify additional sites. The only additional site that has been identified in Winslow has been cited as being a flood risk by Lepus Consulting's recent sustainability report. It also encompasses good agricultural space which AV have vowed to protect in their draft local plan. Sole access on this additional site is via a small B road and the East West rail link forms a barrier between the site and the town centre. Therefore there is limited permeability into the town and poor vehicular access. Finally, only part of this site falls within the Parish boundary. A number of the the sites put forward by landowners in the recent "AV call for sites" have been too readily rejected on the basis of a flawed Economic Land Availability Assessment, which has factual inaccuracies and is based on outdated information. This will be dealt with later on in this consultation. VALP16-08-19-00367 John Lucas Comments on Background - 1.13 I agree with AV challenging neighbouring areas such as Wycombe, over their unmet need. Looking at the GL Hearn independent report it appears there are many locations in these areas that could be used for housing, particularly if the density is increased.

VALP16-08-19-00374 Simon Milliken (National Comments on Background - Hartwell House and grounds is located a short distance to the south west of Aylesbury Town (off the Trust, Waddesdon A418 Oxford Road). It is an important early 17th Century Grade 1 Jacobean Listed Building set within historic parkland and gardens Estate and Hartwell designed by ‘Capability Brown’ (English Heritage Garden Register). Hartwell House was leased to the National Trust in the 2008 by House) the Ernst Cook Trust and continues to operate as one of the top 100 luxury hotels in the World. In view of the constant threat of housing development / HS2 on the south western fringe of Aylesbury Town, it is important that recognition of this important historic house is given early on in the supporting text.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 6 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-20-00398 Sarah Fraser Comments on Background - 1.21 and 1.22 with my business hat on there are huge ranges of evidence that are outstanding that influence this plan that are not included that you haven't bothered to indicate using general business principles of "likelihood" and "ranges of influence" - in the absence of in completion of the work. Without this the plan is rather weak...

VALP16-08-20-00402 Martin Armitstead Comments on Background - 20 year plus resident in village, 50 years plus in Bucks.

VALP16-08-21-00404 peter Scott Comments on Background - 1.13 The 12000 quota from other district councils should be resisted to protect our green space as this would then ot require a new settlement of any kind in the Vale. 1.14 The quota of houses set for Aylesbury (which has all the infrastructure and funding from AVDC) is unrealistically small (15,845) in relation to the proposed increase in housing/population of the much smaller settlements. For instance, if Winslow was given the total of 7000 houses (current 1000 proposed plus 6000 new settlement) this would be the proportionate equivalent of Aylsebury being allocated 67,000 houses. 1.25 AVDC accepted the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan after it failed to put its own in place. It should now honour its previous planning including resisting the new settlement previously rejected. VALP16-08-21-00405 Lucy Driver Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.13 Whilst I appreciate the duty to cooperate with neighbouring districts, I believe there are solutions other than AVDC having to take all of the overspill. Neighbouring districts should be doing everything possible to try and meet their targets, including considering higher housing densities and re-visiting green belt sites. AVDC, and Haddenham in particular, should not have to suffer disproportionately by having to accommodate a new settlement. VALP16-08-21-00406 Richard Barrie Comments on Background - 1.9 and 1.10 The published figures to no account of the UK leaving the EU so all figures are now obsolete. There is also a clear case of 'double counting' in the requirement figures as the provision for the elderly takes no account of housing stock being freed up when the proposed new housing for the elderly is occupied. This is a total of 2670 houses that can be removed from the requirement.

As for the Duty to Cooperate. This is an absolute nonsense when one looks at the density figures proposed by adjacent authorities that claim to have no building space. This should be absolutely rejected.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 7 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00407 Rosalind Scott Comments on Background - 1.2The Winslow Neighboourhood Plan was submitted and accepted about 3 years ago.It was challenged by David Gladman but upheld. The WNP should therefore be accepted by you as binding. Changes to the plan should not be made. The original had a higher % of residents voting for it and a higher % agreeing with it than any other at the time. AVDC agreed with it at the tie. This is OUR PLAN - you are trying to change it to YOUR PLAN (the opposite of your slogan)

1.6 This is a draft. The WNP is not, it is agreed.

1.8 The quote within this is at complete variance from the idea of building the number of homes you suggest in Winslow, Little Horwood and Great Horwood. That number of houses could not possibly contribute to a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

1.10 Co-operation should not include the offloading of new developments onto neighbouring councils. do not accept them.

1.13 Some areas of AVDC should apply for AONB status. This would limit what others can expect of you. Without the extra homes you are building for other councils, (High Wycombe and Chiltern) you would have a far more realistic number to achieve.

1.14 According to the 2011 census, the population of Winslow was 4,407. These people wish to live in a small town. Great Horwood was 1,049. These people wish to live in a large village. Little Horwood was 434. These people wish to live in a small village. you are proposing 7,000 new homes to join up these into a huge town, larger than Buckingham. If you were to give Aylesbury the same proportion of homes, you would be delivering 67,500 homes to an area where people wish to live in a large town. the proposed homes for the Winslow area would change the character of the present communities completely and no one would be living in the community they had chosen.

1.18 The A421 expressway on a map I saw cut through the site for the proposed new station at Winslow, putting the new secondary school on the opposite side to the town. I was told this was not really where it was going, but no one knew where it would go! Chichester has a round library because someone drew a circle on a map and labelled it 'site of proposed library' and no one knew different. We do not want the road where it is on the current map. This also assumes the station. With Brexit, it could be a long time coming.

1.25 We completed our plan. Do not penalsie us for our efficiency. You agreed with it at the time, do not go back on it now because it is expedient. Honour your agreement.

1.27 Our plan does not need revision - we all agreed on it. VALP16-08-21-00409 Clive Rodgers Comments on Background - Proposed development sites chosen - Haddenham versus Winslow. (Swanbourne Parish Council)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 8 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00411 Julia Robinson Comments on Background - None

VALP16-08-21-00412 Tracy Filler Comments on Background - 1.12 - building housing settlements in North Bucks area will not accommodate the housing shortage in the South Bucks area. These areas are not easily commutable due to already overstretched road networks. 1.16 - In the plans under WHA001, you are proposing a 2000 new homes in a village that currently has 180 homes, equating to a 350% increase in the size of the village. There are no shops to service the needs of these plans. This will place an increased dependency on services provided by nearby Milton Keynes. 1.54 All brownfield sites should be exhausted before any greenfield sites are explored. Profit of developers should be secondary to the impact building on the landscape and structural changes to villages. 1.57 A high level of settlement plans proposed will be forced to use roads that are less well served as you state. This will add to the severe congestion in these areas. 1.65 proposed sites are dominating North Bucks with an expectation that these will support housing shortages in South Bucks. Even if this was an acceptable commute, this would further antagonise the CO2 emission targets set. VALP16-08-22-00416 John Currell Comments on Background - Paras 1.17 - 1.19 Here and at other places in the Draft Plan, there are vague comments about infrastructure such as Roads, Schools and Health Facilities. These are seen as essential by existing residents. It is impossible to properly judge the "Plan" if it does not have detailed information about infrastructure; particularly the supporting highway network. There must be specific, categoric implementation plans for all these elements in relation to all future housing or employment phases for Aylesbury. A Plan is not a Plan without these key elements being identified at every stage. For too long much of Aylesbury has existed with main traffic flows passing through large residential areas. In the future infrastructure must be provided before or in parallel with new development.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 9 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00417 Diane Phillips Comments on Background - It is understood that GU is regarded as a ‘medium settlement’ which needs to provide a 19% increase of 80 homes (VALP pages 32 & 86); currently there are commitments for 16 builds in 2015/16 and 13 completions during 2013/16 leaving a residue of 51 dwellings. The VALP does not state the mix of residential dwellings for these 51 houses. GU is located almost exactly halfway between Aylesbury and Bicester off the A41. It contains some historic buildings and there are links to William Shakespeare. The B road links the village to Buckingham and MK to the north and to the A41 in the south. Whilst AVDC has conducted a Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) which has identified 3 small potential development sites in GU (behind Shakespeare Orchard, next to Bailey’s Farm & next to Ivy cottage) there would still be a shortfall of some 29 dwellings. If development takes place on these 3 small scale potential development sites it is possible that due to the size & nature of such developments the Community would lose out on s.106 and CIL and as such there would be no developer contributions to the community and its infrastructure. In my view to agree any such developments on these sites would be flawed as a result and should not be considered in isolation but rather as part of the overall VALP process. There have been at least 3 major development proposals bought to the attention of the Community although none of these have reached any formal planning applications yet. (Land at Springhill – 72 dwellings; Land behind Rumpton’s Paddock / Shakespeare Orchard – 80 dwellings & land next to the Bridleways – 34 homes.). The first 2 have been subject to Developer led consultations in the GU Village Hall. In my view I would recommend a larger scale development on the Marcello site, rather than any piecemeal development or development on the other two proposed sites. This would retain the nature of the village in that it is linear and the distances from the outskirts of the village from either side would be the same to the shop/ community facilities. Such a development would benefit the Community and the character of GU would be retained. VALP16-08-22-00437 Aidan Byles Comments on Background - The objectives simply contradict each other. How can one build 722 more houses and maintain other visions for Wendover such as a tourist site etc.....? VALP16-08-23-00441 Alexander Matthews Comments on Background - 1.10. Can we be assured that AVDC will robustly challenge the additional 12,000 houses we have had (Thornton Parish forced on us? Meeting) VALP16-08-23-00446 Arthur Evans Comments on Background - Recognizing the pressures and restraints imposed on local authorities by central government AVDC is to be congratulated on the effort and thought which has gone into this plan. VALP16-08-25-00529 Lucy Murfett (Chilterns Comments on Background - There should be specific reference to the AONB in the natural and built environment background Conservation Board) section. Suggest in paragraph 1.63 adding new second sentence: "In the south of the district land falls within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty, nationally designated as one of finest landscapes in England". VALP16-08-25-00530 Eric Sergeant Comments on Background - Page 18 - Natural and Built Environment 1.63. states "wealth of nature reserves and high quality open spaces valued for their landscape, nature or recreational interest".

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 10 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-26-00532 Peter Beckwith Comments on Background - Page 10. Duty to Co-operate. Paragraphs 1.10 - 1.13.

The Vale’s housing need of 21,300 homes to 2033, has been increased to 33,000 due to the ‘unmet needs’ of adjoining authorities such as South Bucks (7000) and Wycombe (5000). There is also the suggestion that other authorities will also follow with additional demands. Where does it stop and what steps are AVDC taking to stand up to these impositions? What precedents are being set? Surely Aylesbury must vigorously challenge these figures. Green Belt landscape constraints and much lower average housing densities in other districts do not help; Will AVDC become a dormitory area for neighbouring authorities just providing housing but no jobs? VALP16-08-26-00538 Robert Burford Comments on Background - Agree strongly with 1.17 to 1.19 as infrastructure is often overlooked or arrives too late to support the increase of housing stock. VALP16-08-27-00540 Rosanne Ward Comments on Background - 1.10 to 1.13 AVDC refers to the duty to co operate requiring it to take the unmet need of 3 adjoining District Councils, Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks, amounting to some 12,000. But it is clear that Wycombe ( with 5000 Houses unmet ) has not properly reviewed its possible green belt sites and is proposing a very low density for development sites, far lower than AVDC, with a 25 % tree allowance. High Wycombe is to grow by only 10 % rather than the 50% intended for Aylesbury and Buckingham. This is not an acceptable use of unmet need, giving Wycombe the luxury of low density that AVDC is not to have. If robustly challenged, much of this 5000 homes of unmet need could be provided in Wycombe. This would mean that the New Town proposed by AVDC would be unnecessary. All the " unmet " need should be fully and properly investigated so that the duty to co operate does not become the duty to capitulate.

The VALP suggest that in planning for huge new town settlements it is looking at the worst possible situation. In this sort of scenario, it is often the case that the maximum becomes the minimum and so is implemented. Can AVDC give assurance that it is not its intention to go forward with ALL of these settlements and the stated numbers of houses which will totally change for ever the areas affected. And clarify just what its intentions are where there are several sites in one location. Ie build on all of them or none.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 11 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-28-00544 Kevin Hewson Comments on Background - 1.10 Duty to cooperate

1.11UNMET NEED

The suggestion that AVDC should accept up to 12,000 Unmet is totally unacceptable. Housing Densities should be close across the four districts within our HMA. As evidence I suggest-

- Density, linked to Low cost housing need. Affordable Homes Delivery

When you look at the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation and supply of low cost housing within the Wycombe; Chiltern and South Buck Ditricts the numbers are. frankly, appalling. The numbers highlighted are for last months and represent the ongoing trend. WDC supplied only 22 , SB only 4 against AVDC's 213! There can be no excuse, to my mind, of lower densities when reviewing these needs. When looking at those in need (particularly highest need), there is a clear requirement to house people close to their existing families/friends/work etc. I cannot see how any of this need should be passed over.

District AVDC CDC SBDC WDC

Households on Register 3221 1729 1591 2773 as at 22/07/16

New Affordable Homes Completed 213 22 4 22 During 2015/16

Homes Completed 6.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.8% As Proportion Of Need

HEDNA Market Signals for the Central Bucks HMA.

Referring to para. 16 of the HEDNA. outlines how, on the basis of Market Signals( in particular relating to price) we conclude the Objectively Assessed Need for the HMA should be higher than suggested etc .

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 12 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment AVDC need is based on the 'modest' affordability pressure identified - leads to a proposed 10% uplift. To me this seems reasonable.

CDC; SBDC and WDC , based on affordability being around double the level associated with modest pressure ... proposes a doubled level and an uplift of 20%. Should these districts be able to meet their need then the logic holds. However the reality is that the HEDNA suggests passing this OAN to AVDC. This cannot be logical since the demand will clearly continue to increase should the recommendation hold; prices will rise faster to the South, with prices and demand flatter, if not met, in the North. Demand clearly lies to the South. Looking at percentages, any unmet need passed should be assessed at 10% max.

Looking at the numbers as highlighted in para 21. I cannot see the SB figures but the proposed figures for WDC and CDC alone total 3,279, no doubt all three would total 4000+. I would hope all 4 DC's have common ground and would be able to challenge and remove the whole proposal.

1.17. Infrastructure- THIS IS THE KEY REQUIREMENT THAT MUST BE UNDERPIN DECISION MAKING.

We are already failing to meet the requirements. We must face reality;- - Minor roads are failing, funds will not be made available to maintain them and yet we propose significant growth, with accompanying traffic. - Public transport ( primarily bus services) is already inadequate and will be largely removed from medium/small villages. Even the largest are barely sustainable. - Schools are full in many places. We must acknowledge that some cannot and will not be expanded. Housing targets need to be refined to reflect reality.

1.19. The A421 expressway is only potential and is long term. It is a distraction, used by those who wish to deflect away from their communities. There are many variables that could be similarly sited- recession; interest rate fluctuations; National Debt escalation; change in government; HS2 amendments. Dismiss this distraction for what it is. VALP16-08-28-00548 Nicola Page Comments on Background - Para 1.59 Rail Links It is worth making mention that while several rail lines are mentioned the current services from the main hub, Aylesbury are excruciatingly slow(it is quicker to drive) especially via High Wycombe where stopping at minor stops including Denham Golf Club etc. Destinations are currently severely limited as the "End of Line" station this reduces the attractiveness of the town to commuters.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 13 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-29-00554 Jill Callear Comments on Background - 1.10-1.13 Duty to co-operate AV must vigorously challenge the need from adjoining authorities. Acceptance of needs from adjoining authorities will result in parts of the area become dormitories - all housing and no jobs. The road infrastructure required for large new developments is not in place or planned. The need to build additional housing goes with an obligation to plan how the residents would work and travel. 1.19 Infrastructure. The long term provision of an A421 expressway and it's route is not agreed. Developments along the current A421 should not be built on the assumption that they will 'eventually' have close access to a new, large-capacity road.

VALP16-08-30-00561 Marianna Beckwith Comments on Background - Page 10. Duty to Co-operate. Paragraphs 1.10 - 1.13. (Chocolate Box The Vale’s housing need of 21,300 homes to 2033, has been increased to 33,000 due to the ‘unmet needs’ of adjoining authorities Coaching) such as South Bucks (7000) and Wycombe (5000). There is also the suggestion that other authorities will also follow with additional demands. Where does AVDC intend to impose limits on these demands, and what steps are they taking to stand up to these impositions? Has the setting of precedents been considered? Aylesbury must vigorously challenge these figures. Green Belt landscape constraints and much lower average housing densities in other districts do not help; Will AVDC become a dormitory area for neighbouring authorities just providing housing but no jobs? VALP16-08-30-00562 Andrew Bateson (AB Comments on Background - Generally supported. Planning & Development Ltd) VALP16-08-31-00568 Graham Tyack Comments on Background - HVS Comment – para 1.8: Haddenham is a historic village with a large conservation area. The NPPF (Haddenham Village states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and that there should be a Society) positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. This laudable aim should not be forgotten for Haddenham has a real sense of community and caring for each other is evidenced by the number of supportive organisations and activities, which are a valued part of village life. This is rarely found after major developments, for significant increases in size lead to a lack of a sense of identity. Social considerations are as important as economic ones, and village life is an important aspect of our national heritage. VALP16-08-31-00569 Paul Moss Comments on Background - AVDC needs to strongly challenge the "unmet need" of authorities in the south of the Vale. This unmet need cannot be successfully met by development at the North Eastern edge of the Vale if transport and employment provision for this unmet need is in the South. The Transport provision is largely based upon plans for new A421 Expressway and East West rail line that would appear to by outside this planning horizon. VALP16-08-31-00576 Mary and Allan Comments on Background - We are commenting on the new numbers of houses in our village that we are expected to take that glendinning are beyond the original numbers

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 14 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00583 Roger Kemp (Kemp's Comments on Background - 1.15--- I note the need to switch employment areas to housing. We at Kemp's Farm at the end of Farm) Chapel Road had great trouble in the past obtaining change of use from agricultural(mushroom growing) to light industrial. Conditions of working hours and no weekend working have caused us problems. Now after many years we have built up a successful business but this may not last for ever. Long term if circumstances change, we would be in favour of housing on our site, subject to terms and conditions. We would therefore favour the proposal for development of a new settlement to the south east of Haddenham near Aston Sandford or any other proposal nearby.

1.22---This identifies the need for additional sites of available land. Ford village was allocated only 4 houses, 2 of which are still required. I have proposed these sites could be located in the waste land we own between Chapel Road and the Longwick road. Moreover this land which has very little amenity or ecological value would be suitable for many more houses for lower income families and satisfy the need for affordable properties. In principle subject to terms, entrance would be from the Longwick Road.I believe this area was wrongly overlooked when only 4 houses for Ford were proposed. I strongly propose the use of this land for housing. VALP16-08-31-00584 Bruce Gardner (Cherwell Comments on Background - Cherwell Gospel Hall Trust welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Draft Plan for Summer 2016 Gospel Hall Trust) Consultation. The Trust expects to require additional and/or replacement places of worship within the district during the plan period to 2033. The trust is aware that the district currently does not have an up to date local plan and strongly supports the emerging draft Local Plan which will “positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area”.

The needs of the area include adequate provision for community infrastructure, including new Places of Worship, in order to promote healthy communities and a prosperous rural economy, including space to operate for the voluntary section (see NPPF paragraphs 28 and 70, together with paragraph 171.)

The trust notes the forecast increased population through the plan period together with the increasing longevity of the local population, which further emphasises the need for public support for the voluntary sector generally and faith communities in particular.

VALP16-08-31-00586 Gillian Miscampbell Comments on Background - 1.13 It is totally unacceptable that Aylesbury Vale should be asked to take up to 12000 unmet need. Housing densities should be similar across the four districts. There is a need for sites within the other Districts to be re-examined and further provision made within those Districts to meet this unmet need.

Demand clearly shows that people want to live in the South of the County where there are good transport links and much more affordable housing needs to be provided in these areas.

1.17 Infrastructure must be a key requirement. Minor roads are failing and there is not the money to maintain them properly. Public transport is diminishing and many schools are full. VALP16-08-31-00603 Diana Coole Comments on Background - 1.13 AVDC should continue to robustly challenge the supposed level of unmet housing need both nationally and particularly that coming from the south of thr County.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 15 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00607 Eleanor Dolley Comments on Background - Section 1.12 - The area of proposed development on the border of Milton Keynes is, in my opinion and many others, 'of outstanding natural beauty' and is why many people moved to this area - this should not therefore be developed under this clause. Section 1.15-1.19 - There is much discussion in these chapters as to what 'needs' to be addressed in terms of infrastructure, employment etc, but no indication as to how this will actually be achieved and inevitably the Milton Keynes area will suffer a severe drain on its resources, for at least a decade whilst this new area develops. VALP16-08-31-00610 Judith Warner Comments on Background - Para 1.35: states that "these settlements [inc Haddenham] act as service centres for other villages..." While Haddenham's primary schools and the medical centre service some of the surrounding villages, the tiny village centre and tiny number of shops can hardly be said to act as a "service centre" for local villages - and cannot be compared with e.g. Wendover. Haddenham VALP16-09-01-00613 Denise McClellan Comments on Background - P 1.10 - 1.13 Concerns: Increase in numbers due to "unmet needs" of adjoining authorities-precedent being set? Where does it stop? Whaddon is on the border of MK and there is already a large building development within a short distance from the edge of the village. "Cooperation" does not mean "agreement" Will we become a dormitory area-all housing and jobs elsewhere, as discussed with reprentatives at the public meetings, a factor not denied by them? VALP16-09-01-00622 Lachlan Robertson Comments on Background - Para 1.15 It is disappointing that the Council have not published the sites that it is considering (Savills on behalf of deallocating from employment use, nor is there an opportunity to comment formally on the methodology that will be used to do so. Aylesbury Vale Estates) There are no policies in the Plan which directly address this subject. The Plan is therefore at risk of being found unsound. We would recommend that this methodology and its conclusions and necessary policies are published as soon as possible, prior to submission of the Plan for Examination.

Para 1.28 Policy E1 depends on knowing which “key employment sites” are being considered under this policy. The lack of a Proposals Map available for comment is a flawed approach as it is not possible to comment specifically without one. This is an issue for soundness of the process and is dealt with in detail in later comments.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 16 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00633 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Comments on Background - 1.1 The following representation has been prepared on behalf of Sonia Davis, Fiona Church and Planning Services (on Roger Davis in respect of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan –‘Draft behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs Plan for Summer 2016 Consultation’ Church and Mr Davis of 1.2 Mrs Davis, Mrs Church and Mr Davis are co-owners of Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton, and they are seeking to promote the Corner Farm, Gib Lane inclusion of two parcels of their land as allocations in the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. The parcels of land are known as ‘Land west Bierton)) of Gib Lane, Bierton’ and ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’. 1.3 This representation relates to ‘Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton’. 1.4 As can be seen on the Site Location Plan attached at Appendix 1, the site is a large L-shaped greenfield plot on the western side of Gib Lane, Bierton covering an area of approximately 3.04 hectares. 1.5 The boundaries of the site are predominately defined by mature hedgerows and trees, and the site is also currently enclosed by existing residential development to its north, east and west. 1.6 To the north and west, are the residential properties and rear gardens accessed off Aylesbury Road, whilst to the west are the residential properties served off Gib Lane. 1.7 To the south is currently agricultural land, however, this land forms part of the ‘Kingsbrook’ development on the north eastern side of Aylesbury, which has been granted consent for the erection of up to 2,450 homes and 10 hectares of employment land set across three new ‘neighbourhoods’. 1.8 The land directly south of the site has been earmarked as a ‘Sports Field’, which will form the north western corner of the new neighbourhood of ‘Orchard Green’. F164948 LAND WEST OF GIB LANE, BIERTON REPRESENTATION ON VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN 2 PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD 1.9 Following the development of Orchard Green, the site will therefore sit within the built up area on the north eastern side of Aylesbury, which will be comprised of the new neighbourhoods and the existing village of Bierton. 1.10 The site has also been promoted through previous ‘call for sites’ exercises (Reference: BIE027) and the Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) published by the council in May 2016, identifies that it is ‘Suitable for housing’ (subject to provision of a suitable site access) and would have the capacity to accommodate 84 dwellings. There is also active interest from several builders to develop the site. 1.11 It is however not currently identified as a potential allocation within the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. 1.12 This representation will therefore provide comments on the content of the emerging Local Plan and identify why it is considered the Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton should be included as an allocation.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 17 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment CHAPTER 1-BACKGROUND 2.3. The ‘background’ chapter is considered to generally cover the overarching framework relating to the preparation of the plan. 2.4. We do however hold some concern with the lack of clarity regarding the level of growth which the district will be seeking to accommodate. 2.5. In regards to this, it is noted that it has been estimated that the councils adjoining Aylesbury Vale will be unable to accommodate approximately 12,000 homes due to their constraints, and that the housing requirement for the district will therefore be approximately 33,000 new homes over the plan period. 2.6. It is however stated at paragraph 1.13 that “The council will be robustly challenging the level of unmet need, but this draft local plan has to based on this requirement as a worst case scenario”. 2.7. We hold two concerns with this statement. Firstly, the emerging development plan and strategy should be developed with a clear understanding of the development needs which the district should be seeking to accommodate. If the council are to dispute the level of unmet need in neighbouring authorities, it becomes difficult to accurately assess the potential effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Secondly, we are concerned with the use of the terminology ‘worst case scenario’. In noting the objective of national policy, to significantly increase the delivery of housing, there should be no inferences that delivering beyond the specifically identified need is a negative state of affairs. 2.8. That is to say, that the ultimately defined housing requirement should be treated as a minimum and that the associated strategy facilitates the ability to exceed this.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 18 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00634 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Comments on Background - LAND AT CORNER FARM, GIB LANE, Planning Services (on BIERTON, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs REPRESENTATION ON VALE OF Church and Mr Davis of AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN Corner Farm, Gib Lane, 1.0 INTRODUCTION Bierton)) 1.1 The following statement has been prepared to provide a representation on behalf of Sonia Davis, Fiona Church and Roger Davis on the ‘Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan-Draft Plan for Summer 2016 Consultation’ and to promote ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton. 1.2 Mrs Davis, Mrs Church and Mr Davis are the co-owners of Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton. They are seeking to promote the inclusion of two parcels of their land as allocations in the plan. 1.3 The parcels are known as ‘Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton’ and ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’. 1.4 This representation relates to ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane’, and a separate representation has been made in respect of ‘Land west of Gib Lane’. 1.5 Land at Corner Farm is comprised of buildings and land on the northern side of Gib Lane and covers an area of approximately 3.81 hectares (Please see Site Location Plan at Appendix 1). 1.6 Part of the site has been promoted through previous ‘Call for Sites’ exercises and is identified as BIE028 ‘Land at Gib Lane Farm’. 1.7 To the west of the site are residential properties on Gib Lane and the Aylesbury Road (A418) whilst to the north, east and south is agricultural land. The surrounding agricultural land does however form part of the consented Kingsbrook development for three new communities on the north eastern site of Aylesbury accommodating 2,450 new homes and 10 hectares of employment land. 1.8 To the south east will be the new neighbourhood of Orchard Green, to the east will be allotments, whilst to the north will be the ‘Eastern Link Road’. 1.9 Given that the site sits within the context of this development, it is considered that it would be suitable for allocation in the emerging Local Plan. 1.10 The statement therefore provides general comments on the content of the emerging Local Plan and sets out why it is considered that ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’ should be included as an allocation.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 19 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment CHAPTER 1-BACKGROUND 2.3. This chapter sets out the overarching considerations which are made and undertaken in the preparation of a local plan. 2.4. It is considered that the chapter makes reference to all relevant matters, however we hold some concern with the lack of clarity on the stated amount of growth which the district will be seeking to accommodate. 2.5. In respect of this, it is stated that the adjoining districts to Aylesbury Vale will be unable to accommodate approximately 12,000 homes due to their constraints, and that the housing requirement for the district will therefore be approximately 33,000 new homes over the plan period. 2.6. It is however stated at paragraph 1.13 that “The council will be robustly challenging the level of unmet need, but this draft local plan has to based on this requirement as a worst case scenario”. 2.7. We therefore hold two concerns with this statement. Firstly, the emerging development plan and strategy should be developed with a clear understanding of the development needs which the district should be seeking to accommodate. If the council are to dispute the level of unmet need in neighbouring authorities, it becomes difficult to accurately assess the potential effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Secondly, we are concerned with the use of the terminology ‘worst case scenario’. In noting the objective of national policy, to significantly increase the delivery of housing, there should be no inferences that delivering beyond the specifically identified need is a negative state of affairs. 2.8. It is therefore considered that the finally defined housing requirement should be treated as a minimum and that the associated strategy should facilitate the ability to exceed this requirement.

VALP16-09-01-00637 Viv Lynch (Wingrave Comments on Background - 1.9 & 1.13 The plan states the need to deliver 21,300 but there is an expectation there will be a need with Rowsham Parish to deliver approx. 12,000 further homes due to the requirements of adjacent authorities. We consider this to be an inappropriate Council) burden for AVDC. 1.19 The development of the A421 express way is essential and should be expedited. 1.24 Will the Sustainability appraisal be re-evaluated in the light of Brexit and it's effect on regulations and legislation. 1.57 - 1.59 The road network to support the AVDC local plan is substantially improved particularly to the north of Aylesbury. VALP16-09-02-00640 Mark Dolling Comments on Background - n/a

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 20 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00641 Christopher Matthews Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.13 states councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale have identified an unmet need of 12,000 homes. This should be forcefully challenged. For example, Wycombe DC has claimed an unmet need of 5,000 homes. I am particularly concerned with the Wycombe proposals for the following reasons: –

· WDC appears not to be maximising its sites search for new developments; · it is not growing its principal settlement, Wycombe, in anything like the way Aylesbury is being expanded; · it is not actively reviewing the release of green belt sites for development; . most importantly, WDC is applying very low housing densities and including a 25% allowance for tree cover. As a comparison, the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan allows for a housing density of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph) while the average in the Wycombe plan is less than 12 dph.

I support the AVDC decision to appoint consultants to scrutinise demands from neighbouring DCs and to fight the Wycombe DC approach.

Paragraph 1.17 The provision of infrastructure – it is essential that this infrastructure is provided at the same time as the new housing and communities do not have to wait for extra school places, medical centres etc.

Paragraph 1.8 Haddenham is a historic village with a large conservation area. The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and that there should be a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. Haddenham should be supported as it has a real sense of community and a large number of supportive organisations and activities, which are a valued part of village life. This is often lost after major developments have occurred when significant increases in size lead to a lack of a sense of identity. Social considerations are as important as economic ones, and village life is an important aspect of our national heritage.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 21 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00643 Angela Matthews Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.13 states councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale have identified an unmet need of 12,000 homes. This should be forcefully challenged. For example, Wycombe DC has claimed an unmet need of 5,000 homes. I am particularly concerned with the Wycombe proposals for the following reasons: –

I support the AVDC decision to appoint consultants to scrutinise demands from neighbouring DCs and to fight the Wycombe DC approach.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 22 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00647 Linda Currie Comments on Background - 1. Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) is pleased to be able to comment on the draft Vale of Aylesbury (Oxfordshire County Local Plan (VALP) and its supporting evidence. Council) 2. OCC supports the draft plan housing target of 33,000 homes in that it seeks to accommodate the district’s own identified housing needs in full and make provision for unmet needs from other Buckinghamshire districts within the housing market area. We note the scale of unmet need is currently estimated as 12,000 but this figure may change depending on the outcome of other districts’ capacity work. 3. OCC has no objection in principle to a spatial strategy based on focusing growth and investment primarily at Aylesbury where it can take advantage of East-West Rail, with further significant development at Buckingham, Winslow, Wendover and Haddenham, and in a new settlement, provided that the impacts of proposed growth on the Oxfordshire highway network are fully assessed and the VALP contains policies and proposals to deliver necessary mitigation measures. 4. At this stage the draft VALP does not adequately address cross-boundary impacts and OCC has not been involved in modelling discussions or transport strategy discussions. OCC requests that it is invited to work with Aylesbury Vale and Buckinghamshire councils under the duty to cooperate as the local plan evidence base is developed to ensure that transport work takes account of significant growth proposals within Oxfordshire and the strategic infrastructure schemes identified or being explored to support it, particularly growth at Bicester and at Thame. We will also want to be satisfied that any appropriate mitigation measures are identified in the VALP and can be delivered by development. 5. The draft VALP proposes a new settlement of some 4,500 homes should be located at either: Haddenham which has potential for a large extension, a range of existing infrastructure and the settlement’s is relatively accessible with Haddenham & Thame Parkway and the A418 corridor providing access by public transport to a number of employment centres; or Winslow, where development would be able to take advantage of a range of services, its physical potential to grow and the increased connectivity of the location which East-West Rail (EWR) will deliver on opening of a new station. 6. It is this Council’s preference for a new settlement to be located at Winslow where it would help strengthen the business case for delivery of East-West Rail early in the plan period, including the opening of a station in 2020. Significant growth at Haddenham would have significant impacts on the A418 corridor, particularly at Thame and is likely to require costly mitigating measures which would need to be funded by the development as well as a wide range of on-site infrastructure. 7. We look forward to continuing to work with Aylesbury Vale on National Infrastructure projects that hold joint interest, namely East- West Rail and the Oxford – Cambridge Expressway. 8. The Plan covers Education infrastructure in very general terms. Further detail should be provided about planned new or improved education facilities required to support growth, including its phasing, funding and delivery mechanisms as this will impact on cross- border pupil movements and any changes which need to be factored into both Oxfordshire’s and Buckinghamshire’s pupil place planning.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 23 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00653 Quainton Parish Council Comments on Background - p.11 introduction 1.3 The PC notes that the 'Issues and options' consultation looked at options for accommodating 31,000 houses

1.4 The PC appreciate that the content of previous responses have been taken into account in preparing this draft VALP 1.10 The Parish Council feel strongly that AVDC has cooperated with neighbouring areas.

1.13 Totally agree that is unacceptable for councils south of Aylesbury, Wycombe and South Bucks to pass their unmet need onto AV. Agree with AVDC commissioning Hearn to research housing stock and density in High Wycombe and South Bucks areas 1.14 Agree that AVDC should pursue the expansion of Aylesbury as a Garden Town instead of trying to fulfill all housing need by increasing the allocations in the settlement hierarchy. 1.15 Agree that spare employment sites should be re-allocated for housing. 1.17 The PC agrees that the provision of infrastructure to support the new housing is essential, such as new roads, schools and sewerage.

1.25-1.27 agree Having asked members of the public to volunteer and produce NDPs for their villages or towns, maximum weight should be given to 'made' plans even if the VALP is still in the development stage

VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Comments on Background - We wish to query the timings for the release of the Draft Plan at the current time given uncertainty Developments Ltd) around many issues that go to the heart of soundness and legal compliance. At paragraph 1.13 of the Draft Plan, the term “worst case scenario” in respect of 33,300 homes does not seem positively aspirational. At this stage, it is unclear as to the level of housing growth required which has spatial implications VALP16-09-02-00664 Ken Trew (Cuddington Comments on Background - 1.Background Parish Council) Para 1.13 Duty to cooperate The Council is seeking to find space for an estimated unmet need of 12,000 from neighbouring districts. This is described as a ‘worst case scenario’. However, there is great uncertainty about this number and AVDC officers are actively seeking to reduce the ‘unmet need’ figure by auditing the estimates of their neighbouring authorities. The numbers will also be tested at the Public Examinations. It seems likely that there will not be any certainty about these numbers before the VALP goes to PE and the numbers will not be fixed until the Plan is adopted (date tbc). It would help if the VALP could set out what would happen if the final housing numbers are different from those being incorporated in the Plan and include details of the relevant consultation process.

Para 1.62 Natural and Built Environment This section should include a reference to the landscape of the district and the Areas of Attractive Landscape

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 24 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00665 Gary Palmer (South Comments on Background - SODC note that AVDC is at present estimating a figure of 12,000 dwellings to meet unmet needs Oxfordshire District from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks. We note also that the Draft Local Plan does not identify any potential unmet needs arising Council) from Aylesbury Vale. We welcome and support this, both now and in the context of any future objectively assessed housing needs in the County. We would be grateful to receive regular updates as work progresses. VALP16-09-02-00666 Kate Curry (Aston Comments on Background - 1:3 Call for sites was not published or explained widely enough Abbotts Parish Council) 1:14 and 1:50 Agree affordable housing is a huge priority 1:16 Agree town centre development is vital 1:17 and 1:21 Building new roads - need to consider the impact on surrounding villages, which are now being used as rat runs due to new link roads only going part way around Aylesbury (eg the link from the A41 – A413 has resulted in massive increase in rush hour traffic from Weedon – Aston Abbotts and extremely dangerous conditions on a minor road not suitable for high levels of traffic. It is imperative the link road is continued through to the A418 before any further development is out into place. 1:27 reference is made to the role of local communities liaising with AVDC to identify possible sites for development, but it not made clear how this would work, and what criteria were to be used in identifying such sites - particularly if the sites could not be identified on a neighbourhood Plan (which Aston Abbotts does not have. if we cannot identify such sites will AVDC do so without consulting us?

VALP16-09-02-00669 Sean Carolan Comments on Background - 1.13 The legitimacy of the unmet needs figures from neighbouring boroughs should be challenged as thoroughly as possible.

1.19 Seems to indicate that the A421 Expressway is even further into the future than EWR, which is now at least 2022 with the London spur several years later. Bearing that in mind where is the infrastructure to support a potential settlement at Winslow/Great Horwood?

1.21 Traffic modelling is not yet done, and for A413 this is very important with or without a new settlement. Traffic is treated in terms of impact mitigation which seems too simplistic in the event of a new settlement, there is the important matter of whether the necessary traffic flows are POSSIBLE in the first place. Without the Expressway a new settlement at Winslow/Great Horwood would rely heavily on the B4033 and B4034, which is difficult to imagine.

1.27 I accept that the district may impose sites on a parish that has no adopted plan, but does that give the district the right to predetermine sites in case the parish doesn't produce a plan? I suggest not. The district would need to make a decision in light of the circumstances at the time, and the very fact that sites were predetermined would be grounds for having the decision overturned.

1.57 is surely a misprint (or written by someone who doesn't drive)? Access to the M1 and M40 from Silverstone is fine, but access from Buckingham TO the A43 is appalling.

VALP16-09-02-00671 David Child Comments on Background - 1.38 the population growth figure is too high - needs to be reviewed. 1.13 taking housing need from other districts makes no sense it will require people requiring to work in other districts to travel or push AVDC residents to travel the result being at least 12000+ extra journeys of half across AVDC

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 25 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00676 martin thomas Comments on Background - 1.13 duty to co-operate says AVDC will 'robustly challenge the level of unmet need' yet there is talk right from the outset of 33,000 new homes ie including 12,000 from the rest of Bucks. This looks as if AVDC is resigned to accepting the 12,000, hardly a robust negotiating tactic.

1.17 Infrastructure roads, schools, water, sewage. Residents are watching this carefully and in real fear that the infrastructure will lag behind the rest of development. We can't accept half-hearted promises. VALP16-09-02-00677 Steven Mitchell Comments on Background - Support

VALP16-09-02-00678 Patricia Stradling Comments on Background - 1.13 The unmet need from Wycombe and South Bucks needs to be rigorously challenged with comparison of housing densities and the chance of designation of Green Belt areas. 1.32 Haddenham has never had the facilities expected in a town. There is no defined centre with the range of shops expected in a town and no secondary school. 1.35 Haddenham provides medical services at the Haddenham Medical Centre and pharmacy for the surrounding villages. It has the 280 Arriva bus passing through connecting Haddenham with Aylesbury and Thame and the train station connecting with London and Marylebone. There is already a significant village issue around commuters parking in residential streets and along the Thame Rd impeding the progress of buses and emergency vehicles. Shops are limited and villagers tend to leave the village to shop in Thame, Aylesbury or Princes Risborough. Secondary school age children migrate out of the village to Thame, Aylesbury, Waddesdon and Princes Risborough.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 26 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00691 Barbara Hewson Comments on Background - 1.10 Duty to cooperate

1.11UNMET NEED

The suggestion that AVDC should accept up to 12,000 Unmet is totally unacceptable. Housing Densities should be close across the four districts within our HMA. As evidence I suggest-

- Density, linked to Low cost housing need. Affordable Homes Delivery

When you look at the use of Bed and Breakfast accommodation and supply of low cost housing within the Wycombe; Chiltern and South Buck Districts the numbers are. frankly, appalling. The numbers highlighted are for last months and represent the ongoing trend. WDC supplied only 22 , SB only 4 against AVDC's 213! There can be no excuse, to my mind, of lower densities when reviewing these needs. When looking at those in need (particularly highest need), there is a clear requirement to house people close to their existing families/friends/work etc. I cannot see how any of this need should be passed over.

District AVDC CDC SBDC WDC

Households on Register 3221 1729 1591 2773 as at 22/07/16

New Affordable Homes Completed 213 22 4 22 During 2015/16

Homes Completed 6.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.8% As Proportion Of Need

We1 1 are I falready failing.THIS We IS must THE face KEY reality;- REQUIREMENT - Minor roads are failing, funds will not be made available to maintain them and yet we propose significant growth, with accompanying traffic. - Public transport ( primarily bus services) is already inadequate and will be largely removed from medium/small villages. Even the largest are barely sustainable. - Schools are full in many places. We must acknowledge that some cannot and will not be expanded. Housing targets need to be refined to reflect reality.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 27 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00705 Elizabeth Dickson Comments on Background - With regards to chapter one : if new homes are needed and I totally agree that people must have somewhere to live I feel it shouldn't impact on residence already living in Haddenham.. There are many other sites which should be considered. Also I feel that Princes Risborough should be allocated more housing in areas surrounding it as Risborough is the next obvious choice. If Wycombe say they can't find enough space then why don't they build on land just outside Wycombe.. It is a town and Haddenham is a village and I strongly feel that it should stay a village .. The people in Gaddenham moved there. Ecuador of its village feel and community, this will be eroded and it will change so much... If I had wanted to live in a busy town with housing estates I wouldn't have moved here in the fist place. I am from London and chose to live here because it was a village .. This is incredibly sad and the planning for z housing estate on prime agricultural land at the back of a conservation area with listed houses is so so so so wrong! Surely there are better places to build... There are fields which would t upset or affect anyone..there are green belt sites in Wycombe which should be reviewed... VALP16-09-03-00712 Frank Donlon Comments on Background - 1.8 The national target of 250,000 new houses per annum was set prior to the recent referendum decision to Brexit. Given that one of the most often quoted reasons for favouring Brexit was to reduce levels of immigration, then the government should now be asked to recalculate the required new housing numbers.

1.13 The figure of 12,000 from neighbouring districts does not include the figure of 4,274 from Milton Keynes - all of which will be within close proximity to the existing town of Winslow and to the 4,500/6,000 house proposed new settlement.

VALP16-09-03-00715 Roderick floud Comments on Background - Para 1.8 Haddenham is a historic village with a large conservation area. The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and that there should be a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. This laudable aim should not be forgotten for Haddenham has a real sense of community and caring for each other is evidenced by the number of supportive organisations and activities, which are a valued part of village life. This is rarely found after major developments, for significant increases in size lead to a lack of a sense of identity. Social considerations are as important as economic ones, and village life is an important aspect of our national heritage.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 28 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00716 Bryan Mitcham (Year) Comments on Background - 1.1 I am writing to strongly protest against the proposal for plans shown which increase the size of Winslow beyond the democratically agreed local plan. This plan has been agreed by a large public vote, which planned for organic growth of the town. 1.13 The housing numbers are too high. The council should resist having to take an additional 10-12,000 houses from surrounding authorities. This would significantly alter the plan. 1.18 Mentions that majority of the infrastructure money is going to be spent on Aylesbury when large developments are being proposed for Winslow and Haddenham. Current Winslow infrastructure would not cope after decades of under investment. Very limited leisure facilities and shopping. This would need to be provided from scratch for a town that would x5 in size. The new town should be situated so that it does not impact on existing settlements. 1.19 A421 road was shown running next to Winslow. This is the first time this has ever been shown on a plan. From what I can find out this is a totally independent project by central government which isn’t yet planned, or funded and may never be built. Using this to justify locating the development between Winslow and the Horwoods is flawed. If this road is agreed or being built then it can be used in plans, not before because it is currently a piece of fiction. The existing area has very poor quality roads. Narrow, pot holed and routed through villages. Even the main A413 isn’t very good. The proposed siting for so many houses at Winslow is many miles from motorway access to M40 / M1. Again East West Rail is an independent project and until it is open can’t be used to justify anything being built. Does this development pay for East West rail? No it doesn’t. It is to be funded by a different source which keeps having funding issues. This railway was originally supposed to open in 2017, it is now 2016 and hasn’t even been started. Even when it opens it isn’t going to provide a particularly frequent or fast service to London; nowhere near the service enjoyed from surrounding areas; south Bucks where the additional 12000 houses should be built. 1.15 Employment in the local area is very limited due to the current rural nature. There were a few new employment development areas mentioned in the information. The location of this development next to Winslow does not suit any: Arla – the other side of Aylesbury which is now gridlocked with traffic – this is what happens when you keep building houses without spending money on infrastructure! Westcott – country lanes Silverstone – country lanes It should be noted that the previously mentioned A421 bypass or East West Rail would not provide access from this proposed site to any of the proposed employment areas so thousands of extra journeys would have to be made daily using existing routes. Recent gas main works with temporary traffic controls on the A413 High Street in Winslow showed what could happen by increasing traffic flows through the town. There were traffic queues to the beyond the town boundaries.

VALP16-09-03-00720 Ruth Scott (Scott Travel Comments on Background - 1.10- 1.13 The figures for "unmet need" seem to vary from time to time and, as ever, I am extremely Ltd) concerned about the influence that property speculators have on site selection policy - regardless of actual need, infrastructure or long-term sustainability.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 29 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00726 Richard Dorrance Comments on Background - 1.36 I live in Northall village near Edlesborough. The residents in this village don't feel part of Aylesbury Vale because we rarely see a Councillor, we have very poor services which are not adequately funded, there is little local employment and we have poor public transport into Aylesbury. The background ignores this backwater of Aylesbury Vale which has very distinctive problems and deprivation. The draft plan ignores us and gives the impression that we can be treated the same as other parts of Aylesbury Vale. Most residents knew this when they moved to this area and we are generally happy being ignored by AVDC but it is wrong that a Development Plan ignores our specific needs/wants. This is a pity as otherwise the Draft Plan is very good. VALP16-09-04-00738 Linda Kemp (Kemp's Comments on Background - 1.15 ---I have lived in Ford Village for 37 years and raised my three children here. I have also helped Farm) my husband run our own business for all of that time, firstly as a mushroom farm and then as industrial units. Apart from one other property, the proposed new development near Aston Sandford affects me more than any other Ford resident. During my time at Ford Village many residents have objected to lots of planning applications, and sometimes very nastily, but then moved out of the village. It seems to be a small group of residents not representative of the majority who try and bully the rest of Ford to objecting to just about everything. I believe there is an urgent need for affordable housing in our area and would long-term favour the use of our land for housing, subject to terms and conditions. This would apply to our farm, should the renting become non-viable, as well as our waste land in Ford, outlined by my husband. I also support the proposed new development near Aston Sandford for the same reasons.

1.22---I support my husband in the use of the waste land between Chapel Road and Longwick Road.There is a great need in the area for affordable housing especially for young people and this land would be ideal for this. Again the development near Aston Sandford would contribute to this requirement for more housing.

VALP16-09-04-00739 Pierre & Wendy Hibble Comments on Background - Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 The requirement to add housing in Aylesbury Vale is a given. However it must not be the case that Aylesbury Vale becomes the easy or soft option for adjoining authorities who do not wish to accept their responsibilities. The increase in the Aylesbury Vale proposed housing is not acceptable simply because the adjacent authorities have unmet needs. While one can sympathise with the objectives of those adjacent authorities,, i.e. they wish to protect their current greenbelts and low density of housing, the problem must not be handed off to the detriment of others, i.e. Aylesbury Vale. It must be recognised that such additional housing in Aylesbury Vale will bring little or no benefit but will inevitably exacerbate issues such as the need to travel as the "unmet needs" residents commute to those same adjoining authorities for their work, visit family etc. To accept such an argument for transferring unmet needs to Aylesbury Vale does not address the fundamental problem of providing homes where people wish to live due to the concentration of work and job opportunities. Acceptance sets a dangerous precedent for allowing an authority to avoid its obligations to its peoples and at the same time designates Aylesbury Vale as nothing more than a dormitory area. Cooperation with adjoining authorities is important but must not be to the detriment of existing residents. Aylesbury Vale would be failing in its duty if it did not fully and totally reject any requirement to accept the unmet needs of others. The rejection of the unmet needs housing then allows Aylesbury Vale greater flexibility in addressing its own issues and such ill conceived developments as that at Whaddon, required to "make-up the numbers", can be eliminated.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 30 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00742 Carolyn Cumming Comments on Background - DUTY TO CO-OPERATE Paragraphs 1.11 – 1.14 It is clear that OANs for housing in other districts means their needs, not the Vale’s. It follows therefore that neighbouring districts must recognise higher densisties in order to meet their assessed needs BEFORE a s-called unmet need is allocated further away from the centre of need. It appears there is a great discrepancy between proposed density of dwellings between Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale. This anomaly cannot be a sound policy. Every district values greenfield sites – whether they be historically designated as Green Belt or not. The fact remains that areas closest to Greater London were first designated as Green Belt because of the capital’s ever increasing outward circle of development. That expanding circle of built development is now overwhelming districts further and further away from the capital. It follows therefore that “green belt” is a terminology that must be applied to all green fields surrounding existing settlements, or be abandoned altogether. Paragraph 1.15 Aylesbury Vale’s OAN is for 22 ha. But this becomes an inaccurate figure once any “unmet need” over and above the OAN for the Vale is established. Further employment sites will need to be found if the total number of households exceeds the OAN for Aylesbury Vale. Paragraph 1.18 There is a greater need to focus on transport improvements on east-west connectivity. Those links that are referred to as “in the longer term” are an essential component in being able to deliver sustainable development in the north of the district. Paragraph 1.21 It is regrettable that so much “evidence” is yet to be finalised, making the consultation on this draft very imprecise. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANS Paragraphs 1.26, 1.27, 1.29, In the case of Buckingham, the plan was made in full compliance with District needs. If housing numbers are to be raised, neighbourhood plans must be given sufficient time to review their allocations without being penalised for non delivery. I would like to see a specific policy adopted within the Local Plan that gives Neighbourhood Plans a set period of time from the plan’s initial adoption (suggest 5 years) before the neighbourhood in question is required to provide new allocations. This would go some way to addressing the anger and sense of futility that will be the result of ignoring years of hard work on the part of those neighbourhoods with a Made Plan. 1.27 I disagree with this policy for reasons set out above in preceding paragraphs. 1.29 The local plan policies map should include all Neighbourhood Plan designated sites and refer to site reference codes within the specific Neighbourhood Plans. VALP16-09-04-00744 Cllr David Finch Comments on Background - Chapter 1 - Comments Para 1.27 - In a made Neighbourhood Plan, all sites, including reserve sites, should be for the local community to decide, through an update - if required - of the Neighbourhood Plan. In such circumstances, the VALP should not identify Potential Housing Allocations, nor any Reserve Sites. VALP16-09-04-00745 Marianne Faux Comments on Background - Para 12.7 - In a made Neighbourhood Plan, all sites, including reserve sites, should be for the local community to decide, through an update - if required - of the Neighbourhood Plan (See Additional Notes)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 31 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00747 Simon Bromige Comments on Background - I am making comment on the impact that this monstrosity will have on Newton Longville. I moved from Westcroft Milton Keynes to escape the expansionism that was occurring there I like some many people have worked hard to get up the housing ladder.

I saw what a complete lack of thought did in Westcroft the houses although nice were crammed in there was absolutely no consideration given to parking or multi car families hence the parking there is now an absolute nightmare, there was the farce of householders renting their premises out without a thought to the people that resided there alongside this came the anti social behaviour noise pollution and rubbish/ litter being chucked about.

We decided to move to a village took a financial hit on the house we sold and settled in Newton Longville it now transpires that AVDC propose to do the same to Newton Longville as MKC did to area of Milton Keynes.

The word sustainability is banded around the need for more housing, I appreciate that but how are the roads going to cope the village has a speed watch group,MVAS and occasional visits from the TVP speed reduction van. We are a rat run between the Bottledump roundabout and the A4146 by pass along the Whaddon road speeds of up to 90mph have been recorded (90mph in a 30 mph zone!!!) we have in excess of 150,000 vehicles going through the village monthly, I've even seen big 38 tonne trucks being overtaken in the 30mph zone and you propose another 1800+ houses to be built around and in NL?

The roads won't cope please don't insult our intelligence by saying that there are plans for the transport infrastructure Newton Leys blows that claim out of the water.

What about the green belt and agricultural land we seem to be building all over that our future food supply that we will need is getting smaller and smaller why can't you regenerate those empty buildings industrial estates or use brown field sites first?

What about schools and Doctors surgeries and policing are there going to be new surgeries to service the new community and are there GPs in place to serve the community the same question applies to Schools again Newton Leys were told that they would have the infrastructure in place they have had to fight to get it. Policing are we going to get an increase in police officers and will we see them on patrol?

I moved to a village for a village life, I accept the terrible broadband the power failures having to get in my car to go shopping etc because I want to live in a village not a bolt on to Milton Keynes I am not against using space within the village confines to build more houses but to have 1800+ houses built when the roads and the other issues covered above haven't been addressed it is a VALP16-09-04-00750 Colin Read (Aston Comments on Background - All good Clinton parish planning) VALP16-09-04-00751 Anthony Winterbottom Comments on Background - n/a

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 32 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00755 Joyce Docherty Comments on Background - Para 1.27 - Where a Neighbourhood Plan has been made, all sites, including Reserve Sites, should be a matter for identification by the local community through an update (if necessary) of the Neighbourhood Plan. In such circumstances, the VALP should not identify Potential Housing Allocations, nor any Reserve Sites. VALP16-09-04-00756 Andrew Docherty Comments on Background - Para 1.27 - Where a Neighbourhood Plan has been made, all sites, including Reserve Sites, should be a matter for identification by the local community through an update (if necessary) of the Neighbourhood Plan. In such circumstances, the VALP should not identify Potential Housing Allocations, nor any Reserve Sites. VALP16-09-04-00763 Steven Kay Comments on Background - I object that Aylesbury Vale should pick up Wycombe's shortfall of 5000 homes under a ‘un-met needs arrangement’. Without this AVDC would need to find 28,500 homes, which would be much more achievable without destroying the character of villages like Ivinghoe. VALP16-09-04-00765 David Richards Comments on Background - 1.10 - 1.13 There is an issue of proportionality here. The Vale currently has 78,500 homes (1.49). The proposal is to add a further 33,000 homes; almost a 50% increase. Population growth is likely to be higher because new houses mean younger owners with families.This will cause massive disruption to existing residents, made worse by the huge growth in housing numbers in adjacent Milton Keynes. I understand that Aylesbury Vale has a duty to cooperate, but this does not mean accepting unsupportable changes of this nature. VALP16-09-04-00768 RICHARD WINWARD Comments on Background - Page 10 Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 with specific reference to Site WHA001 WHADDON. The VALP appears to be partly based incorporating the unmet needs of adjoining authorities and the assumption that there can be an element of shared infrastructure with Milton Keynes. These factors should be re-examined and stress tested against the consequences of (1) Brexit with lower future demands for housing (2) the need for Milton Keynes to adopt sustainable development to the East & North of the city. The substantial development being considered in the North East corner of AVDC has a high risk of creating " dormitory " settlements isolated from employment opportunities placing unacceptable strains on communication routes and therefore not sustainable. VALP16-09-04-00769 Beverley James Comments on Background - I am broadly in favour of the plan. I would urge steadfast resistance of unreasonable pressure from neighboring districts. VALP16-09-04-00773 Michael Underwood Comments on Background - 1.25 We understood from the government that Neighbourhood plans once approved would take priority over any planning applications . There is already a planning application for Cheddington in a designated area for a 100 houses . That's plenty for a small village .

VALP16-09-04-00783 Morgan Holt Comments on Background - Par 1.11 We don’t feel we ought to absorb the unmet needs of neighbouring districts. Wycombe is protecting its scenery at our expense. If we refuse to accept these numbers, then the destruction of Haddenham’s village simply goes away. VALP16-09-04-00784 Paul Tattam Comments on Background - 1.13 Unmet need for the South of Bucks, not acceptable that we have to provide. 1.17 Infrastructure is responsibility of Bucks CC, well that is where it all goes wrong, plus no plan to consider 1.58 Only talks about peak time congestion, what about the queues of traffic coming into Aylesbury from Aston Clinton on a Saturday, normally queueing from the College road north junction. 3 air quality management zones already, nothing here is going to reduce that, only increase it 1.65 Co2 emissions need to be factored in

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 33 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00786 Matthew Yates Comments on Background - 1.13 I am absolutely appalled to read that Aylesbury Vale are expected to make up the shortfall in housing (some 12,000) from neighbouring councils...I absolutely protest this. We should not and can not afford to ruin our area by building more houses than are needed. There are insufficient jobs, services and infrastructure to support this (even in the proposed plans) and I am appalled it has even been considered. Greater push back and scrutiny is required of other councils but ultimately Aylesbury Vale must just say NO! VALP16-09-04-00789 Angie Ravn-Aagaard Comments on Background - 1.2 In recent years, developers have drawn up planning applications to establish new settlements (Bletchley Park Area within the Aylesbury Vale area on the borders of Milton Keynes for profit and not in the interests of local communities due to lack of Residents Association) an up to date Local Plan. For instance, South West Milton Keynes Consortium have cited absence of an Aylesbury Vale Local Plan as justification for their recent planning application. 1.10 Duty to cooperate with neighbouring councils - there must be Infrastructure before Expansion, plus collaboration & consensus between all the local authorities impacted by this Plan - this has not happened. Instead, Aylesbury Vale propose to site their settlements on the doorstep of Milton Keynes, with Aylesbury Vale picking up the financial gain and council tax revenue, and Milton Keynes residents picking up the cost of services such as education, health etc. and their roads becoming even more congested. 1.17 Development of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan by bodies such as Bucks CC, and 1.19 states in the longer term, the potential provision of A421 Oxford-Cambridge Expressway and East West Rail to provide improved east / west connections. Already Bucks CC has announced plans for the A421 Expressway, but no road improvements for essential roads such as the Bletchley Southern Bypass which will be impacted by Aylesbury Vale proposed development. Same applies to the National Infrastructure Council's proposed review of Milton Keynes/Cambridge/Oxford Corridor – the priority being infrastructure improvement with mention of East/West Rail, Oxford/Cambridge Expressway, but nothing about Bletchley Southern Bypass. 1.34 refers to Buckingham as the second largest settlement, but no reference to Milton Keynes despite provision of new settlement and allocations on sites adjacent to Milton Keynes.

VALP16-09-04-00792 John Griffiths Comments on Background - 1.13 - I don't agree that the unmet needs from other districts should all fall within Aylesbury Vale, and the Duty To Cooperate is not a fair policy.

1.25 - Haddenham's Local Neighbourhood Plan was "made" but then not defended by AVDC, and not taken into account. This is disappointing.

1.35 - I don't believe Haddenham is in the same league regarding infrastructure and facilities as any of the other "Strategic" settlements. It has no secondary school, no recognised shopping area and a village layout. It is far less sustainable than others that are towns and already has too few services to cover the number of houses.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 34 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00794 Barry Martindale Comments on Background - 1.6 It is encouraging to see local residents being part of the planning process. But to be a credible process, it is essential for the Plan to be worth the "paper" it is printed on. That means the views of local residents should not only be asked for but also be seen to be acted upon at least to the best possible ability within the aims & constraints of the Council. 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 1.14; it is generally well accepted that the Vale should [has to] contribute to all the objectives of National need, expected growth, duty to co-operate & to provide much needed housing. It is how the land and infrastructure to do this is allocated & implemented is the cause of concern. There is no confidence developers will provide infra structure before they make their money with houses, if ever. There is less confidence in the power or ability of the Council to enforce or police this, either, however much it may be 'planned' for.

VALP16-09-04-00795 Cllr Diana Hogbin-Mills Comments on Background - ref 1.13 - Why write a plan for just the worst case scenario. It would be more productive and offer greater opportunities for exploration if 3 scenarios were created? If North Bucks did not take on the extra home allocation from Southern Bucks then what would be the implications to number of houses being required in North Bucks. Some of the issues that we potentially face could be removed and we would then be able to focus on creating a workable local plan.

VALP16-09-05-00803 Jason Cunningham Comments on Background - Call policy map insets

VALP16-09-05-00806 Jeff_ Deacon Comments on Background - Right from the start, this document is clearly an example of Central Planning. AVDC are obviously just a delivery agent for central government. Local input is welcome provided it is the correct type, ie supportive of the Central Government objectives. How else does "guidance" become mandatory?

I note the proven lack of support for local plans produced by the parishes (albeit within the central planning framework). The way that you hung Haddenham PC out to dry when the plan was challenged by developers is a very clear indication that you believe "local" and "fig leaf" share the same definition. VALP16-09-05-00807 Angela Truesdale Comments on Background - 1.10 I would like to make an objection to taking High Wycombe’s unmet housing need when their own plan shows much lower densities of dwellings per hectare than AVDC. High Wycombe needs to match the dwellings per hectare of AVDC and then assess whether there is any unmet housing need. If High Wycombe can meet their own housing needs there would be no need for additional new settlements in AVDC. The proposed additional new settlement at Haddenham would threaten a beautiful, historic village within a sensitive landscape, which is not acceptable. I have made more specific comments against the chapter on 'Delivering a new settlement'. VALP16-09-05-00812 Simon Russell Comments on Background - None (Amethyst Planning) VALP16-09-05-00814 Shirley Tinnion Comments on Background - 1.9. The premis that 21300 houses are "needed" does not take into,account what is possible without having a significant effect on the character and infrastructure of the area. Assuming an average of 3 people per house that gives 63900 extra people- a number only slightly smaller than Aylebury town. The increased growth I believe is not supported, nor cannot be supported without huge change in the rural character of the area, by travel, housing or health facilities. Local hospitals and GP surgeries are already struggling with the demands made on them and there are significant problems recruiting GPs to the area- as evidenced recently by a local Surgery.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 35 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00830 Manlet Group Holdings Comments on Background - 2.1Manlet Group note that clarification is provided in Chapter 1 in relation to the preparation and role of the VALP. In particular, Manlet Group note the role of neighbourhood plans and that they are part of the development plan when they are ‘made’. 2.2Manlet Group welcomes the clarification provided by draft Paragraph 1.25 which states that “…the neighbourhood plans which have been made have not been based on this draft local plan or the associated settlement hierarchy” and draft Paragraph 1.26 which states that “housing numbers would probably need to be raised to meet overall housing need in the district”. 2.3Manlet Group also support draft Paragraph 1.27 but suggest the following amendments “…the Council will work with the town and parish councils to identify non-strategic sites which can be allocated through revisions to their neighbourhood plans”. 2.4Manlet Group object to the line in draft Paragraph 1.27 that states “The Council will work to identify sites it can keep in reserve”. Manlet Group are concerned that the draft VALP fails to identify sufficient sites in some settlements, in particular Cheddington and that there is no justification for reserve sites. Suitable sites should be allocated now to ensure a sufficient supply when the plan is adopted.

VALP16-09-05-00832 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00840 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00847 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 36 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00853 Suzanne Lindsey Comments on Background - 1 BACKGROUND (Whaddon Parish Council) Before making comment on the VALP proper, Whaddon Parish Council (WPC) wishes to place on record the following four points :-

1) Despite having a massive 2000 home site proposed in the Whaddon Parish (representing a huge 1100% increase in the parish population, currently around 450 souls residing in approx 185 homes), AVDC did not find it necessary or appropriate to hold an ‘exhibition event’ in Whaddon village, thereby expecting residents to travel to nearby towns to find out ‘what was going on’. Even when WPC demanded that an exhibition be held within the village, it was initially rejected, only to be almost immediately overturned (WPC understand by Director intervention) when direct action was threatened by the WPC. This is not the way to encourage involvement with communities, no matter what size the community happens to be. WPC do not know how the VALP is likely to evolve over coming months, but they do not wish to see a repeat of this type of ‘community exclusion’, especially with the parish being the possible recipient of so many new homes. WPC expects to be kept fully informed, and in the event that this Parish and it’s community are chosen as a site for any form of major development, it wishes to be involved as ‘fully as possible’ in all negotiations that will impact on, and affect its residents, but especially those specific issues affecting, traffic and transport, coalescence and landscape separation etc.

2) In the event, a Whaddon Village exhibition was held on Monday 8th August, from 11.00am until 8.00pm. WPC manned the exhibition from 11.00am until 4.00pm, and were then joined by officers from AVDC until the close at 8.00pm. During the exhibition approximately 140 residents attended. The general feeling of many of those was one of great disappointment, as the displays were far too generalised, were very difficult to interpret and concentrated far too much on the entire district, rather than, as had been requested, on the local issues that affect Whaddon village particulalry. Indeed, even though only one A1 display plan showed area WHA001 and NLV001, very few people understood, or could relate to it, as it excluded Whaddon Village itself (apart from Briary View, a small development right at the south-east edge of the village) and had virtually no points of reference as to where the site boundaries were.

3) Following the village exhibition, an ‘Extraordinary Parish meeting’ was held on Thursday 18 August, at which the VALP, and the issues impacting on the village (especially proposed housing site WHA001) was the only agenda item. Approximately 30 members of the public attended, and debate ensued for about two hours.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 37 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment 4) This WPC response to the VALP, tries to bring together all of the views, not only of elected parish councillors, but also of those members of the public, mainly Whaddon residents that made their views known at the two special village meetings. WPC hopes that the Whaddon views will be taken fully into account as this process moves forward, and whilst there was universal agreement that site WHA001 should not be recommended for inclusion at this time within the VALP, due to a complete lack of supportive evidence (technical and otherwise) as to it’s suitability as a sustainable site, it was also generally felt that in the event of major development being included in future versions of the Plan (in the general Whaddon area), there must be far greater and closer involvement with the local community so that the very many worries and concerns – not adequately dealt with in the current Draft VALP document – can be discussed and resolved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. This is of course most important to all local residents who, due to the serious deficiencies, will suffer the consequences of major development and have their chosen way of life severely disrupted.

WPC thanks AVDC for the opportunity to comment on this very important VALP document, and now show below our comments on the various paragraphs, chapters and policies.

1.10 – 1.13 Whilst WPC fully recognises that Government expects ‘cross boundary’ strategic issues to be discussed by adjoining Local Planning Authorities, WPC would point out that ‘A duty to co operate’ does not mean ‘A duty to agree’. It is absolutely right, and we are pleased to note that AVDC has appointed consultants to thoroughly examine adjoining districts’ Local Plans to see whether or not their ‘unmet needs’ are in fact realistic. WPC acknowledges that this is a difficult task, but many of our residents have a feeling that AVDC are perhaps concerned that due to their failure to get their last local plan adopted, they are being ‘overly helpful’ just to satisfy the next Inspector. Housing densities seem to be one area where adjoining local authorities may be failing in their duty to provide sufficient houses. Just because they may be constrained by landscape designations, etc. does not mean that they should artificially keep their housing densities on the low side. Before expecting AVDC to make up their unmet needs they should look to increase housing densities on all sites in their respective districts, even those that may have historically been treated as ‘low density areas’ because they are perhaps close to green belt, and were believed to be more suitable for ‘up market’ or ‘executive’ homes.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 38 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

INFRASTRUCTURE

1.17 VALP states :- The provision of infrastructure to support the new housing is essential, such as new roads, schools, water and sewerage provision, etc. Question: 2000 homes proposed at WHA001 – Whaddon, equates to 5000 people producing 650m3 of dry weather foul flow drainage per day - Where will it go? Does capacity exist at the Cotton Valley sewage works, Pineham. MK, and is the existing drainage infrastructure capable of getting it there – indeed has the existing sewage system been designed to cater for expansion in this direction? If not, can the capacity be increased, especially when bearing in mind existing committed development taking place at the Western Expansion Area, Kingsmead, Tattenhoe, etc? Similarly where will surface water drainage go, and drinking water come from? A new reinforcer water main has had to be recently laid to strengthen the service supply to the Western Expansion Area, but we are informed that this will not be capable of serving any new developments in the general location of Whaddon. Para 2.4 d. however virtually guarantees that infrastructure will be delivered in the right place at the right time. It is one thing for the Local Planning Authority to say that the statutory undertakers have a legal responsibility to provide the infrastructure, but can it be accomplished in a timely manner? One thing is absolutely clear, and that is that the existing Whaddon sewage treatment works located at the bottom of Kennel Lane, within the Parish boundaries will be unable to cope, or is this facility to be expanded!?

Similarly, what about education, there is nothing in the evidence suggesting which schools the children from 4274 homes will attend, indeed are places available?, nor the impact that these homes will have on the health service etc. There are so many important questions that remain unanswered, which WPC finds extremely unfortunate given the very limited time scale that remains to get a ‘sound’ plan before the Planning Inspectorate early next year.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 39 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

EVIDENCE

1.21 VALP states :- Conclusions will need to be reached on the housing numbers from other councils. Question: In the event that the Vale’s housing requirement reduces, as a result of perhaps not having to take so much ‘unmet housing need’, which proposed sites will be deleted from the plan? There must be a good case for WHA001 being top of the list, simply because no discussions or agreements have been reached with MKC, no supporting technical information has been undertaken whatsoever, let alone made available for inspection, and the infrastructure deficiency questions have yet to be investigated and resolved.

1.21 VALP states :- A range of other evidence will need to be finalised. Question: Clearly a great deal of technical information still has to be compiled before the plan can be completed, including :- traffic modelling of impacts, and how any impacts will be addressed; an infrastructure delivery plan, etc. When will communities be consulted on the findings and proposals, because the VALP will have to be updated, and a full opportunity to comment must be given before a final draft is presented to the Inspectorate? The time scales for getting this plan adopted do not appear to give sufficient time for this to properly occur. If all the outstanding questions on Infrastructure, sustainability, education, health, police, roads and transport etc. are not answered fully and quickly, then AVDC will run the risk of having a further ‘unsound plan’, leaving the door open for Government to appoint consultants to ‘finish the job’. This could lead to further confusion and delay.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 40 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment POPULATION

1.38 -1.39 Accepting AVDC quoted figures, the population is expected to grow by 40000 between 2011 and 2033. However if 33000 homes are to be built in this time frame, this will produce a population growth of some 83000 people. Why is there so much disparity between these figures?

ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT

1.46 If, as is stated, some 35000 residents commute out of the district to work, surely there should be greater emphasis on improving employment opportunities in the Vale to reduce this trend. By diverting over 50% of the proposed housing growth to the rural north of the district can (and will) only encourage more out commuting to Milton Keynes and beyond to Bedford (where excellent transport corridors already exist), not just for work but for leisure, shopping and other pursuits - which economically will do nothing for the Vale economy. The VALP at para 3.10 recognises that whilst the area has links with MK, these are not as strong as with High Wycombe, Chilterns and South Bucks, so surely it makes sense to concentrate the housing and employment closer to where these stronger economic links exist. If so many homes are to be built in the North of the Vale, then transport links have to be improved massively and quickly to get people from North to South. WPC see very little opportunity for this to occur, especially as the so called, A421 Expressway has yet to have a route agreed – even before funding sources are investigated.^ 1.10 – 1.13 Whilst WPC fully recognises that Government expects ‘cross boundary’ strategic issues to be discussed by adjoining Local Planning Authorities, WPC would point out that ‘A duty to co operate’ does not mean ‘A duty to agree’. It is absolutely right, and we are pleased to note that AVDC has appointed consultants to thoroughly examine adjoining districts’ Local Plans to see whether or not their ‘unmet needs’ are in fact realistic. WPC acknowledges that this is a difficult task, but many of our residents have a feeling that AVDC are perhaps concerned that due to their failure to get their last local plan adopted, they are being ‘overly helpful’ just to satisfy the next Inspector. Housing densities seem to be one area where adjoining local authorities may be failing in their duty to provide sufficient houses. Just because they may be constrained by landscape designations, etc. does not mean that they should artificially keep their housing densities on the low side. Before expecting AVDC to make up their unmet needs they should look to increase housing densities on all sites in their respective districts, even those that may have historically been WPC VALP Response; Page 3 treated as ‘low density areas’ because they are perhaps close to green belt, and were believed to be more suitable for ‘up market’ or ‘executive’ homes.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 41 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment WPC are reliably formed that although there may have been some cross boundary discussion with MKC on certain strategic issues, there have been no discussions on the suitability of the housing site WHA001. If this is the case (and we are told that the first discussions are hoped to be held in October 2016), then this is unacceptable. Certainly there has been no approach to WPC by either local authority, nor are we aware of any minutes that have been produced, from any ‘behind closed doors’ discussions, or public local plan meetings. If WPC are incorrect in these understandings perhaps the appropriate minutes or notes of meetings can be made available to this Council. WPC really hope that an appointed Whaddon Councillor can be included in any discussions at a very early date so that resident concerns can be fully addressed and understood, before inappropriate decisions are made without proper community input. INFRASTRUCTURE 1.17 The provision of infrastructure to support the new housing is essential, such as new roads, schools, water and sewerage provision, etc. Question: 2000 homes proposed at WHA001 – Whaddon, equates to 5000 people producing 650m3 of dry weather foul flow drainage per day - Where will it go? Does capacity exist at the Cotton Valley sewage works, Pineham. MK, and is the existing drainage infrastructure capable of getting it there – indeed has the existing sewage system been designed to cater for expansion in this direction? If not, can the capacity be increased, especially when bearing in mind existing committed development taking place at the Western Expansion Area, Kingsmead, Tattenhoe, etc? Similarly where will surface water drainage go, and drinking water come from? A new reinforcer water main has had to be recently laid to strengthen the service supply to the Western Expansion Area, but we are informed that this will not be capable of serving any new developments in the general location of Whaddon. Para 2.4 d. however virtually guarantees that infrastructure will be delivered in the right place at the right time. It is one thing for the Local Planning Authority to say that the statutory undertakers have a legal responsibility to provide the infrastructure, but can it be accomplished in a timely manner? One thing is absolutely clear, and that is that the existing Whaddon sewage treatment works located at the bottom of Kennel Lane, within the Parish boundaries will be unable to cope, or is this facility to be expanded!? Similarly, what about education, there is nothing in the evidence suggesting which schools the children from 4274 homes will attend, indeed are places available?, nor the impact that these homes will have on the health service etc. There are so many important questions that remain unanswered, which WPC finds extremely unfortunate given the very limited time scale that remains to get a ‘sound’ plan before the Planning Inspectorate early next year.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 42 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment 1.18 -1.19 An essential part of the new infrastructure will be the provision of new transport infrastructure. It is essential that the route and time-scale for the A421 Expressway, and the opening date of East-West Rail is known. The north of the Vale (including Buckingham and Winslow) is expected to take up to approximately 50% of the 33000 homes and without this connecting infrastructure the area simply will not cope. All stakeholding authorities, AVDC, MKC and BCC know that the A421 is already overloaded, especially at peak times, so how will these problems be resolved? The lack of good and fast infrastructure from the north of the Aylesbury district to the proven housing and employment market areas in the south of the county and beyond, will almost certainly guarantee that anybody living in these new areas WPC VALP Response; Page 4 will migrate north into Milton Keynes and Bedford beyond, thereby impacting on the economic viability of AVDC. EVIDENCE 1.21 Conclusions will need to be reached on the housing numbers from other councils. Question: In the event that the Vale’s housing requirement reduces, as a result of perhaps not having to take so much ‘unmet housing need’, which proposed sites will be deleted from the plan? There must be a good case for WHA001 being top of the list, simply because no discussions or agreements have been reached with MKC, no supporting technical information has been undertaken whatsoever, let alone made available for inspection, and the infrastructure deficiency questions have yet to be investigated and resolved. 1.21 A range of other evidence will need to be finalised. Question: Clearly a great deal of technical information still has to be compiled before the plan can be completed, including:- traffic modelling of impacts, and how any impacts will be addressed; an infrastructure delivery plan, etc. When will communities be consulted on the findings and proposals, because the VALP will have to be updated, and a full opportunity to comment must be given before a final draft is presented to the Inspectorate? The time scales for getting this plan adopted do not appear to give sufficient time for this to properly occur. If all the outstanding questions on Infrastructure, sustainability, education, health, police, roads and transport etc. are not answered fully and quickly, then AVDC will run the risk of having a further ‘unsound plan’, leaving the door open for Government to appoint consultants to ‘finish the job’. This could lead to further confusion and delay. POPULATION 1.38 -1.39 Accepting AVDC quoted figures, the population is expected to grow by 40000 between 2011 and 2033. However if 33000 homes are to be built in this time frame, this will produce a population growth of some 83000 people. Why is there so much disparity between these figures?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 43 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT 1.46 If, as is stated, some 35000 residents commute out of the district to work, surely there should be greater emphasis on improving employment opportunities in the Vale to reduce this trend. By diverting over 50% of the proposed housing growth to the rural north of the district can (and will) only encourage more out commuting to Milton Keynes and beyond to Bedford (where excellent transport corridors already exist), not just for work but for leisure, shopping and other pursuits - which economically will do nothing for the Vale economy. The VALP at para 3.10 recognises that whilst the area has links with MK, these are not as strong as with High Wycombe, Chilterns and South Bucks, so surely it makes sense to concentrate the housing and employment closer to where these stronger economic links exist. If so many homes are to be built in the North of the Vale, then transport links have to be improved massively and quickly to get people from North to South. WPC see very little opportunity for this to occur, especially as the so called, A421 Expressway has yet to have a route agreed – even before funding sources are investigated.

VALP16-09-05-00857 Cho Wong Comments on Background - 1.6 The Plan is understood to be incomplete and not yet supported by evidence and yet residents are asked to comment. VALP16-09-05-00860 John Careford Comments on Background - 1.2 Assume self imposed is mid 2016. 1.10 is fundamentally flawed at central government level. Just setting targets across the board, then realising that some authorities are unable to deliver their apportionment is plain crazy. There should be a proper assessment of each area, so that realistic numbers are set for the need. Just pushing numbers around to make then totals cannot possibly be in response to the local demand. If folk want to live in an area, why would their allocation be placed into a neighbouring authority and that is deemed to make sense?

1.6.2 Protection of currently designated conservation areas seems to be almost non existent. It is not the build policy, rather the lack of joined up thinking on the road traffic. Rat runs are now ever more apparent, dangerously sized vehicles coming through unsuitable roads. I am particularly thinking of my own village of Newton Longville. The cut through from the A421 right through the village at a staggered crossroads down the Stoke Road to pick up the Stoke Hammond bypass is now quite dangerous.

VALP16-09-05-00866 Graham Neill Comments on Background - Para 1.17 Ref Edlesborough: Will infrastructure issues be properly resolved/funded. eg schools, doctors surgery, drainage and 'electricity supply' (How will the additional peak time power requirement be met?).

VALP16-09-05-00868 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00869 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 44 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00871 Mary Hunt (Aylesbury Comments on Background - 1.17 We believe that no Local Plan should be adopted before the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Vale Green Party) related Community Impact Levy are in place. The first thing any resident mentions when new development is proposed is that the infrastructure will not be in place. We need confidence that it will be. VALP16-09-05-00873 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 45 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00874 Philip Morley Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.8 refers to sustainable economic growth, and then refers to government policy to deliver 250,000 houses per annum nationally. This is, by definition, unsustainable - unless a time limit is put on the policy. We cannot keep building houses indefinitely, or the whole country will be built on. Clarification needed.

Paragraph 1.9 - Expected Growth - alludes to needing to match housing development with employment. However, where one leads the other tends to follow. Creating 21,000 new homes means that new jobs are required. Creating new jobs means that new homes are required. Where does this stop? What drives the expectation of continuous and indefinite growth?

Paragraph 1.13 - The councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale can't provide enough housing, presumably because they are in the AONB and Green Belt. Why should Wendover lose Green Belt provision to meet the needs of other areas which can't lose this provision?

Paragraph 1.15 - the report does not identify the location of the allocated employment area provision. It is therefore impossible to tell whether the housing proposals are located near the employment areas. This should be a pre-requisite wherever possible to minimise travel requirements and thereby improve sustainability.

Paragraph 1.17 identifies that new infrastructure will be required to support the new housing, but the report doesn't consider what this infrastructure should be. It is unacceptable to identify land for housing without having a plan for local schooling, public transport and key services.

Paragraph 1.18 refers to transport improvements, but only talks about increased road provision. What about sustainability? Why does the transport strategy document only consider the roads in and around Aylesbury. A joined up approach is required.

Paragraph 1.19 - East West Rail does indeed improve connectivity. But does this match the relative provision of housing and jobs? What about trains on the Amersham line? Is there any spare capacity on this line? Whilst it is the responsibility of Chiltern Railways to run the trains, it is pointless adding extra passengers if there is no capacity for additional carriages or trains either on the line itself or at Marylebone Station. The trains are already full by the time they reach Amersham. Have Chiltern been consulted?

Paragraph 1.54. Whilst it is inevitable that the number of brownfield sites will decrease year on year, it should be made a priority to develop ALL brownfield sites before allocating new sites.

VALP16-09-05-00878 Jonathan Pawsey Comments on Background - reference paragraphs 1.9. 1.14, 1.15, 1.20. The evidence provided by HEDNA following the Brexit vote is now out of date and not a fair reflection of expectation of growth needs in the future since it takes no account of changing net migration expectations resulting from termination of freedom of movement of EU citizens to which the Government is now committed. I have sent a more detailed response to this in a separate email

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 46 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00880 Jane Gaafar Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.13 "The councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale district have identified an estimated collective unmet need of 12,000 homes." I do not believe that the neighboroughing councils have examined their options or density of housing fully before identifying this unmet need. Fo Aylesbury Vale to take on this number of houses would mean a level of housing growth far in excess of neighboroughing councils and is unacceptable. The onus must be on the original councils to re-examine their plans. VALP16-09-05-00890 Jane Gardner (Marrons Comments on Background - Paragraph 1.13 : Duty to Co-operate Planning obo Rey Construction) One of the Framework’s Core Planning Principles stipulates, inter alia, that “Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.” (My emphasis; paragraph 17 refers).

Rey Construction is of the opinion that as part of the joint commissioning group for the Buckinghamshire HEDNA, Aylesbury District District Council (AVDC) has objectively identified the housing needs of its area (21,300 dwellings) over the plan period (2013 – 2033). It is also satisfied that in accordance with its duty to co-operate, AVDC has worked with other authorities within the HMA and in so doing has assessed those development requirements which cannot be wholly met within those authorities to the south of the District; (the unmet need of 12,000 dwellings). However, having done so, it is incumbent on the Council, in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework, to ensure that the Local Plan meets the identified need, in full.

Further, whilst, it is of course acknowledged that AVDC needs to satisfy itself that the stated level of unmet need is correct, it is imperative that it adopts a positive approach to the accommodation of these dwellings within the District, as it is only in so doing that the need for new homes will be met and the supply of housing will be boosted significantly.

For this reason, Rey Construction is concerned about ADVC’s approach to the identification of sufficient suitable and deliverable sites to meet this need. In particular, it is totally unacceptable, at this stage of the development plan process, to caveat the beginning of the second sentence of paragraph 1.13 with the word “If”. The Plan must identify the requisite number of suitable sites and if for some reason AVDC does not consider that they exist in sufficient numbers within its district, it is imperative that they review the criteria on which site suitability has been assessed.

Requested Change

It is therefore requested that paragraph 1.13 is amended as follows:

Delete first part of second sentence (“If sufficient suitable and deliverable sites can be found to meet this need”) and replace with:

“When added to the housing requirement for the District, the total need for new homes will be about 33,300 which will be provided for through the policies and proposals contained within this Local Plan.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 47 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00892 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00906 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00913 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00913 Jake Collinge (Jake Comments on Background - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00928 Tim Northey (Rectory Comments on Background - No comment. Homes Limited) VALP16-09-05-00929 Sue Severn (Berryfields Comments on Background - Berryfields PC's response is appended to this questionnaire.^ The comments of Stoke Hammond Parish Council & Stoke Parish Council are answered in final section rather than against individual section numbers. Hammond Parish Council) VALP16-09-05-00942 Keith Milmer Comments on Background - General Enquiry Regarding Comments Submitted (Haddenham.net)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 48 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00955 Jonathan Clover Comments on Background - 1.2: Given the history, and remaining data to be gathered, the deadlines seem unrealistic. 1.4: Would it be possible on future plans to include a summary of comments under different subjects in the plan within the Plan itself (as an Appendix). This would make the public feel their comments were more important, as being a part of the plan itself. 1.9 and 1.13: The figure for the District is stated to be definite but that for adjoining authorities is stated to be an estimate. If the adjoining authorities have prepared their own plans (and figures for housing need) surely the housing numbers could be clarified more precisely. I comment on other matters such as housing numbers, green belt, new settlement proposals and infrastructure (including transport) later. 1.38: Could the population figure for the area be updated. Similarly those for the age split of the population and mix of population by ethnic group (1.40/1). This would show the impact of recent building in Aylesbury on the overall population. 1.45 I think it would be helpful to assess the needs for the plan by reference to other data such as the type of work done, whether it is full or part time,and the proportion of the population who are not economically active due to care or family responsibilities, ill heath or disability, or lack of work opportunities due to discrimination (including those between 50 and 64 for example). 1.49: What is the size of the private rented sector as this is relevant to the housing stock available and in use? 1.51: Does the figure of 3000 represent those accepted by AVDC as homeless? What figures are available for those single persons not so accepted? 1.56: Could not more reference be made to the local bus network?

VALP16-09-05-00965 Peter Evans Comments on Background - None

VALP16-09-05-00966 Michelle Kidd (Area Comments on Background - While the Thame and Great Ouse river catchments are briefly mentioned in paragraph 1.64, it is only Sustainable Places the Grand Union Canal and its arms that are mentioned as providing “local interest, character, leisure opportunities and habitat Team The Environment diversity”. The large network of watercourses, many of which pass through Aylesbury itself, form an important part of the green and Agency) blue infrastructure for the district, allowing wildlife to move along their corridors. Additionally, this provides opportunities for people to enjoy nature, along with the physical and mental health benefits that this brings.’ The “District key diagram’ included on page 19 should have the rivers and canal indicated on it. VALP16-09-05-00969 Bennett Andrew Comments on Background - I am concerned that the vale is being asked to meet he needs of other districts. The Vale’s housing need of 21,300 homes to 2033, has been increased to 33,000 due to the ‘unmet needs’ of adjoining authorities (South Bucks 7000 and Wycombe 5000). Others, like Luton (11,000), Milton Keynes and Dacorum (still to report) this is a large percentage of the Vale need and would easily stop the need to develop sites such as WHA001. Is the Vale asking any other districts to take any of our housing requirement?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 49 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00970 Steven Barker (Barker Comments on Background - 1.12/1.13/Key Diagram Parry Town Planning Limited) As a final draft prior to the pre-submission version of the Plan and mindful of the very tight anticipated timetable, there is considerable vagueness and uncertainty and on a level more often associated with an Issues and Options consultation. In particular the tacit acceptance of an extra 12,000 dwellings as a worst case consequence of cooperation (but to be challenged robustly) and a Key Diagram missing the new settlement (see Ch4 D2 below). It makes for a rather meaningless public consultation (and the last prior to submission, it is assumed) with so much still up in the air. These vagaries also cast doubt on some of the more detailed prescriptive policies (see Ch4 D6/D7 below). VALP16-09-05-00975 Viral Desai (Barton Comments on Background - See attached repsonse Willmore on Behalf of A2 Dominion and Garden Cities LLP) VALP16-09-05-00988 Sue Barber Comments on Background - More consultation time would have been helpful. Did the people appointed talk to local people?

VALP16-09-05-00998 Charlotte Beadle Comments on Background - All paragraphs: I do not support this draft plan for 33000 new homes in Aylesbury Vale. VALP16-09-05-01005 Andrew Phillips Comments on Background - This email is specifically centred around the expansion plans for Haddenham, either by this village growing or a "new town" on its outskirts. Haddenham is a historic settlement with no natural commercial centre. It is a small residential area with one key selling point = which is the railway station. We have two oversubscribed infant schools and one primary school. We are some distance from any secondary school with the nearest in a neighbouring county and no right to send our children there. We have no shops of note other than a corner shop and minor mini market (McColls). We have four pubs and minimal eateries. To expand this village would be a major failing of AVDC. We have poor village roads which are already overcrowded and often accident blackspot (Staybridge Rd jnt Woodways). The S.E part of the village floods yearly and parking around the railway station is already blocking the residential roads. Princes Risborogh is also adding housing as is Thame (In Oxfordshire). These in conjunction with Haddenhams already approved housing will put a strain on the existing infrastructure and no additional resources. From attending the open days and seeing your reports. Winslow is the only viable option.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 50 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01008 John Mortimer Comments on Background - First, and foremost, I cannot be the only one to have difficulty completing this form. As someone accustomed to desktop publishing this form should be an easy task for me. It is not. I spent the whole of Sunday afternoon, 4 September, completing the form only to find that I lost the entire contents. At the outset the form claims that data on this form is saved. That is not true. It does not always happen. The data very quickly disappears as soon as anyone using it leaves the page and it is lost. This has happened repeatedly. Is this a deliberate ploy to dissuade residents from putting forward their comments????? It is certainly the most frustrating form I have had to complete in my 82 years! So, this is the second time I have completed this form. The first time the complete entry was lost simply because I did not save it. For safety, the form has to be saved after each individual entry of text. Even then information has been lost and had to be retyped. As with many aspects of IT, those who design it do not have to implement it. I was not well disposed to the VALP Draft Consultation document in the first place. I am even less well disposed to it than I was before. My comments have been posted to many of the chapters, but special mention is given of 4.4 and 4.5. Most of the comments apply to WHA001, because I happen to live close to that intended development, which hopefully will not go ahead. But my comments could equally apply to other small and medium villages where the general tennet of the DRAFT plan is to destroy the traditional English village amd subsume it under a whelter of cramped housing. Whaddon, as a tiny hamlet, will be dwarfed by the complex of WHA001. Who ever dreamt up this daft idea? Why not concentrate more dwellings in larger areas? But, on a general level, the question has to be asked: Will AVDC become a dormitory area – all housing and no emplyment? The AVDC's housing need of 21,300 homes by 2033, has been increased to 33,000 due to the so-called ‘unmet needs’ of adjoining authorities (South Bucks 7000 and Wycombe 5000). Others, like Luton (11,000), Milton Keynes and Dacorum (still to report) could follow – where does it all end? Thw AVDC has a duty to vigorously challenge these figures, even though they were heavily criticised last time round for failing to consult their neighbours Why should North Buckinghamshire accept the unfilled needs of other parts of Buckinghamshire? Has anyhone challenged these unfilled needs? Is AVDC over reacting to the pressures from elsewhere? A ‘duty to cooperate’ is not a ‘duty to agree’. What about a duty to the "consumer" whi pays the taxes? AVDC should fight its own corner; and fight that corner vigorously; tenaciously even. The fact that there are Green Belt landscape constraints and much lower average housing densities in other districts does not help the situation, but the battle has to be fought otherwise the whole face of North Buckinghamshire as an agricultural community will be lost forever. This is a dark cloud hanging over anyone making decisions about planning and meeting Governmemnt demands. Perhaps if more attention was paid by Government to reducing immigration there would be less demand for housing. VALP16-09-05-01014 Gavin Gallagher (Barton Comments on Background - No Comment Willmore) VALP16-09-05-01015 Graham Woodroffe Comments on Background - The background seeks to suggest that the plan recognizes the widest issues, but in reality it has been compiled and presented without taking into account parallel developments which will have a direct impact on AVDC proposals

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 51 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01016 Gordon Pell Comments on Background - Firstly I wish to object to the assumption (1.13) that Aylesbury Vale should accept any of the 12000 home "unmet need" that cannot be delivered by "councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale district". The ability of councils to transfer unmet need should not have an influence on the requirement in the Vale. We have our requirement, identified as a highly contestable "21300 homes", and we should pass on any figure above that to councils to the north. Constantly building on land in our area will lead to ever increasing congestion on our roads and public transport networks and this will only exacerbate the south-east- centric development of the UK. The local council and the Plan should be minimising the number of new homes built in the area or we will only continue to play into the hands of the house building companies and their voracious appetite for more green land and the continued growth will NOT deliver elements of Policy S1e: "Minimising impacts on local communities".

The Transport section of the back ground (1.58) seems to gloss over the already significant traffic problems experienced across the area, particularly at rush hour. The plan does not seem to include any measures to speed up through traffic trying to cross Aylesbury by delivering any meaningful dual carriageway bypass options. Building an additional 21000-33000 new homes is simply going to make congestion worse; the plan already identifies that a significant % of the current population commute away from the area for work. Reliance on public transport is also nonsensical as the Chiltern line is already massively oversubscribed during rush hour and outside of school holidays and the proposed additional links will not deliver a significant reduction in road traffic use. The area already suffers from a proliferation of traffic lights which do nothing to smooth the flow of traffic and only cause congestion.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 52 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01028 Warren Whyte (AVDC) Comments on Background - 1.13 - unmet need will need updating given the limit of deliverable sites, and the questionable amount of unmet need from southern districts - the pressure on rural villages and market towns to expand beyond Neighbourhood Plans is exacerbated by the scale of unmet need being pushed north - up to 50 miles from where the need for housing actually is. Delivering housing in Akeley or Buckingham to deal with unmet need in and around Heathrow is farcical. 1.21 Disappointing that more information on draft infrastructure studies was not included to help evaluate AVDC's assumptions on sites and deliverability and ability to mitigate impact on existing communities and the environment; such as flooding, roads, water supply and sewerage etc. 1.26 There is no robust evidence provided that demonstrates why all made Neighbourhood Plans should be disregarded by the generic Settlement Hierarchy proposed housing numbers, and that some, if not all, could be respited if the unmet need was refuted, and/or the new settlement was properly sized for the demonstrated housing need. 1.27 Some clarity is needed on who pays for "revisions" to Neighbourhood Plans if this is forced on parishes due to the settlement hierarchy classifications. 1.30 It is good to see that the draft plan will evolve to take into account the continuing evidence base development and consultation responses. 1.39 Does the population increase take into account the ONS projections issued in 2016, and any post-Brexit assumptions? 1.47 Silverstone Circuit and Silverstone Park are two employment locations. 1.48 Good to see the rural enterprises being recognised but no specific mention of agriculture. 1.57 Not sure of the reference to A43 to M40 connection. A421 & A422 the main northern east-west connections 1.64 Seems odd to not mention historic flooding, issues such as Buckingham town centre, and the many flood plains that accompany the Great Ouse and Thame valleys.

VALP16-09-05-01030 Derek Town Comments on Background - Para 1.10 - Duty to cooperate for other authorities 'un-met needs'; the figure given in the VALP is greater than 50% of the requirement for the Vale and is dis-proportionate. AVDC must challenge this figure and the effect it has on the 5 Year housing land stock. Para 1.26 understand the variance from the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) but the difference appears to be as a result of the un-met needs, again an unreasonable allocation and who in the other districts will want to travel to Cheddington, these additional houses will probably be taken up by non locals or investment individuals or organisations and will NOT resolve any housing shortage.

VALP16-09-05-01033 Jonathan Cunliffe Comments on Background - The number of new houses planned appears to be in excess of the projected population growth in the region. According to the 2011 census, Aylesbury Vale had 174,100 inhabitants, and the projected population growth is 39,900 by 2033. Based on the 2011 household size of 2.5 people, this would indicate a need for 15,960 new homes (39,900/2.5). This is much lower than the region's planned 21,000 new homes, or the 33,000 planned in neighbouring districts. Such as increased population growth is unsustainable for Aylesbury Vale as there would be too big an influx of people in too short a space of time to allow proper integration therefore harming the social cohesion within the local communities. Referring to point 1.62, the historical landscapes and sites in this area would be threatened and/or destroyed if house-building on such a scale were to be carried out as planned.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 53 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01037 Janette Eustace Comments on Background - Paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13 (Stewkley Parish AVDC appear to have started with an assumption that it can meet its own housing need and take on Wycombe and The Chilterns Council) (12,000 dwellings) unmet need (without any impact from Dacorum and London overspill) unlike these other authorities who have assumed the opposite (they cannot meet their need). This has placed AVDC on the ‘back foot’ having to defend the unmet need without a thorough analysis of their authorities own need. This seems very weak and is a very poor strategy.

It appears that AVDC are falling into the same trap as the previous plan in that they appear to not be consulting with local authorities in a robust and through manner

VALP16-09-05-01045 Richard Boother (RPS Comments on Background - See accompanying statement Planning and Development)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 54 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01131 Ruth Millard Comments on Background - Chapter 1 Background Paras 1.10 to 1.13 Duty to Co‐operate • We urge AVDC to investigate the robustness of the unmet need from Chiltern, South Bucks and High Wycombe which the Aylesbury Vale area is being “forced” to make housing allocations for. • The “requirement” for Aylesbury Vale is stated as 21,300 new homes. The evidence for this number seems sound. However, we are asked to make allocation for an additional 12,000 new homes from “unmet need” from the South of Bucks. This is an UPLIFT of 56% over what the district itself needs. Looked at the other way round, over a third (36%) of the new‐home requirement for Aylesbury Vale is coming from outside the area. • We query the following:‐ 1) Are Wycombe, South Bucks and Chiltern taking the “easy way out” by being allowed to make Aylesbury Vale take ALL their unmet need – have they really tried hard enough to make allocations in their own areas? Wycombe’s draft plan suggests that in the areas where they are not constrained by AONB or Green Belt, they are not allocating housing at nearly high enough density. 2) And if they really cannot take the extra homes, should Aylesbury Vale be the ONLY neighbouring authority to take ALL the unmet need from Wycombe, South Bucks and Chiltern? There are strong arguments to say that the housing market area for Wycombe is more linked to its southern neighbours such as Maidenhead; South Bucks to Slough; Chiltern to Berkhamsted & Hemel Hempstead etc. 3) We believe the congruity of the housing market of northern Aylesbury Vale with Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks is extremely doubtful. • The contribution from the unmet need is so high that it is skewing all sensible attempts at making allocations. Because of the unmet need, EVERY settlement in the Vale is having to take half as much more development again than it would have had to, even if there is not suitable sustainable land – or the transport links to support it (see comments on Transport below). • We understand the extreme concern of AVDC to ensure that this new Local Plan, when finalised, does receive approval from national inspectors, given that lack of co‐operation with neighbours was a key reason for the previous proposed plan being refused. However, we are appalled at the situation where over a third of the proposed new homes which we “must” find locations for do not even stem from Aylesbury Vale district’s own independently assessed need. We have already been forced to take HS2, which we cannot see will bring economic benefit to the district. The land on which it will be built is also then taken away from possible allocation for new housing development. We are the “poor relation” of richer South Bucks, Chiltern and Wycombe who have more political and economic clout. It seems Aylesbury Vale is to be the “dumping ground” for developments that are not wanted elsewhere in Bucks. If it is decided that the number of houses DOES indeed have to be 33,400, then we have the following Comments on their strategic delivery:‐

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 55 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01136 Phil Adlard Comments on Background - I believe that more should be done to challenge this consideration and robustly examine the statements of neighbouring authorities as to the capacity they have in terms of availability of housing sites.

I am aware that as Chiltern and South Bucks are now working on a joint plan and believe that this should be treated with caution.

I have a professional knowledge of South Bucks DC and that knowledge has given me an insight into the planning policy of that particular authority and the local members' zealous protection of their district. This presents an uneven playing field whereby a planning application may be treated differently if submitted in South Bucks rather than in Aylesbury Vale.

For a local plan to have any meaning, it should be drafted with a consistent approach to planning applications throughout the district and surrounding areas; a factor that I am not convinced has been properly addressed.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 56 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great Comments on Background - Chapter 1: Background Horwood Parish Council) 1.1 Duty to cooperate 1.1.1 Paragraph 1.13 states The councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale district have identified an estimated collective unmet need of 12,000 homes. As paragraph 180 of the NPPF, in the section Planning strategically across local boundaries, states Local planning authorities should take account of different geographic areas the need identified by each council should be given separately. This will remain the case if those needs are modified during subsequent negotiation. It will then be clearer how the different areas have been taken into account. (A similar comment applies to paragraph 3.11 in the Strategic chapter of the draft VALP.) 1.4 Neighbourhood plans 1.4.1 Paragraph 1.26 states that… the overall housing need for the district and the proposed settlement hierarchy leads to different housing figures than those set out in neighbourhood plans. and paragraph 1.27 states Rather than impose sites on settlements with neighbourhood plans to meet these figures, the council will work with town and parish councils to identify sites which can be allocated through revisions to their neighbourhood plans. While this is the case for several made neighbourhood plans, there are some (such as the Great Horwood Neighbourhood Plan) where the neighbourhood plan allocations, together with known existing completions and commitments, do meet the current draft VALP housing requirement for the neighbourhood area. GHPC considers that paragraphs 1.26 and 1.27 should be modified to acknowledge this possibility. 1.5 Transport 1.5.1 Paragraph 1.57 states The northern half of the district is less well served by good road links, although places such as Silverstone and Buckingham have reasonable north bound access to the M1 and M40 motorways via the A43. This is correct regarding Silverstone, but incorrect regarding Buckingham. The A43, part of the Highways England strategic road network, passes nowhere near Buckingham, as may be seen from the District key diagram on page 19 of the draft VALP. The A413, which connects Buckingham to the A43, comprises 13km of winding single-carriageway road. 1.5.2 Paragraph 1.60 should say that, when fully open, the western section of East West Rail will connect Aylesbury and Winslow to Milton Keynes and Oxford/Bicester. It is not clear that the link to Aylesbury (which is not planned to be electrified) will open at the same time as the main route between Oxford and Milton Keynes.

VALP16-09-07-01168 Noreen Shardlow Comments on Background - Despite the fact that the Vale has an increasingly elderly population (Para 1.40), VALP does (Watermead Parish not provide useful structures to allow Parish Councils to influence increases in social housing, social rental housing, provision for the Council) elderly and those with special needs or starter homes. VALP16-09-07-01171 Nick Osgerby (Steeple Comments on Background - A good summary of the overall position from our village’s perspective, but we believe there should be Claydon Parish Council) more specific reference to the impact of HS2 on significant parts of Aylesbury Vale, and to recognise the employment prospects associated with the construction works and the operation of the IMD

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 57 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01200 Stuart Williamson (Amec Comments on Background - The HCA has land interest adjoining the Aylesbury Vale District boundary at Tattenhoe Park and Foster Wheeler on Kingsmead South, within Milton Keynes Council. Outline planning permission for Tattenhoe Park was granted in August 2007 by the behalf of the Homes and Milton Keynes Partnership (MKP), which then functioned as the local planning authority. The outline planning permission comprised a Communities Agency residential development of up to 1,310 dwellings, a mixed-use local centre of up to 2,000 square metres, site for primary school, (HCA)) community facilities, hotel and public house, public open space and associated landscaping, and infrastructure. Separate full planning permissions were granted in 2006 and 2007 for the construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Infrastructure (Primary Roads, Footways, Roadways, Services and Utilities, Sustainable Urban Drainage System and associated works). These elements of infrastructure have been implemented and the first phase of the development comprising 138 dwellings and a primary school have been built. The homes are now occupied and the school is fully operational. The remainder of the development will come forward in a phased manner. Outline planning permission for Kingsmead South (450 dwellings, local retail, employment or community facilities up to 480 sqm and associated landscaping, open space and infrastructure) was granted in 2007 and the first phases of development are under delivery. VALP16-09-08-01205 Mark Rose (Define (on Comments on Background - PLAN PERIOD behalf of Bovis Homes)) It is understood that AVDC anticipate consulting on a Proposed Submission VALP in the early part of 2017, an Examination of the plan to follow in the Spring, and for it to be adopted by Summer 2017. That programme is extremely ambitious given the progress made thus far, and the complexities of the key development proposals on which the Local Plan relies in order to meet identified development needs (notably the new settlement). It is considered very unlikely that the Local Plan will be adopted before 2018, and if there is a significant delay then there may not be a 15-year time horizon to the end of the plan period (2033). This would not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which states that local plans should “be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15-year time horizon, take account of longer term requirements, and be kept up to date” (NPPF, para 157, point 2). Consequently it is suggested that the plan period should be extended to 2036 to ensure that the adopted VALP has a time horizon in excess of 15 years and longer term development requirements, including an adequate level of future housing and the infrastructure required to support that, can be provided for. That period would also reflect the other HMA authorities, who are preparing their own local plans for the period to 2036 and beyond. The extension of the plan period would necessitate the allocation of additional housing sites, but as set out below those additional allocations can be used to contribute to the continued growth of Milton Keynes to reflect its critical role in the area and wider region. VALP16-09-08-01207 Michael Knott (Barton Comments on Background - Background Willmore (on behalf of MGHL represent a consortium who control the land on the northern edge of Wendover located to the west of the Grand Union Canal Manlet Group Holdings Wendover Arm (disused) and south of Halton Lane herein referred to as 'the Site'. The Site extends to an area of approximately Limited)) 22.58 ha and is currently in use as three agricultural fields. A Site Location Plan is provided as Appendix 1. In summary, the Site is well suited to provide a sustainable location to deliver new housing development to contribute to meeting the local needs of Wendover as identified in the VALP objectively assessed needs across Aylesbury and wider housing market area. The site should be considered preferable to site RSA-2 (as identified in the Aylesbury Vale Green Belt Assessment Part 2) as an alternative for removal from the Green Belt for housing development

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 58 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01209 Tim Coleby (Peter Brett Comments on Background - 1.1 Associates LLP on 1.1.1 The draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (‘the Plan’) has been prepared by Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) and is the behalf of subject of public consultation until 5th September 2016. Buckinghamshire 1.1.2 These representations to the Plan have been prepared by Peter Brett Associates LLP (PBA), with input from EDP, on behalf of Advantage) Buckinghamshire Advantage (BA). 1.1.3 The representations draw on the content of, and justification for, the outline planning application for development at the site known as ‘Aylesbury Woodlands’ to the east of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire and promote policies in the new Local Plan consistent with it. The site is 200 hectares in area and its extent is outlined in red on the plan in section 1.5 below. 1.1.4 We submitted the application on behalf of BA in March 2016. It proposes a mix of uses for employment, residential, education, retail, sport and leisure. The proposal includes detailed access, reserved link road alignment and the provision for associated transport infrastructure, landscape, open space, flood mitigation and drainage. 1.1.5 Since March 2016 there has been widespread consultation in respect of the application and it is expected to be considered by the AVDC Planning Committee later in the year.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 59 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01225 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Comments on Background - The following comments are made in respect of the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. Planning Services 2.2. In accordance with the council’s online consultation pro forma, the comments below have been organised in relation to each Limited) chapter of the emerging plan..

CHAPTER 1-BACKGROUND 2.3. The ‘background’ chapter is considered to generally cover the overarching framework relating to the preparation of the plan. 2.4. We do however hold some concern with the lack of clarity regarding the level of growth which the district will be seeking to accommodate. 2.5. In regards to this, it is noted that it has been estimated that the councils adjoining Aylesbury Vale will be unable to accommodate approximately 12,000 homes due to their constraints, and that the housing requirement for the district will therefore be approximately 33,000 new homes over the plan period. 2.6. It is however stated at paragraph 1.13 that “The council will be robustly challenging the level of unmet need, but this draft local plan has to based on this requirement as a worst case scenario”.

We hold two concerns with this statement. Firstly, the emerging development plan and strategy should be developed with a clear understanding of the development needs which the district should be seeking to accommodate. If the council are to dispute the level of unmet need in neighbouring authorities, it becomes difficult to accurately assess the potential effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Secondly, we are concerned with the use of the terminology ‘worst case scenario’. In noting the objective of national policy, to significantly increase the F164901 LAND AT BROOK FARM BROUGHTON REPRESENTATION ON VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN 4 PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD delivery of housing, there should be no inferences that delivering beyond the specifically identified need is a negative state of affairs.

That is to say, that the ultimately defined housing requirement should be treated as a minimum and that the associated strategy facilitates the ability to exceed this.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 60 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01245 Deborah O’Brien Comments on Background - 1.8 We are concerned about AVDC potentially meeting a large number of unmet housing need from (Padbury Parish Council) neighbouring authorities. We would expect AVDC to meet its stated promise to ‘robustly challeng[e]’ the level of unmet need. In particular, we note the very low density of housing being suggested in the High Wycombe plan. 1.16 ‘Alongside housing and employment development, retail development needs to keep pace with the growth in the population, and key retail locations such as Aylesbury’s town centre need to develop to meet the needs of the expanding population’. Is high street shopping/retail really the way ahead? Our impression is that on-line ordering is on the rise, and large retail firms seem to be closing all the time. What exactly would this ‘retail development’ look like?

1.17 This is an absolute key issue for VALP to be deliverable and sustainable. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will need to be robust and far-ranging, with a vision of how the whole thing will be sequenced and (of course) funded.

We note the recognition that the road network north-south is deficient (even now). And we note from the Aylesbury Transport Strategy (Page 37) that ‘The north of the county…..suffers from particularly poor connectivity to other major employment centres’, and ‘The road network is mainly single carriageway road, with no major roads connecting the north and south of the county.’ Similarly, the Countrywide Traffic Monitoring report concludes that assuming major development occurs, then there will be increased risk of congestion for both Winslow and Buckingham. This is an incomplete picture, as none of the traffic flows through the villages along the A413 have been examined/addressed. This is likely to have a significant impact on Padbury, which is a natural choke-point on this route. Will such work be done? If so, when?

Whilst it is always useful to have some basic assumptions when making any sort of plan, this smacks of wishful-thinking with regards to both E-W rail and the A421 Expressway. Neither have any implementation dates, so it is difficult to see how these can be taken into account at this stage of the Plan. As with the planning to meet (as yet unquantified) unmet housing need (see above) the VALP should be based around ‘hoping for the best, but planning for the worst.’ What impacts would non-delivery (or late delivery) have of these projects against the VALP, and what contingencies will be put in place to manage these risks?

2 1.25 et seq On the basis of what has been stated by AVDC here, we are relieved that we have yet to make a Neighbourhood Plan, and remain disappointed by AVDC’s continuing apparent lack of respect for them.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 61 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01262 Geoff Gardner Comments on Background - 1.0INTRODUCTION (Gardener Planning Ltd 1.1Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) is preparing a new Local Plan entitled the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013 - 2033 on behalf of Arnold (VALP). Two earlier attempts (2009 and 2013) had to be withdrawn after unfavourable Inspector’s Reports. The Adopted Local Plan White Estates Ltd) (2004) remains the only ‘Development Plan’ for the District but is clearly out-of-date. This current stage is the Draft Plan (DP). 1.2Gardner Planning Ltd (GPL) is instructed by Arnold White Estates Ltd (AWEL) to make a response and comment on the DP. AWEL has land and development interests in Aylesbury Vale District (District) specifically at Berryfields (urban extension to the north of Aylesbury) and land to the north of Waddesdon. 1.3GPL/AWEL has previously commented on the VALP Issues and Options consultation (November 2015) and has been engaged with previous stages of the former Vale of Aylesbury Plan (VAP). This process culminated with the withdrawal of the Submission Plan in February 2014 in response to an Inspector’s Interim Report following a brief Examination in December 2013. In essence, the Inspector recommended withdrawal because the VAP as drafted accommodated insufficient housing growth and had failed to adequately engage with other Local Planning Authorities in the Housing Market Area under the Duty to Cooperate requirement of legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) . 1.4The response to the DP consultation is in the form of this Report which follows the consultation form format of working through the sections of the DP and their policies. The relevant part of the form giving details of the representor etc. is at Appendix 5. 1.5The ultimate test is one of soundness as set out in the NPPF at para 182: •Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; •Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; •Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and •Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 62 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01273 Adam Ross (Nexus Comments on Background - Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 - Duty to Cooperate Planning Ltd (on behalf The Council is right to acknowledge that Aylesbury Vale District does not exist in isolation and that there is a need to positively of Gleeson engage with neighbouring councils, in accordance with the statutory duty to cooperate, about strategic issues that include housing Developments Limited, numbers and employment requirements. the Ernest Cook Trust, This is particularly relevant for Aylesbury Vale District on the basis, as is recognised at paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13 of the VALP, that the Trustees of Lord many adjoining areas are highly constrained by designations of national significance, such as Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Carington’s 1963 Natural Beauty, such that they are unable to sustainably accommodate their own housing needs. On that basis relatively Settlement and the unconstrained areas such as Aylesbury Vale must make provision to accommodate these unmet needs to ensure that the Housing Pearce Family)) Market Area [HMA] (the area for which the NPPF requires that objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing are met in full) provides the required levels of housing development. The Council has identified that its apportionment of the unmet needs should be 12,000 homes having regard to the constraints in Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks Districts. However, we object to the reference in paragraph 1.13 that the 12,000 homes allowance for unmet needs is a ‘worst case scenario’. We are aware, for example, that the Council is currently working with Central Bedfordshire, North Hertfordshire and Luton Councils on a ‘Joint Growth Options Study’ which will assess how the significant unmet housing needs from Luton might best be accommodated. This may result in Aylesbury Vale District taking a proportion of this additional unmet need and, therefore, increasing the unmet need apportionment for Aylesbury Vale above and beyond the 12,000 homes currently assumed and, as a consequence, taking the total housing requirement for the District higher than the 33,300 homes currently proposed. We address this in further detail in our representations to Policy S2.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 63 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment Changes Sought Amend paragraph 1.13 (and all other references in the VALP) to remove reference to Aylesbury Vale’s assumed apportionment of unmet housing needs of 12,000 homes as being the ‘worst case scenario’. Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 - Duty to Cooperate The Council is right to acknowledge that Aylesbury Vale District does not exist in isolation and that there is a need to positively engage with neighbouring councils, in accordance with the statutory duty to cooperate, about strategic issues that include housing numbers and employment requirements. This is particularly relevant for Aylesbury Vale District on the basis, as is recognised at paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13 of the VALP, that many adjoining areas are highly constrained by designations of national significance, such as Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, such that they are unable to sustainably accommodate their own housing needs. On that basis relatively unconstrained areas such as Aylesbury Vale must make provision to accommodate these unmet needs to ensure that the Housing Market Area [HMA] (the area for which the NPPF requires that objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing are met in full) provides the required levels of housing development. The Council has identified that its apportionment of the unmet needs should be 12,000 homes having regard to the constraints in Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks Districts. However, we object to the reference in paragraph 1.13 that the 12,000 homes allowance for unmet needs is a ‘worst case scenario’. We are aware, for example, that the Council is currently working with Central Bedfordshire, North Hertfordshire and Luton Councils on a ‘Joint Growth Options Study’ which will assess how the significant unmet housing needs from Luton might best be accommodated. This may result in Aylesbury Vale District taking a proportion of this additional unmet need and, therefore, increasing the unmet need apportionment for Aylesbury Vale above and beyond the 12,000 homes currently assumed and, as a consequence, taking the total housing requirement for the District higher than the 33,300 homes currently proposed. We address this in further detail in our representations to Policy S2.

Changes Sought Amend paragraph 1.13 (and all other references in the VALP) to remove reference to Aylesbury Vale’s assumed apportionment of unmet housing needs of 12,000 homes as being the ‘worst case scenario’.

District Key Diagram We support the identification of Aylesbury town on the Key Diagram as a ‘VALP Strategic Settlement’. As referenced elsewhere in our representations, and rightly recognised throughout the VALP, Aylesbury is one of only five strategic settlements in the district and of these it is by far the largest town in the district and is also the county town of Buckinghamshire. Accordingly, the VALP rightly identifies Aylesbury town as a primary focus for development in the period to 2033.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 64 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus Comments on Background - The Background section of the Draft Local Plan provides a useful context and is welcomed. However, Group (on behalf of there are a number of issues within the section which raise concerns as follows. Jeremy Elgin)) The NPPF requires that Local Plans are positively prepared. However, paragraph 1.13 of the Background section characterises the provision of housing to meet the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities as “a worst case scenario”. This should be reworded as providing a positive strategy to address the housing shortfall (in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF). Paragraphs 1.30 and 1.31 of the Draft Local Plan set out the proposed timetable for the progress of the Local Plan. Whilst this ambitious timetable is to be welcomed, the Council will need to be realistic. It is inevitable that there will be some slippages in the programme, particularly given the issues that the Plan needs to address.

VALP16-09-09-01324 Robert Barnes (Planning Comments on Background - Duty to Cooperate Prospects (on behalf of The Duty to Cooperate is a legal requirement established through Section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Greenway Land LLP)) as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. It requires local authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues throughout the process of Plan preparation. As the Council will be aware, through past experience with their withdrawn Vale of Aylesbury Plan Strategy a failure to comply with the Duty to Co-operate can be fatal. It will be important to ensure that it can be demonstrated this requirement has now been met. Whilst Greenway recognises that the Duty to Cooperate is a process of ongoing engagement and collaboration1, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) it is clear that it is intended to produce effective policies on cross-boundary strategic matters. In this regard Aylesbury Vale must be able to demonstrate that it has engaged and worked with neighbouring authorities, alongside their existing joint working arrangements, to satisfactorily address cross boundary strategic issues, and the requirement to meet any unmet housing needs. This is not simply an issue of consultation but a question of effective cooperation. Greenway are aware that AVDC are currently working with the other Buckinghamshire authorities regarding the delivery of housing, in order to ensure the total OAN across the HMA is to be met. These discussions remain ongoing and although the draft VALP includes provision for 12,000 homes of unmet need from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire. This figure is yet to be finalised. Greenway support the Council’s intentions to accommodate unmet need from the neighbouring LPAs as this is in keeping with the ethos of the Duty to Cooperate. The issues regarding unmet housing needs need to be resolved and finalised so that all of the authorities are clear on their scale of growth.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 65 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01389 Amy Stone Comments on Background - Paras 1.10 – 1.13 Duty to Cooperate 1.1 The statutory duty to cooperate is a key component of the NPPF and we welcome acknowledgement in the VALP that there is a need to positively engage with neighbouring councils about strategic issues including housing numbers and employment requirements. 1.2 This is particularly important for Aylesbury Vale District on the basis, as is recognised at paragraphs 1.12 and 1.13 of the VALP, that many adjoining areas with whom the Council must cooperate are highly constrained by designations of national significance, such as Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, such that they are unable to sustainably accommodate their own housing needs. On that basis, relatively unconstrained areas such as Aylesbury Vale need to make provision, insofar as it is sustainable, to accommodate these unmet needs to ensure that the Housing Market Area [HMA] (the area for which the NPPF requires that objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing are met in full) provides the required levels of housing development.

The Council has currently identified that its apportionment of unmet needs in the HMA should be 12,000 homes having regard to the constraints in Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks District. However, these discussions about housing provision in the HMA have not been completed at this point and, accordingly, we object to the reference in paragraph 1.13 that the 12,000 homes allowance for unmet needs is a „worst case scenario‟. We are aware, for example, that the Council is currently working with Central Bedfordshire and Luton Councils on a ‘Joint Growth Options Study’ which will assess how the significant unmet housing needs from Luton might best be accommodated. This may of course result in Aylesbury Vale District taking a proportion of this additional unmet need and, therefore, increasing the unmet need apportionment for Aylesbury Vale above and beyond the 12,000 homes currently assumed (and, as a consequence, taking the total housing requirement for the District higher than the 33,300 homes currently proposed).

Changes Sought 1.4 Amend paragraph 1.13 (and any other references in the VALP) to remove reference to Aylesbury Vale’s assumed apportionment of unmet housing needs of 12,000 homes as being the ‘worst case scenario’.

District Key Diagram 1.5 We support the identification of Wendover on the Key Diagram as a ‘VALP Strategic Settlement’. As referenced elsewhere in our representations, and as rightly recognised throughout the VALP, Wendover is one of only five strategic settlements in the district and should, as a consequence, be identified as one of the main foci for development in the period to 2033.

VALP16-09-09-01395 Thomas Newton Comments on Background - I understand that AVDC has a “Duty to Co-operate” with neighbouring District Councils, however I believe that Wycombe District Council and South Bucks District Council need to look again at the number of dwellings they can accommodate by revaluating the use of existing brownfield, greenbelt and AONB area sites. It is very disappointing to read that Wycombe is not maximising its sites, allowing low density developments including a 25% allowance for tree cover!

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 66 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01396 Margaret Donlon Comments on Background - Background 1.8 The national target of 250,000 new houses per annum was set prior to the recent referendum decision to Brexit. Given that one of the most often quoted reasons for favouring Brexit was to reduce levels of immigration, then the government should now be asked to recalculate the required new housing numbers.

The option of a new settlement seems to be predicated on the additional housing need caused by the failure of district councils in the south of the county to accommodate their own requirements. Pressure must be brought to bear on these authorities to meet their own needs. VALP16-09-09-01397 Delia Shephard Comments on Background - To set our comments in context, firstly this council is concerned about the statutory duty to co-operate (Bletchley and Fenny between the relevant Local Authorities and the limited evidence of this cooperation which is reflected in the draft VALP. We refer to Stratford Town Council) the comments made by Milton Keynes Council in relation to the VALP Issues and Options document consulted upon in 2015 and remain concerned that those comments have not been fully addressed in the draft plan. Our parish includes the development of Newton Leys which straddles the border of Milton Keynes Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council and the lack of an integrated and co-operative approach to this development by the Local Authorities over the past few years serves to underline our concerns that the VALP should include more explicit detail about its integration and compatibility with other local plans in the area specifically the four directions of grown considered within the emerging Plan:MK. VALP16-09-09-01399 Cllr Phil Yerby Comments on Background - At the Issues & Options consultation stage, the great majority of comments clearly asked AVDC to consider a strategy for growth other than placing a vast amount of development of the South of Aylesbury, which clearly creates coalescence with and between villages. AVDC have shown no evidence that other options have been considered. In fact, to argue, “we’ve accommodated the comments where possible” is to say that it is impossible for other options to be considered. Yet AVDC has now moved on to consult on specific planning policies, attempting to deliver a strategy that is still fundamentally resisted by very many people. In this sense the premise of the document that “OUR plan is YOUR plan” is self-serving, unreasonable and unjustifiable. VALP16-09-09-01402 Stephen Beal Comments on Background - Robustly challenge H.W and South Shorthall and avoid a duty to co operate challenge.

VALP16-09-09-01413 Michelle Thompson Comments on Background - I hope HW and South refrain from using this as a weapon to bully AVDC into accepting their 5,000 surplus houses. 1.13 agree 1.17 agree 1.25-1.27 agree. NDP's (made) must be given maximum weight if VALP is not made. VALP16-09-09-01416 Kathryn Hedges Comments on Background - Area must be able to accommodate the number of houses proposed. NDP's must be given maximum weight.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 67 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01427 Phil Yerby (Hampden Comments on Background - At the Issues & Options consultation stage, the great majority of comments clearly asked Fields Action Group) AVDC to consider a strategy for growth other than placing a vast amount of development of the South of Aylesbury, which clearly creates coalescence with and between villages. AVDC have shown no evidence that other options have been considered. In fact, to argue, “we’ve accommodated the comments where possible” is to say that it is impossible for other options to be considered. Yet AVDC has now moved on to consult on specific planning policies, attempting to deliver a strategy that is still fundamentally resisted by very many people. In this sense the premise of the document that “OUR plan is YOUR plan” is self-serving, unreasonable and unjustifiable.

VALP16-09-09-01440 Nick Butler Comments on Background - There should be mutuality between green belt housing and Aylesbury vale housing.

VALP16-09-09-01451 Geoff Culverhouse Comments on Background - 1.1 Having been actively involved in planning matters within Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes for (North Bucks Parishes sixteen years the Consortium has a good understanding of the background to the development of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. Planning Consortium) From our experience of AVDC’s previous attempts to deliver a sound Local Plan we recognise that meeting the duty to cooperate and delivering an acceptable level of housing are issues which have been very much at the forefront of their deliberations. However, we are concerned that the previous failures are leading to an over-reaction to the duty to cooperate. The figure of 12000 (Para 1.13) in respect of ‘unmet need’ appears to be entirely arbitrary. There does not appear to be any evidence of a detailed analysis of the unmet need figures promoted by neighbouring authorities. These figures need to be vigorously challenged.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 68 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01468 Sarah Hamilton-Foyn Comments on Background - Duty to Co-operate (Pegasus Group (Revera Although there is reference to the Duty to Co-operate in paragraphs 1.10 – 1.13, it is not clear which authorities AVDC have co- Limited on behalf of operated with. The duty to cooperate is also an ongoing process as set out in the NPPF. M&G Property Limited “Public bodies have a duty to cooperate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to Partnership)) the strategic priorities set out in paragraph 156. The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities.” (para 178 of the NPPF) Para 179 of the NPPF “Local planning authorities should work collaboratively with other bodies to ensure that strategic priorities across local boundaries are properly coordinated and clearly reflected in individual Local Plans.” Para 180 of the NPPF “Local planning authorities should take account of different geographic areas, including travel-to-work areas.” Para 181 of the NPPF “Local planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross- boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination.” Reference is made in para 1.12 to areas south of the District being unable to meet their needs as they have insufficient capacity. The Councils to the south of the District have identified an unmet need of 12,000 homes. Therefore, increasing the housing requirement to 33,300 if sufficient sites can be found in AVDC. However, there is no reference to accommodating any needs arising from Milton Keynes, to the north of the district, which has previously been identified as an issue, most recently in paragraphs 9 and 10 (below) in the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan Inspector’s Report in January 2014. “The District boundary adjoins the urban area of Milton Keynes, which is likely to continue to be a major focus for housing and economic growth. The relationship between Aylesbury Vale and the growth of Milton Keynes has long been recognised as a key issue, in particular the potential for future growth of the urban area, partly or wholly within Aylesbury Vale. The need for joint working and effective co-operation on this matter is clearly set out in the recent Inspector’s Report on the Milton Keynes Core Strategy (May 2013) and in the Core Strategy itself (Policy CS6) adopted in July 2013. Based on the Validation Study, the Council acknowledges that Aylesbury Vale forms part of a wider HMA along with Milton Keynes, Central Bedfordshire, Bedford and Luton. It also accepts that there are interrelationships with other areas and is aware of concerns that due to environmental constraints, a number of authorities may not be able to accommodate all of their identified housing needs and may be looking to Aylesbury Vale to accommodate some additional growth.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 69 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment Paragraph 1.14 of the Draft Plan states that the overall strategy is to meet housing need and direct sustainable levels of development to existing settlements through the implementation of a settlement hierarchy. However, the Council acknowledge that this approach will not deliver all the housing needed and so are considering different options; one of which is the application for Aylesbury to be designated as a Garden Town. In principle this is supported as the intention would be for Aylesbury to grow considerably. The concept of a “Garden Town” is not defined in the Plan. It is considered that this concept should be explained in the plan and a definition included in the glossary. It is noted from the DCLG website and publication “Locally-Led Garden Villages, Towns and Cities” March 2016 that there are criteria e.g. the new garden town, or city, must provide at least 10,000 new homes. This may be on a new site away from existing settlements, or take the form of transformational development, both in nature or in scale to an existing settlement. In principle we would support the growth of Aylesbury.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 70 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01521 Sean Carolan (Winslow Comments on Background - 1) The original draft VALP document on page 32 indicated the Housing Requirement for Aylesbury Town Council) was 14,113 and the District total was 33,344 but in the more recent version the figures are 15,845 for Aylesbury (a 12.2% increase) and the Total is 34,910 (a 4.7% increase), when the official requirement is 33,300. How and why have these significant changes occurred? Suddenly, for no clear reason, Aylesbury’s share of the district-wide total for new homes has shot up from 42.3% to 45.4%. However, this is still well short of the 51% indicated as the target delivery share for Aylesbury in the VALP Issues and Options document, with an excessive proportion now allocated to the north of the District. 2) Paras 1.38 and 1.39 state about a 40,000 increase in the Vale’s population during the Plan period. This does not equate with an increase of 33,300 homes, which, even with an overall reduction in average occupancy rate from the current level by 2033, would surely see an increase of at least 70,000 in population. Does the 40,000 figure exclude the ‘unmet need’ element and is only detailing the result of the Vale’s OAN? This is not clear and should be. 3) It would appear that the pressure to deliver a successful Local Plan is resulting in an over-reaction to the ‘duty to cooperate’. The unmet need figures from HMA partners appear to be unnecessarily high and need to be very carefully scrutinised. 4) There are grave concerns over the unmet need element of the total housing figure in the draft VALP, which we are advised could increase further. It already represents a 56% increase on the figure for new homes to meet the Objectively Assessed Need for the Vale. Neighbouring LPAs are stating that with the land they are able to allocate for new homes in their Local Plans, they have reached their capacity and expect/assume they can simply shunt their excess into the Vale. This must logically mean that when the next series of formulating new Local Plans comes round, unless the situation changes very radically indeed, the Vale will be expected to provide all the new homes required to meet the growth needs of these 3 neighbouring Local Authorities as well as the Vale’s and undoubtedly the unmet needs of other LPAs. This is an irrational and unacceptable scenario. Government and the ‘overspill’ LPAs should be made aware that this scenario must be recognised and addressed now in the expectation that common sense will prevail and some of the proposed overspill is relocated away from the Vale. 5) Para 1.19 read logically suggests that the delivery of the new A421 expressway is further away than east-west rail. We anticipate that delivery EWR is now 2022 at the earliest so this limits the timescale for a new settlement that relies on the A421 for access. On the other hand, if the A421 is to be funded by development it gives time for the funding to be got in hand, though supplying houses and then building the infrastructure would be unnecessarily chaotic. 6) Para 1.21 suggests that the plan has been informed by incomplete traffic modelling “traffic modelling of impacts of the proposed development is being prepared and has partly informed this draft plan”. Essentially traffic modelling is not yet done, and for A413 this is very important. Traffic is treated in terms of impact mitigation which seems unnecessarily simplistic, there is the important matter of whether the necessary traffic flows are possible in the first place, especially for A413, Little Horwood Road and A421. Very little consideration seems to have gone into transport beyond the grand projects of HS2, EWR and the expressway. Road improvements are needed and need to be complemented with improved public transport which is important in terms of reducing congestion and climate change.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 71 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment 7) Para 1.27 suggests that the district is planning to interfere with Neighbourhood Plans contrary to the founding principle of these plans. Potentially the District is forming an opinion which it will later have no right to uphold against the Parish. 8) With over 3,000 households on the housing register (para 1.51) and only 349 affordable homes being built on average each year it is obvious that the build rate must be increased and that a greater emphasis needs to be made on building affordable homes that meet the needs of the local community. (For more specifics see our response to H6 below). 9) Para 1.46 refers to the 35,025 residents who commute out of the Vale for work. More emphasis should be placed on providing employment within the Vale and developing local strategies to achieve this. 10) Para 1.57 says that Silverstone and Buckingham have “reasonable north bound access” to the M1 and M40 motorways. A more specific explanation would be useful here. The A413 north of Buckingham is not reasonable and using the A43 to reach the motorway is likewise not reasonable.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 72 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01541 Sarah Copley (Stoke Comments on Background - Chapter 1 - Background Mandeville Parish Para 1.4 – “Where possible, the content of these responses has been taken into account in the preparation of this draft plan” Council) The Parish Council invites the District Council to identify what proportion of the 4,500 comments have been taken account of and led directly to changes in this draft plan. Para 1.6 – “Their feedback will be taken into account when the final local plan is prepared.” The Parish Council asks how their feedback will be taken into account in the final local plan. Para 1.13 – “The Councils to the south of Aylesbury Vale District have identified an estimated collective unmet need of 12,000 homes.” Having reviewed the approach taken by Wycombe District Council in their Local Plan, who are expecting Aylesbury Vale to provide for an unmet need of at least 5,000 homes, the Parish Council is concerned that the Duty to Co-operate is being exploited unfairly by neighbouring Councils. Whilst planning constraints do exist, that does not explain why Wycombe is planning for significantly lower housing densities than Aylesbury Vale and refusing to consider a review of Green Belt sites. Those two actions alone would reduce, if not eliminate, unmet housing need in Wycombe District. The Council suspects that a similar approach may have been adopted by Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils, meaning that the estimated collective unmet need of 12,000 homes is a major overestimate. The Parish Council expects Aylesbury Vale District Council to robustly challenge the level of unmet need to ensure the final local plan reflects reality. Para 1.14 – “As that will not deliver the amount of housing we may need, the Council is considering some different approaches to meeting housing need.” The Parish Council is concerned that devising approaches to meet housing need is premature until there is greater clarity about the precise level of housing need, particularly unmet housing need elsewhere. Para 1.14 – “There will need to be specific provision for affordable housing given the high cost of housing in the District and specific provision to meet specialist needs such as housing for the elderly.” The Parish Council expects the District Council to make provision for all types of specialist housing need, including for people with disabilities and special needs. This should be assessed in conjunction with disability groups, charitable bodies, and healthcare providers, including the Clinical Commissioning Group. Para 1.17 – “The provision of infrastructure to support the new housing is essential…” The Parish Council believes that the provision of infrastructure to support housing is critical to the development of sustainable communities and its importance should never be underestimated. There are particular deficits in certain sectors and geographical areas that must be planned for and met by future housing growth.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 73 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment The Parish Council urges the District Council to prioritise the preparation of a comprehensive Infrastructure Delivery Plan, involving all service providers, to ensure it reflects the needs of existing and future communities and is based on robust assessments of demography and growth. The Parish Council hopes that relevant bodies such as the County Council are properly resourced for this work. Para 1.19 – “The proposed delivery of East West Rail will also increase connectivity.” The Parish Council is disappointed that Aylesbury Vale District Council describes East West Rail in such an uncertain way. It trusts that Aylesbury Vale remains committed to securing the completion of the East West Rail project in a timely manner to support growth across the District. Para 1.19 – “It is important to mitigate the effect of new transport infrastructure, such as the proposed HS2.” The Parish Council is confused by the approach adopted by Aylesbury Vale District Council towards HS2, the Government’s highest priority transport infrastructure project. Whilst the project has yet to achieve Royal Assent, the recent publication of revised Safeguarding Directives by HS2 Ltd and statements made by the new Prime Minister and Transport Secretary leave little doubt about the Government’s position. Having faced the threat of HS2 for more than six years, Stoke Mandeville Parish Council, is surprised at the ambivalence of the District Council. Despite being required to consult HS2 Ltd on planning applications within the safeguarded area, Aylesbury Vale chooses not to show the line of route on the key map (Draft VALP – Potential Housing Allocations – South East Aylesbury). This must be rectified. Para 1.21 – “Conclusions will need to be reached on the housing numbers from the other Councils in Buckinghamshire and surrounding areas.” The Parish Council believes that these conclusions are critical to the local plan and fundamentally affect the scale of growth and its distribution. Finalising this evidence must be a priority action for the District Council, ahead of any other work. Para 1.21 – “Traffic modelling of impacts of the proposed development is being prepared and has partly informed this draft plan, but this will need finalisation and will need to show how impacts can be addressed.” Whilst the Parish Council accepts that traffic modelling is essential, until there is agreement on the fundamental matter of housing numbers, it could be abortive and expensive work.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 74 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01604 Nayan Gandhi (RPS Comments on Background - 2.1 The headings within this section refer to Chapters, Paragraphs or other references found Planning & Development within the draft VALP and these representations should be read in conjunction with that document. on behalf of Ainscough Completed forms can be found in Appendix 1. Strategic Land) Paragraph 1.9 2.2 RPS supports the Council’s attempts to meet the district’s own housing needs, as set out in the Government’s guidance found within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012) Paragraph 47. RPS considers that all sustainable sites for development should be allocated to meet these needs, including land at the former Marsworth Airfield. We request AVDC to consider the site, as submitted for consideration in the HELAA and representations made herewith, for a housing allocation for some 330 dwellings. Paragraph 1.13 2.3 RPS supports the Council’s approach to co-operate with local authorities to the south of the District, who will are likely to need assistance in meeting their identified housing and employment needs given their land and policy constraints. We believe that land at the former Marsworth Airfield is an ideal site for meeting some of these requirements, especially as it would deliver a sustainable new community and provide substantial benefits including reusing a brownfield site, supporting a sustainable mix of residential and employment development to support the rural economy in that area, and delivering significant benefits to the neighbouring communities. Furthermore, it has no significant technical or physical barriers to development, so it can be considered ‘deliverable’ within the context of the NPPF and it is located partly within Dacorum Borough so as to meet some of their needs directly. Paragraph 1.22 2.4 RPS supports the Council’s desire to prepare a Local Plan with the most updated information, including revising the draft Plan following a review of the HELAA and opening up a call for additional sites in Summer 2016. RPS considers that the former Marsworth Airfield as being a site that should be allocated within the next version of the draft Local Plan for a sustainable new settlement in this respect, and we have submitted the site for consideration in the HELAA in that context. Paragraph 1.54 2.5 RPS recognises that AVDC has been successful at bringing forward much of its brownfield land for redevelopment and regeneration, particularly for housing, and that supply in the future would be limited. However, there are still significant opportunities available of which the Council should take advantage, including the redevelopment of the former Marsworth Airfield, and this approach is supported through the NPPF Core Planning Principles (Paragraph 17).

Key Diagram, Page 19 2.6 RPS supports the recognition of both Marsworth and Cheddington as ‘medium’ sized villages within the draft Local Plan as reasonably sustainable communities which can support additional residential and employment development. RPS considers that development may best be suited through a new sustainable community at the former Marsworth Airfield instead of greenfield development as discussed in this statement and our site submission report

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 75 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01610 David Maxwell (GL Comments on Background - VALP Section 1: Background Hearn on behalf of Aviva Paragraph 1.15 Investors ) Comments: Aviva Investors support draft paragraph 1.15 which confirms that employment needs are usually met by new allocations to satisfy forecast allocations. Aviva Investors agree with the emerging VALP and the VALP supporting evidence base which identifies a significant oversupply of employment land of approximately 50 hectares within Aylesbury District. Consequently, it is submitted that a comprehensive assessment of all existing employment sites needs to be completed to carefully assess the suitability, achievability and deliverability of residential development at sustainable existing employment sites, such as HELAA site ref. AYL078 – Land at Gatehouse Close, Aylesbury. Details of the HELAA site ref. AYL078 have been submitted to Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) through previous call for sites and VALP consultations. The HELAA recognises that site AYL078 could be suitable for residential if the site becomes unoccupied and the site is unviable for continued employment purposes. Aviva Investors would welcome the opportunity to consider the site further with AVDC to make clear the unviable nature of the existing premises at HELAA site ref. AYL078, and to outline proposals for a residential development at this sustainable site within walking distance of Aylesbury town centre and railway station.

VALP16-09-12-01622 Christopher Roberts Comments on Background - Duty to Cooperate (Turley.co.uk on behalf 2.5 In view of the Examination Inspector’s remarks regarding the Duty to Cooperate, as made in relation to the withdrawn 2014 Core of Cala Homes Ltd) Strategy3, it is encouraging that the Draft Local Plan anticipates a requirement to accommodate a substantial apportionment of need from other Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). However, the Draft Local Plan’s proposal to allocate land for 12,000 dwellings (to accommodate the unmet needs of Local Planning Authorities to the south), should be seen as representing a ‘minimum figure’. Further, it is also essential that the proposal to accommodate the unmet needs of other authorities is underwritten with a firm commitment, ensuring that the Vale of Aylesbury District will fulfil its Duty to Cooperate obligations with other non-Buckinghamshire authorities. 2.6 The described above is arrived at because functional housing market area geographies affecting the district are, in reality, more complex and overlapping, than presently acknowledged in the Draft Local Plan. In this regard, whilst the HEDNA does seek to approximate and apportion its overarching OAN figure into the Vale of Aylesbury administrative boundary, the report also recognises that parts of the District fall within the functional housing markets of Milton Keynes and Oxford. Similarly, it is also relevant that (in commenting on the withdrawn Core Strategy), the Inspector cited correspondence with Luton regarding its inability to accommodate growth within its own boundaries, inferring that unmet need may also arise from that locale. 2.7 Accordingly, the Draft Local Plan’s proposal to accommodate 12,000 dwellings is based on a figure that is unlikely to fully reflect the quantum of unmet need, which will ultimately need to be met. As such, the proposal to accommodate a ‘worst case’ of 12,000 dwellings, from neighbouring authorities, is considered to set an arbitrary threshold which is not robustly justified. It therefore follows that the proposal will not be fully effective in meeting the unmet needs of arising from the functional housing and economic geographies, which affect the Vale of Aylesbury. Consequently, Policy S2 cannot be deemed to meet the corresponding test of soundness (i.e. effectiveness), in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 182.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 76 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01635 Rod MOULDING Comments on Background - Neighbourhood Plans: The avowed intention of AVDC is now stated as “Rather than impose sites on settlements with neighbourhood plans to meet these figures, the council will work with town and parish councils to identify sites which can be allocated through revisions to their neighbourhood plans.” (Para 1.27). It was precisely to avoid such imposition (for that is what it would be, despite the denial quoted) that the residents of Great Horwood devised, voted for and secured approval for a Neighbourhood Plan. AVDC’s change of tack is in direct contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act, and will be seen by voters as a betrayal. The electorate may well choose to express this through the ballot box.

VALP16-09-12-01636 Oliver Taylor (Gleeson Comments on Background - District Key Diagram Strategic Land on behalf We support the identification of Winslow on the Key Diagram as a ‘Strategic Settlement’. As referenced elsewhere in our of Linden Homes) representations, and rightly recognised throughout the VALP, Winslow is one of only five strategic settlements in the district. As such, the VALP rightly identifies Winslow as a primary focus for development in the period to 2033. VALP16-09-13-01688 James Stevens (Home Comments on Background - Paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 Duty to Cooperate Builders Federation Ltd) We are pleased to see that Aylesbury Vale District Council has sought to respond to the criticisms of their earlier plan by the independent inspector in 2014. In his letter to the Council the inspector, Kevin Ward, criticised the Council for failing in their duty to cooperate with adjoining local authorities and in terms of the overall provision for housing and jobs.

It is clear from the work done with regard to the housing market area that there are considerable unmet needs for housing arising from adjoining local authorities. The draft plan estimates that this figure could be 12,000 dwellings in the plan period up to 2033 but clearly states in paragraph 3.11 that more capacity work will need to be done before a definitive housing number can be settled upon. Obviously, if any unmet needs of adjoining local authorities remain unmet then the duty to cooperate requires that a strategy is devised to cope with that shortfall. Adjoining LPA plans are relying on the VALP to meet the 12,000 unmet need figure and thus any change downwards would mean that the District has still not met the Duty.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 77 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll Comments on Background - 2)Paras 1.38 and 1.39 state about a 40,000 increase in the Vale’s population during the Plan period. This is obviously an error as it does not equate with an increase of 34,900 homes, which, even with an overall reduction in average occupancy rate from the current level by 2033, would surely see an increase of at least 70,000 in population. Does the 40,000 figure exclude the ‘unmet need’ element and is only detailing the result of the Vale’s OAN? This is not clear and should be.

4)Para 1.19 read logically suggests that the delivery of the new Cambridge to Oxford Expressway is further away than East-West Rail. Delivery of East West Rail is most recently reported as 2024, so this limits the timescale for building a new settlement of 4,500 new homes by 2033 that relies on EWR and the Expressway (which may well not pass close to Winslow) to provide the required transport infrastructure. On the other hand, if the A421 is to be upgraded and funded by housing development it requires time for the funding to be in hand. Supplying houses and then building the infrastructure is unnecessarily chaotic and not what VALP is promising.

5)Para 1.21 suggests that the Plan has been informed by incomplete traffic modelling “traffic modelling of impacts of the proposed development is being prepared and has partly informed this draft plan”. Essentially traffic modelling is not yet done, and for the A413 this is very important. Traffic is treated in terms of impact mitigation which seems unnecessarily simplistic, there is the important matter of whether the necessary traffic flows are possible in the first place, especially for A413, Little Horwood Road and A421. Very little consideration seems to have gone into transport beyond the grand projects of HS2, EWR and the Cambridge to Oxford Expressway. Road improvements are needed and should be complemented with improved public transport which is important in terms of reducing congestion and climate change.

6)Para 1.27 suggests that the District is planning to interfere with Neighbourhood Plans contrary to the founding principle of these Plans. Potentially the District is forming an opinion which it will later have no right to uphold against the Parish.

7)Para 1.46 refers to the 35,025 residents who commute out of the Vale for work. More emphasis should be placed on providing employment within the Vale and developing local strategies to achieve this.

8)With over 3,000 households on the housing register (1.51) and only 349 affordable homes being built on average each year it is obvious that the build rate must be increased and that a greater emphasis needs to be made on building affordable homes that meet the needs of the local community. (For more specifics see our response to H6 below).

9) Para 1.57 says that Silverstone and Buckingham have “reasonable north bound access” to the M1 and M40 motorways. A more specific explanation of this statement is required because the A413 north of Buckingham is not reasonable and using the A43 to

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 78 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01697 Jodi Stokes (Persimmon Comments on Background - Housing Requirement Homes Midlands) 1.1. Paragraph 1.13 of the Aylesbury Vale Draft Local Plan states that “there is a requirement of 33,300 houses during the plan period (2013-2033) including 12,000 under the Duty to Cooperate”. 1.2. This figure of 26,520 combined with the arbitrary figure of 12,000 as Duty to Cooperate would actually mean that the Council needs to find approximately 38,520 homes through the plan period, rather than 33,300. 1.3. Paragraph 17 of PPG regarding Housing and Economic Development Assessment’s advises that “Household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government should provide the starting point estimate of overall housing need’ and that these are ‘statistically robust and based on nationally consistent assumptions”. It goes on to state that these should be adjusted to reflect planned job growth, market signals and whether an increase in the total housing number could help to deliver the full amount of affordable homes that are needed. 1.4. Although two HEDNA’s were produced, the Council have decided not to use the GL Hearn Aylesbury Vale HEDNA (June 2015) which suggests that a higher figure of 26,520 should be used as the OAN. There has been a failure to substantiate and justify the use of the lower figure. We believe the Council has failed to give due regard to: - 2014-base projected household figures - True household formation rates - Economic forecasts regarding job growth - Implications of Duty to Cooperate/migration rates with London

1.5. The current housing needs figures being used by the Council are based on the 2012-based projected household figures and will need to be revised to reflect the newly released 2014-based projected household figures. These 2014-based projection figures specify a higher base need for Aylesbury Vale. VALP16-09-13-01705 David Vowles Comments on Background - 1. The Spatial Vision and Vision for Aylesbury Garden Town involve a journey as well as a destination. Some parts of both Visions may be reached before others. Use of the phrase "by 2033" implies that the Visions will not be achieved until then and could give an excuse for procrastination as 2033 is a long way off and there is, therefore, no urgency for action. Implementation of the Visions needs to start now and be continuously maintained throughout the plan period. After all 2033 just happens to be the end date of the plan. 2. I therefore suggest that "By 2033" should be deleted from both Visions and the words "will have seen" changed to "will see" in the Spatial Vision and the words "will have grown" to "will grow" in the Aylesbury Vision. 3. Paragraphs 2.4 and 4.8 contain an inconsistent use of the future (e.g. will be) and future perfect (e.g. will have/been) tenses. I suggest that the future tense should be used consistently throughout these very long paragraphs.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 79 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01708 Rachel Wileman Comments on Background - I have included general comments in this letter and more detailed comments relating to the key policy (Buckinghamshire areas in Appendix 1. Worth noting that as Aylesbury Vale District Council has also signed up to the recommendations of the County Council) Housing for Older People report, agreed by Bucks Planning Group on 23 May 2016, BCC would expect these to also be represented in the VALP. I have taken the liberty of setting out the report and the recommendations of Bucks Planning Group in Appendix 2.

The County Council acknowledge that new housing is needed to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly aging population across the County and welcome ongoing consultation and engagement on significant planning applications and strategic infrastructure matters. BCC particularly welcome the reference in the spatial vision to meeting the needs of children, families, adults with disabilities and affordable housing, particularly to attract key workers for inevitable service expansions in health, education and social care in Aylesbury Vale.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 80 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01709 James Yeoman (Savills Comments on Background - LIH specialise in the promotion and delivery of large-scale development projects throughout the UK. on behalf of Lands Projects include mixed use, brownfield regeneration and sustainable greenfield sites. LIH’s focus is on community led, sustainable Improvement Holdings development that delivers well-designed developments that are pleasant and vibrant places to live and work and are valued by both (LIH)) new and existing residents. 2.2. LIH has a long history in Haddenham having acquired the Airfield site in 1999. LIH has already delivered high quality development on its land holdings in Haddenham and has worked with the local community and local stakeholders on its development proposals, including supporting the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan (NHP). 2.3. LIH’s development work in Haddenham includes the construction of a new link road connecting Thame Road to the A418, known as Pegasus Way. This which was delivered by LIH in 2005 to alleviate traffic pressures in Haddenham village centre, particularly larger vehicles travelling to / from Haddenham Business Park (previously via Dollicot). This investment has had a significant positive impact on the character and amenity of Haddenham village and puts the Airfield site in the unique position of already having strategic highways infrastructure in place to support further development. 2.4. These representations follow LIH’s previous representations to the Local Plan Call for Sites (CfS) consultation in May 2014 and VALP Issues and Options Consultation Document (I&OCD) in December 2015. In March 2016, LIH submitted further informal representations to officers, including a Masterplan Concept Document and Landscape Representations to inform the VALP Evidence Base and the preparation of the current Draft Plan. Previous representations have provided information about LIH; its history in Haddenham; and the opportunities and constraints associated with the Haddenham Airfield site. To summarise: LIH is the freehold owner of the 64 hectare Haddenham Airfield site; LIH has a history of delivering planning consents and high-quality, sensitively-designed development schemes in Haddenham; the Haddenham Airfield site is highly-sustainable, being located adjacent to both the Haddenham & Parkway train station and 280 bus route for commuters, and local jobs at the Haddenham Business Park; and there are no constraints which prevent development in principle on the Haddenham Airfield site.

LIH’s representation to the CfS consultation (May 2014) promoted the Haddenham Airfield site as a sustainable location for accommodating development in Haddenham. It identified the southern parcel of the site (21 hectares) as available for development in the short-term. Since then, LIH has gained outline planning consent for up to 233 new homes, a 64-bed elderly care home, 4.85 hectares of employment land (B1, B2 and B8), a retail convenience store, extensive sports facilities and a new community pavilion on the southern parcel of the Haddenham Airfield site (Ref. 14/03289/AOP). 2.6. This application was prepared following extensive engagement with the local community and was supported by Haddenham Parish Council and various local stakeholder groups. The southern parcel of the Airfield also gained an allocation in the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan and was identified as the favoured location for development in Haddenham through the Neighbourhood Plan consultation process.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 81 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment 2.7. The consented development on the southern parcel is in the process of detailed design and delivery. LIH is in the process of selling the residential element to a national housebuilder and expects the majority of the residential element to be built out within the next 5 years. LIH is in negotiations with occupiers for the elderly care home and convenience store elements and expects to be submitting detailed plans for approval later this year. The employment element is being marketed at present and reserved matters have recently been approved for the first phase (2 hectare parcel, reference 16/01434/ADP). This is being occupied by local business, The GGR Group, who are expanding their business operations. Construction on this is expected to start in late 2017. The proposed development will deliver a number of items sought by the Parish Council, including a permissive footpath (installed) to the west and north of the Airfield along with new and expanded playing fields and funding for a new community sports pavilion. Contributions are also being provided by LIH to fund environmental improvements and transport upgrades to Thame Road. 2.8. LIH strongly believes that the Airfield site represents a highly sustainable, suitable and deliverable location for accommodating further development and is keen to engage with the Council through the preparation of the VALP to establish how further sustainable development can play a key role in delivering the District’s growth requirement through the plan period to 2033. In this respect LIH provides the following response to the current Draft Plan and supporting Evidence Base documents.

The representations are submitted in the context of the following: the southern parcel of the Airfield site is identified as a commitment in the Draft Plan; the northern parcel is not at present identified as a potential housing site in the Draft Plan; Haddenham is identified as a Strategic Settlement; Haddenham is identified for housing growth of 1,043 units (50% increase on existing housing stock), which equates to 589 units over existing commitments The Draft Plan / New Settlement Scoping Study anticipates growth, via a New Settlement, of 4,500 new homes in the plan period, with up to 7,000 new homes in the longer term;

Haddenham has been referred to as the preferred location for accommodating this ‘New Settlement’ which is defined in the I&OCD and subsequently Paragraph 4.27 of the Draft Plan as ‘enlarging an existing settlement by more than 50% of the population/dwellings or developing a freestanding new community’;

VALP16-09-13-01710 John Chapman Comments on Background - Duty to Co-operate (DTC) (Dacorum Borough Council) In general, we welcome the approach you are taking towards DTC, as stated in paragraphs 1.10-1.13 of the Draft VALP. However, we are concerned that no mention is made of the possibility of Aylesbury Vale accommodating any unmet housing needs from Dacorum. This matter is considered further in our comments on housing below.

As explained below, we would like to arrange a Duty to Co-operate meeting with you before you reach conclusions on the content of the Pre-submission Vale of Aylesbury Plan. A November date would seem appropriate.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 82 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01718 Craige Burden Comments on Background - 1.10-1.13 Duty to Cooperate. The Council has not demonstrated how it is cooperating with other (Persimmon Homes) Council's, such as Milton Keynes. AVDC's spatial strategy emphasizes the requirement for homes to be built on the boundary of Milton Keynes, however, none of these homes assist to meet the adjoining authorities unmet housing need.

1.25 - 1.27 Neighbourhood Plans. The Council's strategy is unclear in areas where a neighbourhood plan does not allocate sites, or where a neighbourhood plan is not made. There is a suggestion the Council will reserve sites across the district and where there is no neighbourhood plan these will be released. This appears to pre judge the site selection process for the neighbourhood plan, as the Council will have to assess the sites for the District. VALP16-09-13-01722 Sarah James Comments on Background - Villages are slowly being over taken by new.houses,country is a thing of the past and the roads leading in threw newton longville and whaddon have already increased a considerable amount on the last few years,a safe crossing for children to a park is now a rat run for those travelling to near by estates. VALP16-09-13-01724 James Ayres Comments on Background - non tenable

VALP16-09-13-01780 Susan Michell Comments on Background - I am very disappointed that the Haddenham local plan has been totally overridden and ignored by AVDC. I feel very sorry for the people who, voluntarily, gave up time and spent energy and their own resources preparing this plan. I urge AVDC to acknowledge and allow the Haddenham plan.

You have put so much detail into this form that I would have to spend a very long time studying and understanding the AVDC plan. I am sure that that was AVDC's strategy! How many people have the time and mental energy to study this properly?

So, you will now probably throw this away without reading it!!!

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 83 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01801 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Comments on Background - 2.3. The ‘background’ chapter is considered to generally cover the overarching framework relating to Planning Services Ltd the preparation of the plan. (on behalf of Mr and Mrs 2.4. We do however hold some concern with the lack of clarity regarding the level of growth which the district will be seeking to Collier)) accommodate. 2.5. In regards to this, it is noted that it has been estimated that the councils adjoining Aylesbury Vale will be unable to accommodate approximately 12,000 homes due to their constraints, and that the housing requirement for the district will therefore be approximately 33,000 new homes over the plan period. 2.6. It is however stated at paragraph 1.13 that “The council will be robustly challenging the level of unmet need, but this draft local plan has to based on this requirement as a worst case scenario”. 2.7. We hold two concerns with this statement. Firstly, the emerging development plan and strategy should be developed with a clear understanding of the development needs which the district should be seeking to accommodate. If the council are to dispute the level of unmet need in neighbouring authorities, it becomes difficult to accurately assess the potential effectiveness of the proposed strategy. Secondly, we are concerned with the use of the terminology ‘worst case scenario’. In noting the objective of national policy, to significantly increase the 4 PHILLIPS PLANNING SERVICES LTD delivery of housing, there should be no inferences that delivering beyond the specifically identified need is a negative state of affairs. 2.8. That is to say, that the ultimately defined housing requirement should be treated as a minimum and that the associated strategy facilitates the ability to exceed this.

VALP16-09-13-01818 Mike Bodkin MA MRTPI Comments on Background - Background (Strutt and Parker on Paragraph 1.13 On behalf of our clients, we express concern over the statement that AVDC will ‘robustly challenge’ the estimated behalf of Trustees of the collective unmet need arising to the south of the District of 12,000 homes in the Plan period. Aylesbury Vale benefits from a relative Claydon Estates) lack of constraints and suppressing demand in the sub-region will only serve to increase pressure on the value of land and new homes. Furthermore, the District is an area of high market demand, close to significant economic drivers including Oxford and Milton Keynes, within the nationally important Oxford – Cambridge axis and likely to benefit from major new infrastructure during the plan period, including HS2, E-W rail and potentially the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. This major infrastructure investment should be capitalised upon as well as AVDC seeking to mitigate its effects (para 1.19). By seeking to promote sustainable developments incorporating new settlements the District can contribute significantly to housing need in the sub-region and the country as a whole. This is in the interest of vibrancy and quality of life for both existing and new communities. The current over-provision of employment land (para 1.15) is noted, together with the opportunity to look at existing designations as a means of potentially relieving the pressure for new greenfield housing sites. However, sufficient employment sites must still be allocated to facilitate industrial and commercial occupiers to move out of substandard stock and / or predominantly residential areas. The potential impact of permitted development rights enabling changes of use of commercial premises over the longer term must also be catered for. There appears to be a discrepancy over timescales, or some brave optimism. The VALP notes (para 1.30) that the plan is proposed to be submitted at the start of March 2017, leading to examination and adoption in mid-2017. Presumably this latter date should be mid-2018.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 84 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Background

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-19-01835 Barbara Richardson Comments on Background - I think it is unacceptable for other neighbouring areas to pass their extra unmet need of 12,000 dwellings to AV VALP16-09-19-01839 Robert Skinner Comments on Background - I would like to query where all these people are coming from to need all these extra housing. 5% growth in the past and now 12%. This is a big jump.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 85 of 85 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-07-20-00211 John Bell (Edlesborough Vision and Strategic Objectives - VoA Development Plan Surgery)

VALP16-07-27-00226 Michael Wendt Vision and Strategic Objectives - To protect from urban building sprawl and recognise land of outstanding value to be upgraded to green belt. We fully support AVDC in their initiative to advance and protect the green belt VALP16-07-27-00227 Paulette Taylor Vision and Strategic Objectives - Potential sites to be allocated Strategic Settlements Larger Villages VALP16-07-27-00228 Richard Marks Vision and Strategic Objectives - Assessment of non-Green Belt areas parcel 109 (Valley Farm site 109 - location of revised Paul (University of Newman Home development application) Cambridge) VALP16-07-30-00242 Peter Rawcliffe Vision and Strategic Objectives - None

VALP16-08-03-00248 Marcia Davis Vision and Strategic Objectives - none

VALP16-08-04-00249 Alan Lambourne Vision and Strategic Objectives - No comments (Westcott Parish Council) VALP16-08-05-00254 Abigail Alderson Vision and Strategic Objectives - Section 2.4d – how will the growth bring flood protection measures? Consider it unwise to (Buckinghamshire suggest this when the mechanism for undertaking these measures is not clear. Should not be flood protection measures but flood County Council) management measures as flood protection measures suggest that measures can always protect against floods when that is not true as they will only reduce/manage the risk up to a particular frequency of flooding Section 2.6 – objective 7 part 2 - flood management measures not flood protection or flood control measures – for reasons given above. In this section there needs to be some reference to Sustainable Drainage principles to mitigate the impact of surface water runoff from developments. VALP16-08-06-00270 Malcolm Oliver Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4g. From above, needs to have a declared aim to link the Aylesbury Growth Area effectively to the wider strategic road network - M1/MK/M40/access to Luton Airport

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 1 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-09-00281 Simon Dackombe Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 point a. should be reworded to state "....principles to create well designed, safe (Thames Valley Police) developments that are..." This cross-references with the Plan's overarching Spatial Vision set out on the same page.

2.4 point d. - this should include reference to Policing and Emergency Services infrastructure within the list of infrastructure requirement's highlighted.

2.4 point g - 1 should read - "..be an inclusive, safe, innovative....

2.4 point h - 1 should also read as above. VALP16-08-10-00282 Michael Dickson Vision and Strategic Objectives - None

VALP16-08-10-00284 Roz Owens Vision and Strategic Objectives - I note that development should "contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment and there should be a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment." Sadly many of the policies in the draft plan seem to fly in the face of this vision. At 2.4a I cannot see how the proposed new settlement at Haddenham will be integrated with the existing community when your own HELAA identified all land to the west of the rail line as unsuitable as it was poorly connected with the village, and the idea of plonking it next to Aston Sandford is even more ridiculous. I will comment further about this with reference to Policy D2.

2.4.j.4 Growth in Haddenham is not proportionate and does not in anyway reflect the firmly stated objective in our Neighbourhood Plan that the local population wish to remain as a village, not a sprawling suburb. Haddenham is the only one of the strategic settlements that is and always has been a village. It has no centre, having developed through the joining of three nodes at Church End, Town End and Fort End. Infill development over the years has been extensive and we are already absorbing a further 500 houses which are committed and some even built. All local services are strained to breaking point - you cannot get appointments at the local surgery, the schools are full, and the shops provide few options and most who use them travel by car (the post office is a mile away for me) and travel through narrow roads made more hazardous by parked cars reflecting the nature of the historic housing stock. At school pick up and drop off Church Way and Church End are quite simply dangerous to travel along. The train service, which seems to be the sole justification for pushing housing in this location, is set to absorb additional passengers from the 13,000 new homes being built at Bicester, passengers from Oxford when the connection is made to the town centre, an additional 2,500 homes at Princes Risborough and from 6,000 new homes in a new settlement proposed by South Oxfordshire at either Chalgrove or J7 of the M40. The trains are already full at peak and some off-peak times. New homes should be directed to areas where new transport capacity in terms of roads and rail is being provided, not where it is already under strain.

VALP16-08-10-00291 Andrew Dean (Global Vision and Strategic Objectives - Growth of Winslow MUST be kept at a minimum. (i.e. Option one within the strategic plans). manufacturer) Having a 'Garden Town' will further blur the boundaries between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury and other surrounding settlements. An over-whelming majority of Winslow residents feel passionately about this and support my view.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 2 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-13-00324 Stephen James Vision and Strategic Objectives - Affordable and integrated affordable housing within an overall mix, including provison for older people, is essential for the future vibrancy of all parts of the District. VALP16-08-15-00330 emma wheatley Vision and Strategic Objectives - on the house building plan for haddenham

VALP16-08-15-00331 Will Dyer Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 i. I support the creation of new settlements to meet housing needs, favouring those significantly over unreasonable increases in established villages of heritage and character.

2.6 I think it is unreasonable that AVDC should be forced to take unmet needs from neighbouring areas, particularly when it is passing those needs on in such an arbitrary way. The unmet needs from neighbouring areas have been created by establishing what's available and suitable, finding it is insufficient and passing it on. In contrast, AVDC are going the opposite way and trying to apply a high number in an arbitrary way. VALP16-08-16-00337 Brenda Bonnage Vision and Strategic Objectives - The roads can't cope with the current traffic. The narrow lanes are so dangerous as it is and in such need for repair. Buses already having problems with rail users parking in the streets up to 3/4 of a mile away. VALP16-08-16-00338 Darryl Willis Vision and Strategic Objectives - Environment, Infrastructure, History,Preservation.

VALP16-08-17-00359 Angela Lucas Vision and Strategic Objectives - P.24 2.6 I agree with objective 3, particularly in respect to infrastructure, services and facilities p.25 Objective 6 I agree that development should ensure protection and enhancement of the district's build, natural and historic environment, as well as its landscape.

VALP16-08-17-00361 Ella Jones (Wendover Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4a: If the area of the Green Belt is removed it is no longer being protected from inappropriate Parish Council) development, leaving Wendover vulnerable to developments with unwanted and inappropriate buildings for the area. One of the purposes of Green Belt is to keep land open by preventing urban sprawl and to keep the land free of development. This purpose should remain as a vision for the future development of AVDC and such a vision should not be prejudiced by removing land from Green Belt as AVDC are suggesting could be done to provide the 800 homes north of Wendover.

VALP16-08-17-00362 Stephanie Lucas Vision and Strategic Objectives - p.24 2.6 Objective 3 Infrastructure is the key to providing new development - well located infrastructure should be used as the building blocks for new development. Objective 4 I agree that although development will be distributed across AV, the majority should be at the most sustainable locations at Aylesbury, Buckingham, Haddenham, Winslow and Wendover. Objective 6 I agree that development should ensure protection of the district's natural and historic environment

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 3 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4 j point 4: If the Neighbourhood Plans were undertaken prior to AV's revised Draft Family) Local Plan, surely those Neighbourhood Plans (especially the ones identified as being areas of strategic growth) need to be revised? Paragraph 2.6 Point 6: The only additional piece of land identified in Winslow within the draft AV Draft Local Plan (beyond the Neighbourhood Plan) encompasses good quality agricultural land.

VALP16-08-19-00367 John Lucas Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.6 3 I think it is essential that the provision of infrastructure, existing and any new, is well located. I travel to work on the A41 to the M25 along with many others. It makes sense to enhance infrastructure on the east side to aid the car commuters. VALP16-08-19-00374 Simon Milliken (National Vision and Strategic Objectives - Support spatial vision text for Aylesbury Town identifying Waddesdon Manor and Hartwell House Trust, Waddesdon as part of its rich cultural capital. For the avoidance of doubt the text should state that these are both National Trust properties. Estate and Hartwell House) VALP16-08-20-00400 jim woolgar Vision and Strategic Objectives - NA

VALP16-08-20-00402 Martin Armitstead Vision and Strategic Objectives - Maintain communities and village appeal, character and amenities.

VALP16-08-21-00406 Richard Barrie Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 Why should certain communities be singled out to take a disproportionate amount of development. This is fundamentally unfair and wrong. British society is based upon the concept of fairness in the distribution of any burden. This plan is just not fair. All development that is required should be proportioned out throughout the district. The underlying policies in this plan are fundamentally flawed. VALP16-08-21-00407 Rosalind Scott Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 Your vision is to enjoy a high quality of life. 2.4 i A new settlement (the first in Bucks since Milton Keynes in the 60s) You appear to have overlooked that MK is still growing and developing and has done so SINCE the 60s with no let up. Your plan almost meets it. The A421 should be a barrier.

2.4 j I would disagree with the content of this if 7,000 houses are built here.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 4 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00409 Clive Rodgers Vision and Strategic Objectives - VALP CONSULTATION RESPONSE (Swanbourne Parish I am concerned that a major population increase would increase vehicular traffic going through Winslow and the corner at the Bell Council) Inn would be an obvious bottleneck. Plans for a Winslow Ring Road were cancelled years ago, and the land sold off. The suggested solution to the traffic problem at the corner with the Bell seems to be to incorporate a new road next to the railway line in Winslow. This would be sited on the north west side of the railway line, following the line into Bletchley, and next to the line at the old Swanbourne Railway Station. About 50 metres of Swanbourne Parish land extends on the north west side of the line, so it would clip through Swanbourne Parish land at this point.

On behalf of Swanbourne Parish Council, I would like to convey to you our opposition to the Winslow Expansion Plan option as suggested in the VALP. Unfortunately, we will not have a representative at your meeting this week, but you may find some of these points useful to raise on Wednesday.

I am concerned that a major population increase would increase vehicular traffic going through Winslow and the corner at the Bell Inn would be an obvious bottleneck. Plans for a Winslow Ring Road were cancelled years ago, and the land sold off. The suggested solution to the traffic problem at the corner with the Bell seems to be to incorporate a new road next to the railway line in Winslow. This would be sited on the north west side of the railway line, following the line into Bletchley, and next to the line at the old Swanbourne Railway Station. About 50 metres of Swanbourne Parish land extends on the north west side of the line, so it would clip through Swanbourne Parish land at this point.

These additional roads would lead to a general increase in traffic levels down our country lanes. A much greater volume of traffic would pass through Swanbourne village and Parish lanes, and many unsuitable country roads (e.g. the single track Station Road in Swanbourne) could become short cut "rat runs".

Neither do I believe that the conversion of the Buckingham to Bletchley (A421) to a dual carriageway "expressway" with a spur to Winslow be an adequate solution to the traffic problems. This could increase traffic reaching Winslow and exaggerate further the problems of traffic passing through Winslow. The Little Horwood Road would become a major road with heavy lorries, and it would be costly to improve the rail bridge at the White House corner. These lanes are not suitable to convert to a realistic ring road. This is neither a convenient nor economic solution.

We believe Haddenham to be the better proposal for the expansion site. It is closer to Wycombe for the overflow homes (which Wycombe District cannot accommodate) as well as having better transport links already in place to London and Oxford via the M40 and A40 as well as excellent rail services with a good station. It also has close proximity to the Thame by-pass and plenty of space for expansion which (similar to Gt. Horwood) also includes an old airfield. There is more flat land and a better transport infrastructure already in place which we believe makes an expansion at Haddenham the easier, more logical and cheaper option.

Kind regards,

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 5 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00411 Julia Robinson Vision and Strategic Objectives - None

VALP16-08-21-00412 Tracy Filler Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 a) This has not been demonstrated in the proposed development in Whaddon (WHA001). Increasing a village from 180 homes to 2180 homes is never going to be a well-integrated in terms of scale or design. 2.4 b) Unmet housing needs of other areas, new homes being built miles away, does not meet their housing needs. It's proposed that in addition to the 2000 homes in the plans of WHA001, you plan to place an additional travellers site in the village, having only recently approved a new travellers site in the neighbouring village of Nash. This combined with the long-standing site in nearby Calverton would mean there are three travellers site in a 5-mile radius. There should be an alternative site found for a fairer distribution across the district. 2.4 b) The only businesses and town centres likely to benefit from the development at WHA001 will be in the district of Milton Keynes, as it sits directly on their boundary. 2.4 d) There are no provisions in WHA001 to improve the infrastructure or services within Whaddon village. Furthermore, the plans do not state which road would take the extra traffic from the settlement. If it is Shenley Road which splits the development, then it should be recognised this is a country lane, with three blind corners with concealed entrances and a national speed limit. The road has pedestrian pathways into the village or neighbouring Milton Keynes development.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 6 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00416 John Currell Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.4 (d) & (g).4 states that relevant infrastructure WILL be provided to support growth (presumably development?). This is absolutely essential. A new and improved comprehensive road network must be provided IN ADVANCE of new development.

Why was there no plan on display at the public consultations showing the detailed routes and timing of the proposed future strategic highway network for Aylesbury?? There is a rough plan hidden away on Page 50 of the Policy Map Insets. Why was that not displayed at the exhibitions? - you do not have a proper Plan without it!

(g).5 A comprehensive cycle network is fine in principle. However, such facilities need to be constructed to very high standards and maintained to the same very high standard. Otherwise they become unattractive and even dangerous for users. Bucks CC are clearly currently unable or unwilling to adequately maintain the existing local cycle network. In the current economic climate there seems to be no prospect of this changing any time soon.

2.6.3 Fine words about the provision of necessary infrastructure. The public's fear about new development growth is at least partly due to the fear of lack of supporting infrastructure; particularly roads, schools and health facilities. Aylesbury is particularly ill served by its poor highway network due to lack of planning and investment by AVDC & BCC over the last 30 years. The development envisaged in this plan will be impractical unless adequate infrastructure, including enough to address past inadequacies, is provided in parallel with the development.

2.6.4 & 5 Major new development in Wendover would seriously damage the character of the village unless adequate infrastructure is provided. MOST PARTICULARLY - ADEQUATE OFF-STREET PUBLIC PARKING.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 7 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00417 Diane Phillips Vision and Strategic Objectives - It is understood that GU is regarded as a ‘medium settlement’ which needs to provide a 19% increase of 80 homes (VALP pages 32 & 86); currently there are commitments for 16 builds in 2015/16 and 13 completions during 2013/16 leaving a residue of 51 dwellings. The VALP does not state the mix of residential dwellings for these 51 houses. GU is located almost exactly halfway between Aylesbury and Bicester off the A41. It contains some historic buildings and there are links to William Shakespeare. The B road links the village to Buckingham and MK to the north and to the A41 in the south. Whilst AVDC has conducted a Housing & Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) which has identified 3 small potential development sites in GU (behind Shakespeare Orchard, next to Bailey’s Farm & next to Ivy cottage) there would still be a shortfall of some 29 dwellings. If development takes place on these 3 small scale potential development sites it is possible that due to the size & nature of such developments the Community would lose out on s.106 and CIL and as such there would be no developer contributions to the community and its infrastructure. In my view to agree any such developments on these sites would be flawed as a result and should not be considered in isolation but rather as part of the overall VALP process. There have been at least 3 major development proposals bought to the attention of the Community although none of these have reached any formal planning applications yet. (Land at Springhill – 72 dwellings; Land behind Rumpton’s Paddock / Shakespeare Orchard – 80 dwellings & land next to the Bridleways – 34 homes.). The first 2 have been subject to Developer led consultations in the GU Village Hall. In my view I would recommend a larger scale development on the Marcello site, rather than any piecemeal development or development on the other two proposed sites. This would retain the nature of the village in that it is linear and the distances from the outskirts of the village from either side would be the same to the shop/ community facilities. Such a development would benefit the Community and the character of GU would be retained.

VALP16-08-22-00437 Aidan Byles Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4a. It mentions "Growth will be shaped by strong place-shaping and sustainability principles a. to create welldesigned developments that are sensitive to the district’s local character and are well integrated with existing communities, both in terms of scale and design, people will have a sense of pride in their communities, wherever they live in the district. Environmental, heritage and cultural assets will be protected and, where possible, enhanced. The Green Belt will be strongly defined and protected from inappropriate development."

All of this section appears to be waived in the case of Wendover. Any further development will only destroy the character of Wendover by coalescing with other nearby villages and leading to overcrowding, increased traffic, over burdening of existing infrastructure. There has been enough development in and around Wendover.

Sec d. "Growth will be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure, services, and facilities in the right places and at the right time, to bring maximum benefits to new and existing communities." How and where? See comment above. Unsustainable in Wendover. Any further development will destroy the character of Wendover that makes it an attractive Tourist site.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 8 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-23-00441 Alexander Matthews Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4. Agree with the "top down" logic of the allocation of houses. Larger towns and communities (Thornton Parish will offer better access to services/facilities. Meeting) VALP16-08-23-00446 Arthur Evans Vision and Strategic Objectives - No one should complain about any lack of consultation. Continue to prioritise the need to retain the rural nature of the Vale. VALP16-08-24-00448 Michael Henderson Vision and Strategic Objectives - We believe that the overall quantum of growth set out for Aylesbury Vale is too high and will put (Dinton with Ford and unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure and services, as well as detracting from the special character of the local rural Upton Parish Council) landscape. Although we appreciate the Duty to Cooperate between local authorities, it is unfair that Aylesbury Vale should be expected to take 12,000 homes of the ‘unmet need’ from neighbouring authorities. We would encourage Aylesbury Vale District Council to strongly refute the need for this housing to be accommodated in our district by strongly questioning the housing density assumptions made by neighbouring authorities for their brownfield land allocations and encourage them to undertake a comprehensive green belt review to identify areas within their own boundary to accommodate their growth.

VALP16-08-24-00454 James Styles Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.13 The Fact that under the agreement to co-operate there seems to be no incentive for Wycombe and South Bucks to miximise density or look at Brownfield sites; it is unacceptable for them to pass their unmet need to AV VALP16-08-24-00489 Glynn White Vision and Strategic Objectives - 3)Major information gaps in the Draft Plan

The VALP consultation documents to allow a meaningful consultation on the strategy AVDC promote as there are serious gaps in the information provided in the consultation document. In the VALP (page 24) the council makes it clear that it is a key part of the plan that infrastructure needs to be secured in a “timely and well located” manner yet, there is no detail of infrastructure requirements including plans for health and education provision.

VALP16-08-24-00494 William Hubbick Vision and Strategic Objectives - The proposal to build approx 50 new houses within the village of Ickford

VALP16-08-25-00526 KEITH TATTERSFIELD Vision and Strategic Objectives - The notion that 50 new houses should be built is ludicrous. Many of the fields are ancient ridge and furrow fields and other fields are on a flood plain I would like to know where any future development is likely to be. The sewage system and drainage is creaking and would need to be replaced. The roads are appaling and breaking up. Any additional traffic would aggrevate the situation. The school is full to capacity and the church has a miniscule attendance--how much longer it could continue is questionable. Village pubs in the U K are closing at an alarming level--our pub could be next

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 9 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00529 Lucy Murfett (Chilterns Vision and Strategic Objectives - The Chilterns Conservation Board would like to see more emphasis on the AONB in the spatial Conservation Board) vision and strategic objectives. The AONB is a nationally protected landscape. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are designated by the Government for the purpose of ensuring that the special qualities of the finest landscapes in England and Wales are conserved and enhanced. In policy terms they have the same planning status as National Parks [1] . The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a statutory duty on local authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONBs when coming to decisions or carrying out their activities relating to, or affecting, land within these areas [2]. The Chilterns is an iconic landscape of international significance. The AONB is a complex and integrated suite of geological and ecological features, many of which, for instance chalk streams, are extremely rare. The appropriate management and conservation of the landscape requires a holistic and integrated approach. The AONB attracts 55 million visits a year provides and provides recreational opportunities for ten million residents who live within an hour’s drive of this internationally important landscape.

Aylesbury Vale residents benefit from health and well-being benefit from the ‘green lungs’ of the area, including the AONB. The Chilterns AONB Management Plan: A Framework for Action provides a comprehensive cross boundary summary of the management policies and actions needed to conserve this special place. The NPPF instructs that “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.” The coverage of AONB in the vision and strategic objectives does not give ‘great weight’ to the AONB, it is mentioned once (in relation to Aylesbury being a tourism base for exploring the area).

Compare the approach of the South Downs National Park preferred options Local Plan which has the landscape as its top priority and embeds the protection of the AONB throughout the local plan (note that National Parks and AONB have exactly the same status in planning, see NPPF para 115): “The Local Plan will help shape the future of the South Downs National Park by: 1 putting landscapes first while still serving the needs of our communities and local economy; 2 protecting the special qualities of the South Downs; 3 valuing nature both for its own sake and for the things it gives us – like clean water, food and space to breathe; and 4 applying a single set of planning policies across the National Park to ensure all planning decisions reflect its special qualities.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 10 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment Source: https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/planning/planning-policy/national-park-local-plan/local-plan-preferred-options-public-consultation/ [1]NPPF paragraph 115 “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.” [2]Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 Section 85

VALP16-08-25-00530 Eric Sergeant Vision and Strategic Objectives - Strategic: Page 27- strongly agree with

d. giving priority to the reuse of vacant or underused, tired brownfield land

e. minimising impacts on local communities and

g. minimising impacts on heritage assets, sensitive landscapes and biodiversity VALP16-08-26-00532 Peter Beckwith Vision and Strategic Objectives - Page 20. Spatial Vision : d.

Both AVDC and Central Government have regularly stated that growth must be accompanied by the delivery of supportive infrastructure, services, and other facilities at the right time and in the right locations. This must accompany development and not follow development months or even years later. Necessities such as transport improvements, hospital and health centre provision; suitable education and community facilities must be provided promptly to support the new growth and the existing residents. Housing growth should not be accepted without guarantees that either Government or Private funding will provide these crucial needs. VALP16-08-27-00541 Martin Hopcroft Vision and Strategic Objectives - Ivinghoe is designated as a larger village, which is contrary to evidence and facts. Ivinghoe is a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 11 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-28-00544 Kevin Hewson Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4. Makes the Key statement- Growth will be shaped by strong place-shaping and sustainability principles to create well-designed developments that are sensitive to the district's local character etc etc. Environmental, heritage and cultural assets will be protected...

2.6.3 States The Council.. will secure timely and well-located provision of the infrastructure, services and facilities needed ... 2.6.3.1 Education highlighted 2.6.3.2 transport infrastructure highlighted.

These Strategic Objectives must be met. Evidence suggests it will NOT be achieved, whilst major development is rightly targeted, there is clearly a balance of 'pain-sharing'. Largely political , this 'pepper- potting' approach across what are termed medium and smaller rural communities is out of proportion to sustainability realities. A reduction is required if the VALP is to be considered balanced and logical, meeting the vision and objectives promised. VALP16-08-28-00548 Nicola Page Vision and Strategic Objectives - Sounds lovely. Its all about the implementation.

VALP16-08-29-00554 Jill Callear Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 d Spatial vision. The plan states: 'Growth will be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure, services, and facilities in the right places and at the right time'. The planning of housing without explicit details about how infrastructure (particularly transport) makes the above statement meaningless. Saying AV is going to do this doesn't mean that it is possible! For example, the two proposed sites on the A421 next to Milton Keynes would create severe traffic issues. How can sensible road access be guaranteed when AV is not in control of Milton Keynes transport planning? The proposed A421 expressway route is not agreed so these developments may not be able to use it (assuming it is ever built).

VALP16-08-29-00556 Anna Ellershaw Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4J - if you are going to build so many more houses in places like Wendover - where are the extra resources required going to come from? It is already bursting regarding schooling provision and the school campus is a nightmare and the roads over run with cars. The 'rural' nature will no longer be there - the redevelopment of the Manor Waste is dreadful and I imagine it will continue in this vein? All the road In Princess Mary Gate are ridiculously narrow - if it continues like this is will be a very negative development. Plus getting to see the doctor etc will become even more difficult than it already is.

VALP16-08-30-00560 Cathy Tracy Vision and Strategic Objectives - Winslow already has a made Neighbourhood Plan which will allow for a 35% increase in housing but I feel it is quite unacceptable to expect Winslow to grow by 50% which will be unsustainable given local services and infrastructure.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 12 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-30-00561 Marianna Beckwith Vision and Strategic Objectives - Page 20. Spatial Vision : d. (Chocolate Box Both AVDC and Central Government have regularly stated that growth must be accompanied by the delivery of supportive Coaching) infrastructure, services, and other facilities at the right time and in the right locations. This must accompany development and not follow development months or even years later. Necessities such as transport improvements, hospital and health centre provision; suitable education and community facilities must be provided simultaneously to support the new growth and the existing residents. Housing growth should not be accepted without guarantees that either Government or Private funding will provide these crucial needs, or the whole area will be unsustainable in terms of education, health and transport. I can see nothing which reassures me that any of these crucial areas would be dealt with. There must be significant consultation between relevant parties, with guarantees of provision before any large development takes place.

VALP16-08-30-00562 Andrew Bateson (AB Vision and Strategic Objectives - Generally supported. Planning & Development Ltd) VALP16-08-31-00567 James Dowson (The Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4a. It is stated in essence that development will enhance existing developments and integrate DMC Advantage) into current communities. The designation of Haddenham as a strategic settlement and its potential quadrupling in size will achieve neither such aim. Haddenham is a village with no retail or natural centre. Such considerable unwanted growth cannot be integrated into the current village. 2.4d. Haddenham is not earmarked for a secondary school, therefore to state that infrastructure would grow to meet the needs of the community is disingenuous. It states that improved links to London will help local business to thrive. In reality the additional traffic on already congested roads will have a huge negative impact on my business and many others in the area. Train services from Haddenham are already becoming too crowded, streets clogged with cars trying to park outside the existing parking areas, and Marylebone nearing capacity. All this doers not take into account the large growth of other towns on the train line (Bicester, Banbury etc) nor other towns near Haddenham (Thame for instance) which will seek to use the London train service. To grow Haddenham, in such a congested part of the Vale, is irresponsible. 2.6Objective 2. I find it quite inconceivable that Aylesbury Vale shoud accept the "unmet needs" of neighbouring councils when they designate their own land to be built at considerable less density. I refer to High Wycombe's own density evaluation at approx 12 houses per hectare, almost one third of the 33 per hectare designated for the VALP. More effort should be made to force HW to accept higher density of building. As a result Haddenham or Winslow may not need to accept a new settlement? 2.6 Objective 6. Building on land around Haddenham will demand high quality agricultural land to be built on. This goes against the principles of the VALP.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 13 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00568 Graham Tyack Vision and Strategic Objectives - HVS Comment – para 2.4.j: The Haddenham Village Society accepts that there is an urgent (Haddenham Village need for additional housing provision, but the need for a new settlement is challenged. The Society believes that a rigorous Society) examination is needed of the assumptions underlying the proposals of neighbouring authorities. If the ultimate proposals are to command public assent, it is essential that it is clear that all areas are taking their fair share of the assessed demand and are working on common assumptions concerning density of development and load on transport and other infrastructure. Conservation areas, for example, are an essential part of our heritage and require equal protection to Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Para 2.5 in the Consultation Document mentions those latter protections but should give equal weight to conservation areas and their protection. Thus, •The unmet needs from neighbouring districts should be challenged and common density standards adopted. •The allocation of new builds should take account of the impact on Conservation areas and the strategic aims of the National planning Policy Framework. At present the potential impact of the proposals affecting Haddenham actually violates these strategic aims. •The housing build plan should be accompanied by a commensurate employment development plan and, if necessary, some land allocated for employment development should be re-allocated for housing. •The time necessary to do this work should be allocated. The excuse to rush this through to meet Government timescales is unacceptable, for peoples’ well being could be potentially at risk if a final version of this plan is published without being informed by the necessary investigation. Unrealistic timescales should be challenged. VALP16-08-31-00569 Paul Moss Vision and Strategic Objectives - A planned new settlement needs to take into account transport issues. Haddenham is a favoured site in the plan for this reason. The alternate site of Winslow (i.e. Little Horwood Airfield) is very close to the edge of Milton Keynes and development here would further add to the pressure on the very busy A421 and routes into Aylesbury via A413. The current proposed routes for the A421 would not alleviate this problem. VALP16-08-31-00576 Mary and Allan Vision and Strategic Objectives - We think that the vale of Aylesbury has had a huge building programme in recent years glendinning especially around the town of Aylesbury and should question meeting unmet need by adjacent authorities. if we accept unmet need without diligent questioning such authorities will not try to reach their quotas VALP16-08-31-00581 Fiona Lippmann (Halton Vision and Strategic Objectives - A total of 33,000 represents too great a figure for unmet needs from the southern districts, who Parish Council) should be taking more of their own growth by releasing green belt land, increasing building densities substantially and building on brownfield sites. Only then will they have genuine unmet needs. The focus on Aylesbury, Winslow and Haddenham is correct, although Wendover is very constrained by Green Belt, AONB and HS2 proposals. The figures used for growth in Wendover can be negated should the densities of the surrounding districts be reviewed. The removal of the Green Belt in Wendover and Halton, is contrary to the NPPF C4, as no exceptional circumstances have been sufficiently identified. The split between small, medium and large villages according to existing infrastructure appears fair.

VALP16-08-31-00584 Bruce Gardner (Cherwell Vision and Strategic Objectives - Cherwell GHT note and support the Council’s overall vision and the spatial vision for the plan. Gospel Hall Trust) The trust notes and support the objectives, including (3) which expressly recognises the need for delivery of infrastructure to accompany the planned growth, including community facilities.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 14 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00586 Gillian Miscampbell Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2. It is important that developments should be well designed and sensitive to the local environment and that heritage, cultural assets and the environment are protected.

The Strategic objectives of providing timely and well-located provision of infrastructure, services and facilities must be met particularly schools, transport infrastructure and health facilities. The sustainability of the small and medium sized rural communities is a particular concern and a better balance needs to be struck with more development taking place in the larger settlements and less in the small and medium sized villages where sustainability realities are not realistic. VALP16-08-31-00610 Judith Warner Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.4 i & j: I do not accept the need for a new settlement. AVDC are propsing a new settlement to help satisfy the unmet need in Wycombe District for 5,000 houses. But this is only needed because Wycombe District are failing to do everything they can to meet their own needs. Wycombe are only assuming a density of around 12 dwellings per hectare, while the Haddenham & Winslow plans assume a density of around 30 dwellings per hectare. Also, High Wycombe is proposing an increase in housing numbers of around 10% but AVDC are proposing growth of around 45% because of unmet needs in neighbouring authorities. The proposal for a new settlement at Haddenham or Winslow should therefore be removed from the AVDC plan. It is completely unacceptable for AVDC to take on other districts unmet needs when they are failing to do everything they can to help them selves. Also, this section suggests these areas [inc Haddenham] will accommodate proportionate growth and remain largely rural in character...... Haddenham is currently a village with c2,200 homes and a population of c5,000. It is impossibleA new settlement of 4,500 - 6,000 houses will result in a three fold increase in the size of the village - this is not proportionate neither will it be possible to retain the rural character of Haddenham. VALP16-09-01-00613 Denise McClellan Vision and Strategic Objectives - Page 20, Spatial vision d The infastrucure cannot cope now with the additional traffic and calls upon services such as,transport, education, health, community and leisure facilities, etc. Housing without guarantees that all these will be in place and at the right time is great cause for concern.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 15 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00620 Jane Hennell (The Canal Vision and Strategic Objectives - The Canal & River Trust welcome the recognition given by the Draft plan to the Grand Union & River Trust) Canal and its Aylesbury and wendover Arms. We are pleased to note that the canal is recognised as multi- functional green infrastructure and we note the vision to improve the canal, in conjuction with the Canal & River Trust for the benefit of all future residents. VALP16-09-01-00622 Lachlan Robertson Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.6Objective 1 should in addition provide the objective that previously developed land can (Savills on behalf of assist in the provision of new residential land in accordance with NPPF 2012, para 17, core planning principle 7. Aylesbury Vale Estates)

VALP16-09-01-00633 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Vision and Strategic Objectives - CHAPTER 2-VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES Planning Services (on 2.9. The vision and strategic objectives set out in the draft plan appear to correlate with the core principles of the planning system, behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Church and Mr Davis of 2.10. It is therefore considered that the vision and objectives promote a positive agenda for the delivery of growth and development, Corner Farm, Gib Lane and is appropriate for Aylesbury Vale. Bierton)) 2.11. It is also considered positive approach, that development is to be distributed across the entire district, and to facilitate the substantial growth of the town of Aylesbury. VALP16-09-01-00634 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Vision and Strategic Objectives - CHAPTER 2-VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE Planning Services (on 2.9. The vision and strategic objectives set out in the draft plan appear to correlate with the core principles of the planning system, behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Church and Mr Davis of 2.10. It is therefore considered that the vision and objectives promote a positive agenda for the delivery of growth and development, Corner Farm, Gib Lane, and is appropriate for Aylesbury Vale. Bierton)) 2.11. It is also considered positive approach, that development is to be distributed across the entire district, and to facilitate the substantial growth of the town of Aylesbury. VALP16-09-01-00637 Viv Lynch (Wingrave Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4d Infrastructure, services & facilities need to be in place to prior to the development of new with Rowsham Parish homes and employment, at worst concurrently and NOT after. Council) 2.6 No mention is made for the development of brown field sites. VALP16-09-02-00640 Mark Dolling Vision and Strategic Objectives - n/a

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 16 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00641 Christopher Matthews Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4d ‘Growth will be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure’ – it is very important that delivery of infrastructure happens at the same time as new housing.

Paragraph 2.4g ‘Aylesbury will have grown significantly and will: 5. have a comprehensive quality cycling and walking network completed within the town and extending to the expanded town and surrounding villages’ – it is important that a quality cycle route is provided to Haddenham and other large settlements.

Paragraph 2.4i – I challenge the need for a new settlement. A thorough examination must be made of the assumptions underlying the proposals of neighbouring authorities to ensure that all areas are taking their fair share of housing and are working on common assumptions of housing density, load on transport systems and impact on other infrastructure. In particular Wycombe, Chiltern and S Bucks District Councils should be challenged all the way to meet their own housing needs.

Paragraph 2.4j Comments are as follows – 1.‘will remain predominantly rural in character…’ – building a large new settlement in AVDC is incompatible with this statement 4. ‘growth will have been proportionate and reflect community aspirations in terms of scale, phasing, type and design of growth. Further details will come through neighbourhood plans in most cases.’ The proposal to increase the number of homes in Haddenham by nearly 50% is clearly not proportionate. It in no way reflects community aspirations of scale since the preferred number of new homes in Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan is 430. Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan has been completely disregarded on this issue. 6. ‘growth will protect high-quality agricultural land’ - building a large new settlement near Haddenham disregards this statement as the areas proposed are all in the top ‘best and most versatile’ category of agricultural land. 7. ‘will have a well-managed network of green infrastructure…’ – this must include Haddenham Village Greens at Townsend and Church End. These are in danger of being completely spoilt by the pressure of excessive housing, traffic etc

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 17 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00643 Angela Matthews Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4d ‘Growth will be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure’ – it is very important that delivery of infrastructure happens at the same time as new housing.

VALP16-09-02-00644 Michael Robson (Cerda Vision and Strategic Objectives - See Attached Planning)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 18 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00653 Quainton Parish Council Vision and Strategic Objectives - P.23 j. 1-7 this is a opportunity to improve infrastructure - villages are suffering from being used as rat runs. It seems more achievable to improve infrastructure and services around larger towns and larger sustainable villages and therefore new development would be easier to implement in these areas.

p.24 2.6 Objective 3 Infrastructure is the key to providing new sustainable development - well located infrastructure, improved or in place at the same time as new development is vital

Objective 4 The PC agree that new development should be distributed across AV, and that the majority should be at the most sustainable locations at Aylesbury, Buckingham, Haddenham, followed by the area around Wendover and Winslow.

Objective 5 The PC agree with this objective

Objective 6 The PC agree that development should ensure protection of the district's natural and historic environment in villages and in towns.

VALP16-09-02-00654 Tom Hutchinson (Land Vision and Strategic Objectives - para 2.4 Support for j. The rural areas will have accommodated proportionate growth. For clarity, and Partners Ltd) the wording 'larger sustainable villages' should be replaced with 'large and medium sized' sustainable villages.

Support for Objective 4 reference to an appropriate level of development at the most sustainable settlements in the rural areas.

Support for Objective 5 reference to the council promoting the enhancement of local centres / village facilities and supporting vitality and viability.

VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Vision and Strategic Objectives - We wish to challenge the word “appropriate” identified in the spatial vision – what does this mean Developments Ltd) and who defines what is appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth. We generally support the majority of growth at Aylesbury.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 19 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00664 Ken Trew (Cuddington Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2. Vision and Strategic Objectives Parish Council) Spatial Vision Comments on Haddenham are included at Section 4 dealing with the New Settlement The VALP states that the spatial vison for the rural areas are to have proportionate growth and :- "Para 2.4 j 1 will remain predominantly rural in character, enjoying high-quality landscapes with heritage, cultural and biodiversity assets protected and where possible enhanced 4 growth will have been proportionate and reflect community aspirations in terms of scale, phasing, type and design of growth. Further details will come through neighbourhood plans in most cases 6 – growth will protect high-quality agricultural land (this is generally taken to mean the best and most versatile land is defined" The Strategic objectives also confirm the need to respond to environmental issues: - "Para 2.6 6. The council will manage development in a way that ensures the protection an enhancement of the district’s built, natural and historic environment, as well as its landscape and biodiversity. Planning positively for biodiversity and green infrastructure, minimise development on high-quality agricultural land, and require high-quality design and building at appropriate densities" This is repeated in para 3.6 as part of the AVDC sustainability strategy:- "Environmental constraints – to avoid flood risk areas, protecting environmental assets, landscape quality, contaminated land and pollution, the historic environment and settlement character".

The Parish Council agrees with the proposed approach whereby allocations take account of environmental constraints (including landscape, heritage and agricultural land quality) and the aspirations of the local communities. The environmental issues affecting Cuddington are set out in Section 3 dealing with the Settlement Hierarchy With regard to community aspirations Cuddington does not yet have a Neighbourhood Plan but accepts that the villages should plan for a degree of growth over the Plan period. However, there is a concern that the VALP proposal for additional 50 dwellings (up to 200 additional people) in a village with a population of 569 would be an unacceptable and disproportionate increase in the size of the village. The Council’s aspiration is to help manage a lower level of growth commensurate with the environment quality and character of the village and the capacity of its community facilities. The exact number, mix and location of dwellings needs to be assessed in response to proposals yet to be submitted by AVDC (see Para 4.56 ) and any sites that come forward through landowners/ developers.

VALP16-09-02-00665 Gary Palmer (South Vision and Strategic Objectives - No comment Oxfordshire District Council)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 20 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00666 Kate Curry (Aston Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2:4 d) “Growth will be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure……” This must take account Abbotts Parish Council) of the whole area, eg, increased traffic levels through the smaller villages because of unfinished road schemes (such as the impact of the A41 / A413 link on Weedon and Aston Abbotts following the failure to complete the road link to the A418)

2:4 g) 4. have had significant transport improvements …with new link roads connecting the existing highway network….. Must include complting the link from the A413 to the A418 2:4 Reference is made to a new town like Milton Keynes being built; and elsewhere, to an "Aylesbury Garden Town". Where are these to be built - or is this to be built, if they are one and the same thing? 2:6 j) 2 Agree prioritise affordable housing 3 Broadband must include all villages and settlements 6 Protection of high quality agricultural land – do not allow small villages to expand beyond their current envelope

VALP16-09-02-00667 Robert Barnes Vision and Strategic Objectives - There is no vision or sensible strategy in introducing proposed large scale housing development on the borders of adjacent Local Authorities. It not only absolves AVDC of providing services but urbanises what would otherwise be rural communities VALP16-09-02-00668 Geoffrey Pearman Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 1.14. Ickford cannot support a further 53 houses. Pressures on existing facilities are already at breaking point and the addition of this number of properties is not sustainable. VALP16-09-02-00669 Sean Carolan Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4(h) 6 What are 'active' links in this context? Presumably a bus service? There's nothing active about tarmac.

2.4(i) Clearly the infrastructure to be in place before the residents, so with EW Rail disappearing into the distance (2022+) and the A421 Expressway even further away, and almost no employment opportunities, presumably any settlement won't be coming to Winslow?

2.6.1 More intensive use may not be appropriate in all circumstances e.g. rural settlements where the plan seeks to protect the rural character. VALP16-09-02-00671 David Child Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 d Buckingham can see no improvement in infrastructure. The yet to be funded Winslow Station does nothing for Buckingham except possibly add traffic to an poor A413. The Oxford - Cambridge expressway will almost certainly pass south of Winslow VALP16-09-02-00677 Steven Mitchell Vision and Strategic Objectives - Support

VALP16-09-03-00679 Samita Kirve (Bucks Vision and Strategic Objectives - I think AVDC ought to focus on widening the roads around Aylesbury and completing the ring NHS Trust) road ASAP because for any growing city sufficient road infrastructure is vital.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 21 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00691 Barbara Hewson Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4. Makes the Key statement- Growth will be shaped by strong place-shaping and sustainability principles to create well-designed developments that are sensitive to the district's local character etc etc. Environmental, heritage and cultural assets will be protected...

These Strategic Objectives must be met. Demand is obviously to the South of Aylesbury towards the M25 and Greater London. House prices evidence where demand lies.Whilst major development is rightly targeted, There is clearly a balance of 'pain-sharing'. This 'pepper- potting' approach across what are termed medium and smaller rural communities is out of proportion to sustainability realities. A reduction is required if the VALP is to be considered balanced and logical, meeting the vision and objectives promised.

VALP16-09-03-00705 Elizabeth Dickson Vision and Strategic Objectives - With regard to the impact n our services if these proposed housing estate went ahead the impact would be terrible as we do it have the infrastructure to cope with this in Haddenham VALP16-09-03-00711 Udo Dölz Vision and Strategic Objectives - Sites at BUC025 and BUC046

VALP16-09-03-00712 Frank Donlon Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4L "A new settlement, (the first in Buckinghamshire since Milton Keynes in the 1960’s), will be under development" The above statement implies that a new settlement will definitely be created come what may and irrespective of this consultation process. The word "will" should be replaced by "may".

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 22 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00715 Roderick floud Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.4j There is an urgent need for additional housing provision in Aylesbury Vale and elsewhere, but the need for a new settlement must be challenged. A rigorous examination is needed of the assumptions underlying the proposals of neighbouring authorities. If the ultimate proposals are to command public assent, it is essential that it is clear that all areas are taking their fair share of the assessed demand and are working on common assumptions concerning density of development and load on transport and other infrastructure. Conservation areas, for example, are an essential part of our heritage and require equal protection to Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Para 2.5 in the Consultation Document mentions those latter protections but should give equal weight to conservation areas and their protection. Thus, The unmet needs from neighbouring districts should be challenged and common density standards adopted. The allocation of new builds should take account of the impact on Conservation areas and the strategic aims of the National planning Policy Framework. At present the potential impact of the proposals affecting Haddenham actually violates these strategic aims. The housing build plan should be accompanied by a commensurate employment development plan and, if necessary, some land allocated for employment development should be re-allocated for housing. The time necessary to do this work should be allocated. The excuse to rush this through to meet Government timescales is unacceptable, for peoples’ well being could be potentially at risk if a final version of this plan is published without being informed by the necessary investigation. Unrealistic timescales should be challenged. VALP16-09-03-00716 Bryan Mitcham (Year) Vision and Strategic Objectives - Thie proposed extension of Winslow plus new town is a monstrous extension totally swamping the existing town and along with the Snelshall and Salden Chase developments virtually creating an urban corridor to Milton Keynes. Calling it an ‘eco town’ or ‘garden village’ does not disguise that it is essentially a vast high density housing estate where no regard for providing adequate transport infrastructure is made and the minimum amount possible will be spent on providing faclilties; current developments in Aylesbury in Bicester are all the evidence needed. Look at how many houses have been built in Aylesbury in the last 20 years and the town still doesn’t have a bypass! VALP16-09-03-00720 Ruth Scott (Scott Travel Vision and Strategic Objectives - d) Surely most importance should be given to prior provision of infrastructure? I am particularly Ltd) concerned about the traffic volumes both through this village and on the A421.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 23 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00722 Elisabeth Hutchings Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 (also 3.1, 3.7 and 3.2)

Wendover has grown substantially with the development of the Princess Mary Gate estate. This has already had a substantial effect on health, education and transport in the village. Any further large scale development in Wendover would not be proportionate and the sustainability of the village would be threatened.

The John Hampden Infant school has had to creatre additional classrooms and build a new assembly hall in the playground thereby substantially reducing the outdoor space available for their young pupils to play. Access to the three schools causes traffic chaos on a daily basis. Buses transporting pupils from the John Colet school wait in Wharf Road, thereby reducing the road capacity to a single lane.

The development of Princess Mary Gate did not includeany additional health provision. The health centre in Wendover is now at capacity with demand for appointments often resulting in a 2 week wait to see a GP for a non-emergency consultation.

The only official car park is the one located behind the library which is too small to cope with demand Since the addition of new households at Princess Mary Gate many cars are now regularly parking in side streets and even along the B4009 Wendover to Halton Road, thereby restricting through traffic. The building of any more houses on this side of Wendover would exacerbate an already serious problem.

Green belt - I strongly oppose the proposal to remove from Green belt protected status the area of land along the west side of the canal in Wendover. The watermeadow behind the Castle Park estate is an important village recreational area used by many families and dog walkers. It provides a buffer between the houses and the canal which helps to protect the biodiversity of a habitat which is important for heron, kingfisher and other waterfowl.

VALP16-09-03-00726 Richard Dorrance Vision and Strategic Objectives - I support what has been written.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 24 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00739 Pierre & Wendy Hibble Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4 (specifically sub para (d)) The Spatial Vision objective uses fine words but as has been demonstrated time and time again, local authorities and government have no long term agreements that actually deliver the thriving, safe quality of life proposed. To suggest that Aylesbury Vale will deliver or receive the neccesary infrastructure and services commensurate with the needs of the proposed housing developments is at best wishful thinking and, more frankly, disingenuous. Aylesbury Vale cannot currently provide the necessary infrastructure and so why it should suddenly become able to supply the required transport system, health service or eduction needs is somewhat baffling. Unless Aylesbury Vale has a complete and fully developed strategy with appropriate guarantees from the government and other parties to deliver the essential infrastructure and services to support the proposed housing developments then the Vision and Strategic Objectives are mere words and promises with no substance. Housing growth must be accompanied by infrastructure and services developments at the critical, required times, not deferred indefinitely or cancelled. It must be accepted that the Vale Plan cannot deliver the proposed developments without impacting, i.e. degrading, existing communities. In the absence of the necessary guarantees on the timely delivery of supporting infrastructure the impacts are totally unacceptable.

VALP16-09-04-00740 John Gavan Vision and Strategic Objectives - In response to AVDC Draft VALP

I am concerned with the draft plan for the areas around and inculdng the village of Newton Longville. There are a number of issues that I have concerns about.. 1.I am concerned about the lack of strategic planning in a “strategic plan”. There seems to be no plans to build schools, improve medical access or improve Internet access to the village. All these issues are important and seem to be left until everything elese is put in place. 2.Increased housing will increase the traffic passing through the village. The village is already being used as a route through from the A421 to A4146 and A5. This results in roads being used by large and unsuitable traffic, increasing the danger to the population of the village. 3.A proposed superhighway from Oxford to Cambridge has no agreed route. The development of this route is likely to increase traffic through the village as many people will want to avoid using it. As a route is not yet known it seems foolis to propose a housing development in one of the key areas that could be used. 4.Growth of areas abutting Newton Longville will have a detrimental effect on the nature of the village. It will just get swallowed up into Milton Keynes, which the village is not part of and does not want to be. 5.A growing population in Britain will require an increased demand for food. As much of the land proposed for development around the outskirts of Newton Longville is farmland, it would seem prudent to maintain these areas to preserve some degree of food security. Therefore, the development of brownfiled sites in other areas of the county is needed. 6.Environmentally the development of lands on the edge of Milton Keynes and around the village could have an environmental consequence that is undesirable. The devastation to wild flowers, birds and mammals in this county is of great concern. Planting of immature hedges in areas does not replace the disaster that occurs when a mature hedge is ripped out.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 25 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00742 Carolyn Cumming Vision and Strategic Objectives - SPATIAL VISION 2.4 This is subjective and, in my view, untrue. The development proposed within the draft consultation document is not an appropriate amount as it exceeds the OAN. It is not, in my view, sustainable as the infrastructure requirements needed to sustain the stated level of the proposed development are unsubstantiated in every detail. The quality of life will be downgraded by increased built development which will have led to: 1. Substantial loss of the green environment (trees, hedges, fields, open country) 2.New roads and congestion 3.Loss of safe, quieter rural routes for pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists 4.Pollution: more lights, noise, litter 5.Loss of community cohesion if settlements such as Buckingham and Winslow are to increase by 50% This is all aspirational without any evidence to accompany its delivery. None of these outcomes have been achieved in the past 40 years. Assets have not been protected; there have been insidious little incursions into both protected and non protected buildings, streets and landscape. There is no adequate enforcement to ensure that development pays heed to local aspirations and policies. The District Council is at the mercy of undeliverable Government policy in providing a 5 year housing supply which in effect simply moves the numbers ever upwards and plays into the developers’ hands without the time to incorporate the necessary infrastructure additions. The effects of HS2 on Buckinghamshire can NEVER be suitably mitigated. The quality of life for all residents living within a 5 mile radius will decrease. Destruction of ancient habitat is irreplaceable. If environmental concerns and local characteristics were truly evaluated, this growth is not sustainable. A Local Plan is a damage limitation exercise. Please just be honest and don’t promise what cannot be delivered.

VALP16-09-04-00744 Cllr David Finch Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.6-2 - It is crucial that unmet need from elsewhere is reasonable

VALP16-09-04-00745 Marianne Faux Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.6-2 - It is crucial that unmet need from somewhere else is reasonable

VALP16-09-04-00750 Colin Read (Aston Vision and Strategic Objectives - Creation of new town needed as stated in Paragraph 26 Clinton parish planning) VALP16-09-04-00751 Anthony Winterbottom Vision and Strategic Objectives - Not Realistic . Methodology flawed . Housing numbers driven but in Aylesbury severe transport current constraints mean that a solution needs to be found before housing numbers defined . Much more straightforward in smaller settlements VALP16-09-04-00755 Joyce Docherty Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.6 - 2 - this point is supported - it is important that unmet need from elsewhere is 'reasonable and sustainable.' VALP16-09-04-00756 Andrew Docherty Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.6 - 2 - this point is supported - it is important that unmet need from elsewhere is 'reasonable and sustainable' VALP16-09-04-00765 David Richards Vision and Strategic Objectives - Spatial Vision d) It is of overriding importance that changes of this nature are accompanied by delivery of supporting infrastructure and services. The proposed increase in population would require fundamental changes in infrastructure and there is no real evidence in the document of a commitment to these changes.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 26 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00768 RICHARD WINWARD Vision and Strategic Objectives - Page 20 Spatial Vision d does not comply with National Planing Policy as makes no attempt to develop a viable infrastructure plan that would support sustainable housing growth VALP16-09-04-00769 Beverley James Vision and Strategic Objectives - Affordable and integrated affordable housing within an overall mix, including provison for older people, is essential for the future vibrancy of all parts of the District. VALP16-09-04-00778 John Thorne Vision and Strategic Objectives - I've objected to this site as it is home to lots Wildlife such as Fox's, bats, owls etc. which would put them at risk of servile the site also backs onto the industrial estate which is not suitable. Also the Gawcott Road is a very busy already without any more residents VALP16-09-04-00783 Morgan Holt Vision and Strategic Objectives - Par 24a Option 3 is facilitated by mirroring the village on the West side of the railtracks. This creates two centres for the village. Haddenham is already suffering a lack of centre, and sprawling out in this way will cause the village to completely lose its identity.

VALP16-09-04-00784 Paul Tattam Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4d Infrastructure, g3 Trains, is not an integrated hub, very much a branch line with other links that require lots of changes. I travel a lot for work and have to drive for a main line connection. Minimal impact as people want to go to London. point 8 Green infrastructure needs to protect biodiversity, this is not done by levelling fields and building football pitches. Objective 2.1 affordable houses, insufficient being planned. 3.1 education lack of provision across the whole range of students 3.2 transport, cars and more cars 3.4, impact on emergency services, where is the provision being paid for 3.6 Utilities, often aston Clinton and Weston Turville suffer power outages, there is not capacity in the local area and a failure by the networks to invest. 3.7, no health provision incorporated, not just buildings, they need staffing

3.7 numbers of housing should be re-evaluated in light of Brexit, i.e. HEDNA

S2a states Weston Turville will grow by 50% yet medium villages should be 5%/ Weston Turville is its own parish and is not part of the city of Aylesbury yet

VALP16-09-04-00786 Matthew Yates Vision and Strategic Objectives - I believe that the vision is missing an important part of "protecting our heritage". We can improve economic, social and environmental wellbeing of people and businesses, but if that comes at the cost of ruining our rural or cultural heritage then this will not be worth it. Once we have over developed, there is no going back. This is mentioned in 2.4a but should be emphasised in the main vision statement. VALP16-09-04-00788 David Dinsdale Vision and Strategic Objectives - I am highly concerned by the proposed garden village. The scale of the new village will cause significant infrastructure issues including water and sewerage. Thames Water is already conducting a review having concluded current provision is inadequate for existing properties. A new village can not be constructed without a complete re-work of supporting infrastructure for water and sewage.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 27 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00789 Angie Ravn-Aagaard Vision and Strategic Objectives - Spatial vision (Bletchley Park Area 2.4b - New housing in sustainable locations...... to meet housing needs in the area. This is not the case in respect of settlements on Residents Association) Milton Keynes border, namely Eaton Leys, Newton Leys, Whaddon and South West Milton Keynes. The new residents in these settlements will be too far away to benefit from the enhancements in Aylesbury and Buckingham as per 2.4d, and the transport improvements mentioned will only put pressure on local roads in Milton Keynes. VALP16-09-04-00791 Mark Winn Vision and Strategic Objectives - I find it very difficult to comment without detail on infrastructure, it is the elephant in the room which cannot be ignored. Whilst I fully support the numbers we do need extra houses especially for those who cannot get on the housing ladder, but these cannot be supported without the infrastructure. All I can say is that I do not see any need for encroachment into the green belt in Wendover and I wonder what limits there are on the idea of having a new development. Why could it not be larger than in this draft to reduce the demand on other areas? But I find it very difficult to comment further as I said without detail on infrastructure. VALP16-09-04-00792 John Griffiths Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 - j - Haddenham will not remain "largely rural in character" if 4,500 new houses and a "New Settlement" are built in it/around it. VALP16-09-04-00794 Barry Martindale Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.2, 2.4; the 'Vision' is well intentioned; "based on the characteristics & issues of the area", "principles sensitive to local character and well integrated into local communities". However, developers are currently seeking planning permission in Grendon Underwood and other villages in direct conflict with these stated aims of the 'Vision'. It remains to be seen whether the Council will hold to the Vision as being the cornerstone of serious intent in the face of developer & Government pressure. VALP16-09-04-00795 Cllr Diana Hogbin-Mills Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.6 - objectives especially 6 are at odds with what is being asked of our village - being classified as medium village requires the development of an additional settlement which will come at the cost of farmland. Once we have concreted over our rural communities we are very unlikely to look back.

3.25 - The settlement hierarchy is in theory a useful tool to classify villages but it is essential that the council use accurate data. On a brief exploration of the figures used, it was easy to spot that incorrect information must have been used to classify at least village e.g. population figures for Swanbourne. How many other errors in the data are there and what are the implications for classification? This throws into question the integrity of the settlement hierarchy. VALP16-09-04-00796 Elizabeth Melhuish Vision and Strategic Objectives - Did not note the paragraph. No indication that I needed to.

General comments: Vision, what vision.

More houses, where are occupiers going to work, how will they get there? VALP16-09-05-00799 John Mole (Oakley Vision and Strategic Objectives - VALP artificially divides villages into smaller and medium sized. There is no opportunity for a Parish Council) smaller village to grow so as to become sustainable. Oakley, because it lost its retail unit when incorporated into the owners hand, wish to grow and develop its amenities, including a shop. The VALP by categorising Oakley as a 'smaller' village despite being larger than some 'medium' villages is not given the opportunity to grow and support a shop. This should be amended.

VALP16-09-05-00802 Ruth Hewitt (Admiral Vision and Strategic Objectives - There needs to be a defensible boundary between the villages and MK and between Mk and Costumes) Aylesbury Vale

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 28 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00806 Jeff_ Deacon Vision and Strategic Objectives - This section seems to have been produced by reading the Central Government "Guidelines" and rewording them to read "Yes we want to do that and more, Sir". VALP16-09-05-00812 Simon Russell (Amethyst Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 h.3 Previously developed/under utilised sites should be considered ahead of greenfield sites Planning) to meet housing growth. A full urban capacity assessment should be carried out on all towns identified as being at the top of the hierarchy prior to the allocation of any greenfield sites in settlements lower in the hierarchy. 2.6 General Comment - sites identified/allocated for employment which has not been realised within the previous plan period should not be retained going forward and consideration made to allocating them to meet the need for housing growth. VALP16-09-05-00827 Jenny Armitstead Vision and Strategic Objectives - To maintain a village community and retain the character with the limited amenities it presently has. VALP16-09-05-00830 Manlet Group Holdings Vision and Strategic Objectives - 3.1AVDC sets out the Council’s vision for growth across the District in Chapter 2 of the draft VALP. 3.2Growth of sustainable settlements within Aylesbury Vale is supported. Cheddington is a medium sized village and a sustainable location for development, with good road and rail links. 3.3Land at Station Road, Cheddington is a sustainable location within the village for development, with facilities including a shop, primary school, church, pub and railway station within a few minutes’ walk of the site. 3.4Land at Station Road, Cheddington would be able to provide affordable and market housing in a sustainable location and through S106 contributions could provide funding towards wider infrastructure. 3.5Manlet Group generally supports the spatial vision for the District as set out in draft Paragraph 2.4. In particular, Manlet Group supports draft Paragraph 2.4a which states that “growth will be shaped by strong place-shaping and sustainability principles to create well-designed developments that are sensitive to the district’s local character and are well integrated with existing communities, wherever they live in the district” and draft Paragraph 2.4b which states that “new housing will have been provided in sustainable locations and at a high standard of design to meet housing needs in the area”. 3.6However, Manlet Group objects to draft Paragraph 2.4j as it fails to recognise the role that can be played by housing growth in medium size sustainable villages (like Cheddington) and the wider sustainability benefits that this would bring to the village. This is also inconsistent with the approach taken elsewhere in the draft VALP. 3.7Manlet Group supports draft Paragraph 2.6 (4) which recognises the role that can be played in the overall strategy for the District by providing “an appropriate level of development at the most sustainable settlements in the rural areas…”. VALP16-09-05-00832 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00833 Tim Smee Vision and Strategic Objectives - The proposal is direct contradiction to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

VALP16-09-05-00840 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00847 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 29 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00853 Suzanne Lindsey Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2 VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES (Whaddon Parish Council) SPATIAL VISION

2.4 b VALP states :- Unmet housing needs from other areas will have been met where it was reasonable and sustainable to do so. Question: AVDC have stated that they will robustly challenge the unmet needs, but how exactly will this be done? What are the instructions to the Consultants that have been appointed to undertake this task, and what time scales are they under to complete their investigations? How will AVDC advise the very many concerned residents of the results that arise from these studies? And in the event the Council are successful in reducing the numbers, what will be the policy for accordingly reducing proposed sites within the Vale? Presumably those speculative sites with no planning history, technical support detail, and which do not support the Vale’s economy will be the first to be removed from the plan? WPC specifically refers to WHA001–Whaddon, and NLV001–Newton Longville both of which can only support the Milton Keynes economy, whilst at the same time burdening the BCC highway infrastructure. WPC believe that new housing sites that do not completely support the future economy of the vale should be deleted before the proposed new town, as this should if built in the right location, support the economy of the vale.^ 2 VISION AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES SPATIAL VISION 2.4 b VALP states :- Unmet housing needs from other areas will have been met where it was reasonable and sustainable to do so. Question: AVDC have stated that they will robustly challenge the unmet needs, but how exactly will this be done? What are the instructions to the Consultants that have been appointed to undertake this task, and what time scales are they under to complete their investigations? How will AVDC advise the very many concerned residents of the results that arise from these studies? And in the event the Council are successful in reducing the numbers, what will be the policy for accordingly reducing proposed sites within the Vale? Presumably those speculative sites with no planning history, technical support detail, and which do not support the Vale’s economy will be the first to be removed from the plan? WPC specifically refers to WHA001–Whaddon, and NLV001–Newton Longville both of which can only support the Milton Keynes economy, whilst at the same time burdening the BCC highway infrastructure. WPC believe that new housing sites that do not completely support the future economy of the vale should be deleted before the proposed new town, as this should if built in the right location, support the economy of the vale.

VALP16-09-05-00860 John Careford Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.1 if all of the partnership relationship need to be worked out, surely that would be much more efficient if it was undertaken properly in the first place. Either central government needs to listen to the councils, with their reason local demands, or there needs to be an overall plan that compares geography. Following the logic currently adopted, placing homes in Northamptonshire would be ok for houses that were counted for High Wycome - they're not that far apart. Why can't there be a realisation that if an area is busy that just putting in more and more little houses crammed into plots within a purely arbitrary part of the country as a whole just doesn't create a good long term plan

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 30 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00863 David Peck Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.The overall plan seems to be a drastic solution and a more thoroughly thought through solution appears to be needed. 2.The proposal seems to be to convert Haddenham from a village into a small town. Which will have very negative impacts on a number of areas, if not properly planned from square one in the proposed development, including: a.Transport, many new roads would be needed and access and parking at the station could become intolerable. The current village roads are not capable of taking any real increase in traffic. b.Doctors’ surgery is currently unable to handle for the 4500ish residents and will be unlikely to handle many additional thousands without significant enhancements. c.The schools are currently almost at capacity and new schools would be needed, including a local secondary school rather than making many more journeys to Waddesdon, Aylesbury and Thame. d.With the other planned developments in South Oxfordshire, especially near to Thame, the services in Thame would be overwhelmed. e.By basing the developments in and around Haddenham that will consume significant quantities of high-grade agricultural land. f.There is a great need in Haddenham for a high quality retirement home area and in any plan to develop Haddenham this is an essential item. 3.The proposal to develop near Haddenham does not appear to take due account of the other available brownfield sites in Buckinghamshire, especially those at Wescott and Winslow’s nearby old airfield. In the not too distant future Winslow will be connected to the new railway line between Oxford and Cambridge making the Winslow area are very attractive transport hub. 4.Further it does not take account of the possibility of generating a completely new town on the railway line between Haddenham and Bicester. 5.The north of the county is wanting development and new homes, whilst this plan seems to further increase the congestion in the southern part of Buckinghamshire. 6.Haddenham is already accepting many hundreds of extra houses within its general boundaries and hence assisting the AVDC to meet its housing objectives. Hence consideration should be given to additional housing in the AVDC area going elsewhere. 7.There is great concern that AVDC is taking on housing requirements from the surrounding district councils, especially Wycombe. Also it is understood that the density of housing proposed for the Wycombe area is far lower than that proposed new developments around Haddenham. This seems totally unreasonable and further detailed assessment of Wycombe’s plans are needed before AVDC except more houses from other authorities. 8.Further, little consideration seems to have been made for the local employment of the new residents, hence exacerbating the transport system by adding to the commuter pool.

VALP16-09-05-00866 Graham Neill Vision and Strategic Objectives - Who decides on the resolution of the infrastructure issues above? Who pays?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 31 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00867 Susan Peck Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.The overall plan seems to be a drastic solution and a more thoroughly thought through solution appears to be needed. 2.The proposal seems to be to convert Haddenham from a village into a small town. Which will have very negative impacts on a number of areas, if not properly planned from square one in the proposed development, including: a.Transport, many new roads would be needed and access and parking at the station could become intolerable. The current village roads are not capable of taking any real increase in traffic. b.Doctors’ surgery is currently unable to handle for the 4500ish residents and will be unlikely to handle many additional thousands without significant enhancements. c.The schools are currently almost at capacity and new schools would be needed, including a local secondary school rather than making many more journeys to Waddesdon, Aylesbury and Thame. d.With the other planned developments in South Oxfordshire, especially near to Thame, the services in Thame would be overwhelmed. e.By basing the developments in and around Haddenham that will consume significant quantities of high-grade agricultural land. f.There is a great need in Haddenham for a high quality retirement home area and in any plan to develop Haddenham this is an essential item. 3.The proposal to develop near Haddenham does not appear to take due account of the other available brownfield sites in Buckinghamshire, especially those at Wescott and Winslow’s nearby old airfield. In the not too distant future Winslow will be connected to the new railway line between Oxford and Cambridge making the Winslow area are very attractive transport hub. 4.Further it does not take account of the possibility of generating a completely new town on the railway line between Haddenham and Bicester. 5.The north of the county is wanting development and new homes, whilst this plan seems to further increase the congestion in the southern part of Buckinghamshire. 6.Haddenham is already accepting many hundreds of extra houses within its general boundaries and hence assisting the AVDC to meet its housing objectives. Hence consideration should be given to additional housing in the AVDC area going elsewhere. 7.There is great concern that AVDC is taking on housing requirements from the surrounding district councils, especially Wycombe. Also it is understood that the density of housing proposed for the Wycombe area is far lower than that proposed new developments around Haddenham. This seems totally unreasonable and further detailed assessment of Wycombe’s plans are needed before AVDC except more houses from other authorities. 8.Further, little consideration seems to have been made for the local employment of the new residents, hence exacerbating the transport system by adding to the commuter pool.

VALP16-09-05-00868 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00869 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 32 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00873 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00874 Philip Morley Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4a - noted that the "Green Belt will be strongly defined and protected from inappropriate development." This doesn't seem to be the proposal at Wendover.

Paragraph 2.4d states that the "environmental impact of infrastructure improvements, such as HS2, will have been suitably mitigated. Again, this doesn't seem to be the case at Wendover.

Paragraph 2.4j refers to "proportionate growth". All growth is proportionate to something. It really depends on the proportion proposed. Growth of 50% and 25% at the strategic settlements cannot be considered to be proportionate - these are numbers which fundamentally change the character of a settlement.

Paragraph 2.4j.7 refers to local services. I would like to point out that the council provides very little in the way of local services in Wendover, to the extent that both the library and the swimming pool are volunteer run.

Paragraph 2.6 - Item 4 in the table refers to locating the majority of development in the most sustainable locations. Sustainability seems to refer to the existence of shops and facilities. In my view these will spring up around houses, rather than having to concentrate development in the areas where there are already a few shops.

Paragraph 2.6. Item 5 in the table says that the council will "promote enhancement of the district's towns". Surely the council cannot be suggesting that a 25% increase in housing stock in Wendover constitutes an enhancement. VALP16-09-05-00880 Jane Gaafar Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 (J) "The rural areas will have accommodated proportionate growth, focussed at Winslow, Haddenham, Wendover and larger sustainable villages, and: 1. will remain predominantly rural in character, enjoying high-quality landscapes with heritage, cultural and biodiversity assets protected and where possible enhanced" The draft proposals for large settlements adjoining Haddenham and Winslow do not square with this aim.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 33 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00890 Jane Gardner (Marrons Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4 : Spatial Vision Planning obo Rey Construction) Sub Paragraph b : The Local Plan should be planning for the development needs of the area. Whilst it is appropriate for AVDC when preparing its Local Plan to satisfy itself that the unmet need arising in other authorities should be accommodated within the District, this is not an issue which should be kept under continuous review. Once the level of unmet need is determined and the sites required to meet this need have been identified, the Plan should be securing the delivery of these homes without delay.

Requested Change

It is therefore requested that Paragraph 2.4 b. is amended to state:

“New housing will have been provided in sustainable locations and at a high standard of design to meet both housing needs in the District as well as the unmet need for housing from other areas. This will include the delivery of affordable housing………….”

Delete final sentence of sub paragraph b (commencing “Unmet housing need from other areas………….)

**********

Sub Paragraphs Omission : Paragraph 2.4 also sets out the Vision for those areas within the District where change is likely to have occurred by the end of the plan period and specifically refers to Aylesbury (sub paragraph g), Buckingham (sub paragraph h), a new settlement (sub paragraph i) and in the rural areas (sub paragraph j) where development is to be focussed at Winslow and other larger sustainable villages.

It is therefore a matter of concern that even though the Local Plan provides for about 4,300 dwellings on sites adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, Milton Keynes (Policies S2 g and D3), the Spatial Vision contains no reference to the sustainable growth to Milton Keynes and Bletchley which will have occurred within AVDC’s administrative area by the end of the plan period. Further, in view of the scope to provide for significantly more development in this sustainable location, (as reflected in the ‘Plan : MK Strategic Development Directions Consultation Paper), it is incumbent that the Vision fully reflects the opportunity to meet housing need within this area.

Requested Change VALP16-09-05-00892 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 34 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00898 Mrs Silvia Eames Vision and Strategic Objectives - Under "Vision and Strategic Objectives" it is noted that growth (housing) will be accompanied by delivery of infrastructure at the right place and the right time. This really needs to be more clearly set out. Quite evidently local problems are not being considered and in Newton Longville the panic is on - we see SWMK (Son of Salden Chase) + Eaton Leys (A5 Watling Street), Whaddon New settlement (amounting to cerca 5000 houses) – and 10 0000 extra vehicles) We have been doing our transport analysis and ask anyone in the village as to what the greatest problem is?...TRAFFIC..since the completion of the Stoke Hammond Bypass. VALP16-09-05-00906 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00913 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00913 Jake Collinge (Jake Vision and Strategic Objectives - None Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00922 Stuart Parsons Vision and Strategic Objectives - The redundant brown field site, previously developed as a retail plant and shrub business called Gawcott Plant Centre at Gawcott Nursery on the Hillesden Road Gawcott, has potential to accommodate some of the outstanding 31 houses. Details as to this site will be filed under 'Call for Sites'. VALP16-09-05-00928 Tim Northey (Rectory Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4 (i) Refers to plans for the delivery of a new settlement which given the unprecedented level of Homes Limited) growth required to be delivered in the district over the emerging plan period, is supported as it is unlikely to be entirely achievable through a development strategy solely reliant upon the extension of existing settlements. The New Settlement Scoping Study that has been prepared to inform this process and identifies a number of potential new settlement options, including a new garden village to the south east of Haddenham. This is considered the most suitable option to accommodate this level of development enabling proper planning and delivery of high quality infrastructure, whilst also located in a strategically suitable location close to the nearby service centres of Princes Risborough and Thame, and the strategic road and rail network (being capable of delivering a new parkway station). However, given the long lead in times for the delivery of a new settlement (with a significant amount of housing delivery likely to extend beyond the plan period) this should be in combination with the ongoing growth of nearby Haddenham in the shorter term, with expansion to the east considered most suitable where in particular, landscape impacts can be more ably amerliorated, whilst growth to the west would be more harmful from a landscape perspective and lead to pressure of future coalescence with Thame; 2.4 (j) Refers to proportionate growth in the rural areas including Winslow and Haddenham. These settlements have been identified by the Council as the most suitable locations for significant housing growth, especially Haddenham given the current existence of mainline rail services. In light of this level of potential growth, the wording of the policy should be amended to allow to allow for more than proportionate growth. VALP16-09-05-00942 Keith Milmer Vision and Strategic Objectives - General Enquiry Regarding Comments Submitted (Haddenham.net)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 35 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00955 Jonathan Clover Vision and Strategic Objectives - The vision for Aylesbury Vale has many important general principles to guide the strategy. Many of these are laudible in principle (ie you would expect these to guide the future development (in general terms of a settlement)). As such they are unobjectionable. However I have my doubts about the current vision (and consequent strategy). (2.4 a - g ):-

In terms of Aylesbury there has been considerable recent growth, and the proposals outlined later suggest that the town expands beyond its boundary and absorbs the villages to the south Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville, and Aston Clinton. This development will not be well integrated and will impact adversely on the villages mentioned as well as Bierton. The effect of rapid expansion on the quality of people's lives should be considered, as well as what may be considered a feeling of powerlessness brought on by the growth proposed being imposed centrally. Infrastructure is inadequate to cope and whilst the burgeoning Transport Plans are starting to address these concerns we are far from having for example an integrated transport policy or network. As examples I do not think the A418 or A41 are able to cope with present levels of traffic, let alone those proposed. These roads pose serious hazards for users, pedestrians and cyclists. In addition Transport for Bucks has just suffered a £9 million cut in its budget making maintenance of existing road difficult to sustain. Whatever section 106 monies are available they are very much in the future. There needs to be a reassessment of how we use the transport network and how to limit car use - this needs to be assessed before large scale development proceeds in Aylesbury. For example, my observations show between 70 and 80% of private car use is by a driver with no passengers.More emphasis needs to be given to measures to encourage public transport, shared vehicle use and greener alternatives need to be at the forefront of the vision. Climate change is the greatest challenge to the future and there should be a specific statement in the vision acknowledging this, and requiring climate change targets to be at the forefront of all aspects of the strategy, and its implementation. The siting of development across the area can only be determined once the decision has been made on the site for a new settlement. Later in the Plan the options of Haddenham and Buckingham are both considered suitable, but further work is being done to identify sites and infrastructure needs. The expansion of Aylesbury should be limited to current commitments and permissions until the decisions have been made on one or two new settlements. The specific elements of the vision in the Plan commented on later does not make it clear as to whether the aim for Aylesbury is as a local employment centre, or merely as a dormitory town. Without encouraging local jobs through new employment centres here, the vision for residents to live and work here is frustrated, and may become otiose. HS2 when built will have a major impact on the Vale and the development of the Vision and there should be a specific reference to this in the Vision.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 36 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment For the above reasons, I am at present unconvinced that Aylesbury can grow at the rate proposed over the period up to 2033. Further (generally in 2.4), I appreciate those factors needed (in the Plan's view) to support sustainable development are outlined later but I think sustainability should be defined. I also think affordable housing should be defined as this ought to include the social rented sector and shared ownership schemes and other starter home options. 2.4 b: there seems to be no reference to the repair and retention of housing stock. Whilst responsibilities are split between public and private landlords there should be a vision to include aims to improve the housing stock particularly for older properties and those currently in privately rented homes. 2.4 c (plus g 2) there is surely a need to develop the Vale as a suitable place for people to do business and encourage major employers to provide jobs here, rather than for Aylesbury be a dormitory town only. I just feel this aim needs to be stronger in both sections. Also what incentives can be given for this to happen (for example reduced business rates or financial help for start ups, support for the farming communities to diversify, and encourage the new generation of farmers, and innovative forms of land use (such as self sustaining communities). 2 g 3. Bus transport should also be mentioned and does travel modes include cycling, or other greener options. The paragraph implies this only covers rail travel.

2 i and j : the decision on concentrating development at the named towns cannot be taken until a decision on the new settlement has been made.

VALP16-09-05-00965 Peter Evans Vision and Strategic Objectives - None

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 37 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00966 Michelle Kidd (Area Vision and Strategic Objectives - In the Vision and Objective chapter there is a section called ‘Strategic Objectives’ and Objective Sustainable Places 7 says: Team The Environment 1. “no built development to take place in the functional floodplain other than for essential strategic infrastructure” Agency) We are not sure how this meets the objective of adapting to Climate Change. This statement is in accordance with Table 3 of the Planning Practice Guidance which is good, however, no development should be allowed in Flood Zone 3b apart from essential infrastructure and water compatible, regardless of the impacts of Climate Change. It is difficult to see how you could achieve this objective without seeing the Level 1 SFRA and what this evidence base document recommends with regards to Climate Change and in particular the new CC allowances. Are you recommending a buffer around their flood zones, and/or using the Flood Zone 2 outline as your plus CC allowance flood outline? If the SFRA states that no assessment of the new CC allowances has been achievable and therefore each allocated site will require an assessment of the CC allowances to be completed by the proposed developers before that site is seen as feasible, this will need to be reflected in site specific policies to ensure this assessment is completed. Flood Zone 3 should be avoided for any new development if at all feasible as this is the Flood Zone with the highest risk of fluvial flooding.

In paragraph 2.4(a), omit “where possible” in the 5th line so that the sentence reads “Environmental, heritage and cultural assets will be protected and enhanced.” In paragraph 2.4(d), in the 4th line, add “and blue” to read “green and blue infrastructure”. In 2.4(g)(8), again it should read “network of green and blue infrastructure”. Once again, there needs to be a focus on the entire river network, not just the canal. In Aylesbury there are a large number of watercourses that need to brought into focus and enhanced for wildlife and people. They need to be thought of as assets and opportunities, not constraints. With regard to the strategic objectives shown in 2.6, we support objective 6 in particular.

VALP16-09-05-00976 Claudia Dietz (Optimis Vision and Strategic Objectives - Spatial vision: Consulting on behalf of By 2033 Aylesbury Vale will have seen an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth, which will contribute to creating Peter Dean Estates) a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit, and where all residents enjoy a high quality of life.

Growth in smaller villages will assist in achieving this.

Northall’s housing requirement is 9 units and commitments are currently at 4 units (2015/16) with a residual housing requirement of 4. The HELAA suitable sites, excluding commitments, are 21, which need to be identified. The village has a fairly small population, but is well connected to a large Service Centre (Leighton Buzzard 4 miles away) and the Large Village of Edlesborough (approx. 1 mile away). Edlesborough adjoins the settlement of Eaton Bray where some local services and facilities exist.

Northall has some key services, and is closely located to Edlesborough where good employment provision and further services exist, however, it would become more sustainable by adding growth that is greater than 5%.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 38 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00984 Phillippa Martin-Moran Vision and Strategic Objectives - By 2033 Aylesbury Vale will have seen an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable (Optimis Estates) growth, which will contribute to creating a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit, and where all residents enjoy a high quality of life. 2.4j- Molly’s Folly and Field fulfill this. VALP16-09-05-00992 Helen Hyre Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.6 strategic objective 2.3

There needs to be more consideration for suitable housing for older people so that family homes can be freed up for families to buy.

VALP16-09-05-00995 Joanna Mayers Vision and Strategic Objectives - The only land shown in the plan for development is the land at the end of Stepnells. This is actively farmed land and my reasons for asking this land not to be developed are as follows: •It is essential to a village to have farmed land. The local plan recognises the importance of farmland as it says that it should not be used if there are alternatives, which there are in Marsworth, particularly brown-field sites for which the plan states a preference. •There are several brown-field sites to develop; one being the White Lion site where historically there were 6 houses on the site of the car park and there is currently a proposal to build 6 houses here and develop the former pub into 2 dwellings. The second site is that of the former Lower End garage, which again the same owner wishes to develop after the White Lion development. There is also a further site at Lower End suitable for development, which is rough pasture land. These sites, and not the green-field site, were originally identified in the previous draft plan and are more suitable for development of small groups of houses, which are far more in character with a small village. •The Bulbourne Yard development, a brown-field development, is also within Marsworth and therefore must be included in Marsworth’s building allocation. •The Stepnells development can only exacerbate the drainage issues already causing major problems in Vicarage Road and Lukes Lea during periods of prolonged rainfall. •The Stepnells development would cause further traffic congestion in Vicarage Road and at the junction with the B489, which would be especially problematic when the buses are collecting school children to transport out of, and back to, the village. This is a major safety issue for the children and those with them. •The Stepnells development will cause high density housing which is out of keeping with the surroundings. •The Lower End sites are nearer to the true centre of the village that is the Red Lion, the Church and the School. The Geographic centre of the village has no amenities.

VALP16-09-05-00998 Charlotte Beadle Vision and Strategic Objectives - All paragraphs: I do not support this draft plan for 33000 new homes in Aylesbury Vale.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 39 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01005 Andrew Phillips Vision and Strategic Objectives - This email is specifically centred around the expansion plans for Haddenham, either by this village growing or a "new town" on its outskirts. Haddenham is a historic settlement with no natural commercial centre. It is a small residential area with one key selling point = which is the railway station. We have two oversubscribed infant schools and one primary school. We are some distance from any secondary school with the nearest in a neighbouring county and no right to send our children there. We have no shops of note other than a corner shop and minor mini market (McColls). We have four pubs and minimal eateries. To expand this village would be a major failing of AVDC. We have poor village roads which are already overcrowded and often accident blackspot (Staybridge Rd jnt Woodways). The S.E part of the village floods yearly and parking around the railway station is already blocking the residential roads. Princes Risborogh is also adding housing as is Thame (In Oxfordshire). These in conjunction with Haddenhams already approved housing will put a strain on the existing infrastructure and no additional resources. From attending the open days and seeing your reports. Winslow is the only viable option.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 40 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01008 John Mortimer Vision and Strategic Objectives - General comment. This is not a draft consultation plan at all. But a foregone conclusion Plan. So much detailed work has been put into this plan that there is no way that the input will be allowed to go to waste. In view of this, there is no way that the major changes necessary to make the plan acceptable will be taken on board. Therefore. it can not be described as a 'draft' plan. It is a foregone conclusion plan. Drafts can be changed; rewritten or even disclared null and void. But if there are any changes made to this draft plan you can bet they will be by way of 'fine tuning' only. In other words, the changes will be minor; a token gesture to subdue those who care for the community they live in. Residents of Whaddon in particular expect little notice to be taken of their observations. Some people complain that it is not worth commenting on the draft proposals because their remarks will be ignored. The plan will go ahead anyhow. But the whole plan needs a complete rethink. And intelligent rethinking at that. Realistic thinking that does not seem to have been applied to the draft plan by people who should know better. For example, this plan destroys village life as people know it today. It places significant numbers of dwellings adjacent to small and medium villages. Who decided this daft policy? Surely it would be cheaper to have fewer, but larger concentrations of new dwellings which were placed in an area where there are already roads, railways etc and some semblance of infrastructure. Not in the middle of nowhere. This would be more cost-effective from the point of view of infrastructures - roads, railways, schools, medical centres, jobs, gas, electricity, water supply and sewerage, flood prevention, etc etc etc. Why has this ‘shotgun’ approach to development been taken? It is not the best approach and lays bare any signs of serious ‘joined- up thinking’. Why not, for example, a single new settlement of 4,000-6,000 houses in the Haddenham area. It offers improved transport and the land has already been identified as suitable for housing. The WHA001 proposal, for example, is a complete farce. Why exactly 2,000 houses. If it formed part of a real, sensible, well thought- out plan the number might be, for example, 1,873. Or 2,014. And why, after designation exactly 2,000 dwellings is reference made to adding 11 more too the village of Whaddon. Why not include them in the 2,000 and make it 2,011? And who thought of siting 2,000 houses adjaced to the Shenley Road? Have those who drew up the plan ever visited the Shenley Road? Do they know where it is? What the road actually looks like. It is a narrow road where two heavy commercial vehicles can barely pass. It is also used heavily at weekends by cyclists and horses? Does anyone know that? And if two double deck school buses were to meet - or single deck electric buses - they too would have difficulty in passing. And where does the Shenley Road lead? Why, right into Milton Keynes Council's territory.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 41 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment Shenley Road actuaally leads into Guildford Avenue in Kingsmead. Guilford Avenue of a "wiggly road" a carefully designed narrow bendy road intended to constrain traffic flow. Has anyone in AVDC investigated that? Which brings us to the key point. The people who will come to live in WHA001 (on the basis of 2.5 people per house that amounts to 5,000 residents with possibly 3,000 to 4,000 motor vehicles - just think of the parking problem in WHA001) will pay council tax to AVDC, but 95 per cent of their activities will be centred on those provided by Milton Keynes Dictrict Council. What a riddiculous hypocracy. Just look at the list of activities that will entain people using the Shenley Road - schools, medical - including dental and optical - jobs, MK railway station, retail parks and Centre MK shopping, religious, social amenities (films, theatres, restaurants, recreational, sports - MK Dons, Skidome, etc) as well as basics such as gas, electric, water, sewage and recycling of large items that have to be taken to a local tip. WHA001 should be removed from the draft plan, full stop. And, if it really is just a draft plan, then it should be easy to remove WHA001 from it. Likewise several other similar developments on the fringe of Milton Keynes that similarly impact on small villages. Unless of course....a deal has already been done between AVDC and MKDC. A "tit for tat" deal in which the residents of WHA001 will be able to use MKDC services providing AVDC gives up something in exchange. Now I wonder what that something could be??????? Perhaps we should be told. Hopefully not in the manner in which AVDC informed Whaddon residents of its draft plan. The display in the Village Hall was a complete shambles. No one from AVDC made any attempt to explain the reasoning behind the plan. Just a few display boards stuck up in the middle of the hall. But no real, meaningful discussion about why, when, how much etc etc. In other words, no one cared what people thought about the draft plan. Hence my claim at the outset that this is not a draft plan but a foregone conclusion plan Why not make that the title of the plan and have done with it? And why not also make plain that part of the remit of the draft plan is to destroy the English village as we know it. Planners may argue, it is not our decision. It is a government requirement to build more houses. Well, make sure you build them in the right place. Not on the doorstep of tiny hamlets where the number of homes is dwarfed by the proposed settlements. 5,000 people in WDA001 and 500 in Whaddon. Ten to one. Think about it. The net result is that both the AVDC and Government must stick to their promise, that growth will and must be accompanied by delivery of infrastructure, services and other facilities first, and at the right time and place, and not months/years later. Thus, transport and landscaping improvements, health, education, employment, community facilities, leisure, utility services, gas, electricity, etc all come first.. Housing growth cannot be accepted without these guarantees

VALP16-09-05-01014 Gavin Gallagher (Barton Vision and Strategic Objectives - Please refer to the attached letter Willmore) VALP16-09-05-01015 Graham Woodroffe Vision and Strategic Objectives - Lack breadth and are parochial, the vision for the area cannot be developed in isolation without fully reflecting other projects and plans.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 42 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01016 Gordon Pell Vision and Strategic Objectives - It is difficult to see how "new housing will have been provided in sustainable locations and at a high standard of design to meet housing needs in the area" can be delivered when some of the "larger villages" will be inflicted with a 22% increase in housing. A 22% increase in Whitchurch is not required to meet the needs in the area, is not desired by the majority of current residents and is not sustainable.

Furthermore it will not be possible to deliver housing developments that "will remain predominantly rural in character, enjoying high- quality landscapes with heritage, cultural and biodiversity assets protected and where possible enhanced" when allowing developments of 22% in scale and using modern housing density. Developments of this scale will destroy the rural feel of current communities thus they will NOT:

"...have been proportionate and reflect community aspirations in terms of scale, phasing, type and design of growth." "...reflect the character of the local circumstances in which growth is delivered." "...protect high-quality agricultural land." VALP16-09-05-01017 steven wight Vision and Strategic Objectives - no traveller sites. move them further in aylsebury not on border

VALP16-09-05-01022 Craig Harrison Vision and Strategic Objectives - Supportive of many of the strategic objectives and vision. P23 J - contradiction between some of the housing allocations, including housing on currently designated metropolitan green belt, with (6) growth protecting high quality agricultural land. Some of the suggested green belt removal for housing would be on existing important green infrastructure e.g. land west of the canal in Wendover. VALP16-09-05-01028 Warren Whyte (AVDC) Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.4a Support the strong need for place-shaping and recognition of exiting scale and design. A specific policy relating to a Design Review for large schemes should be considered to improve the design standards of large developments. 2.4h4 Welcome the inclusion of the university but no mention of student accommodation. 2.4h5 No specific policies included to support this vision of an enhanced town centre. VALP16-09-05-01030 Derek Town Vision and Strategic Objectives - Para 2.4 - Sustainability appears to be an overused term without any real definition of its meaning. Where transport is concerned there is no sense in considering public transport which at the best (a few villages on main routes) is minimal and is already in such decline that many bus routes will be ceased when this plan is formally in place. In short all village residents NEED there own transport or access to such. Therefore all settlements should be considered for development. The plans fails to take advantage of potential solution that evens out the spread of development. Para 2.4a Green belt is minimal in the Vale but is a significant element of the other 3 Bucks districts which burdens AVDC unfairly, if the other districts loose a similar (or even lower) percentage of Green Belt then the 'un-met needs' requirement could be less demanding. Para-2.4i - New settlements - the main driver for this is the 'un-met needs', which as suggested is not a fixed figure and can grow, this is unreasonable and needs to be resisted.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 43 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01033 Jonathan Cunliffe Vision and Strategic Objectives - Aylesbury Vale seems to be determined to follow government targets at all costs, without considering the damaging impact this will have on the local natural environment. The Vale seems to be more interested in building on fresh greenfield sites than identifying disused brownfield sites that could be redeveloped. It is more expensive to redevelop brownfield sites, so presumably the only reason for building on greenfield sites is that it is cheaper and that property developers can make larger profits. However, in the long term, the population will benefit more if the natural environment is preserved rather than being built on. Therefore, brownfield sites should be developed first before any further developments are considered.

VALP16-09-05-01037 Janette Eustace Vision and Strategic Objectives - Stewkley Parish Council wholeheartedly endorse the comments submitted by NBPPC on behalf (Stewkley Parish of the parishes of North Buckinghamshire Council) VALP16-09-05-01045 Richard Boother (RPS Vision and Strategic Objectives - See accompanying statement Planning and Development) VALP16-09-07-01123 Alan Thawley Vision and Strategic Objectives - Point 2.15 mentions the potential for involving a wider range of builders, including self-builders, and this can only be a good thing if we are to avoid the identikit estates I mentioned earlier. I would also like to see a measurable commitment to delivering some genuinely sustainable housing stock (carbon positive, or meeting passivhaus standards, for instance), rather than leaving the task to the usual developers, who will only ever meet the minimum required standard. If handled sensitively, such a development could present a real opportunity to create a genuinely sustainable community, but many more concrete details and guarantees would have to be provided in order for it to gain our support.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 44 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01150 Mr and Mrs Bradford Vision and Strategic Objectives - We trust that serious research and analysis will be applied to ascertain: the best model and mechanism to deliver new towns or settlements, informed by evidence from the pre and post-war new towns and garden city developments; the capacity of the current building system to provide this; and the potential for value and reinvestment in the local community to be retained and maximised.

It may be the case that the country requires more housing to be built but we strongly believe that over-developing small communities and negatively changing their unique character and appeal, is not an acceptable or desirable solution. The expansion of larger towns and cities, which are already established and populated by people who choose to live in a bustling, well-appointed place would have far less impact on the landscape, rural land, and individual infrastructures, or the creation of larger new towns that are self-contained and do not encroach on, or engulf existing and long-standing communities, would provide a more reasonable solution. We refer to statements made in VALP which seem incompatible with proposals being made (our highlights):

“The rural areas will have accommodated proportionate growth... 1. will remain predominantly rural in character, enjoying high-quality landscapes with heritage, cultural and biodiversity assets protected and where possible enhanced ... 4. growth will have been proportionate and reflect community aspirations in terms of scale, phasing, type and design of growth. Further details will come through neighbourhood plans in most cases 5. development will reflect the character of the local circumstances in which growth is delivered 6. growth will protect high-quality agricultural land 7. will have a well-managed network of green infrastructure which protects and enhances the biodiversity of the area and supports a range of recreational activities, and will have local services which support sustainable communities, including shops and pubs.” (VALP pg 23)

Point 7 describes many, if not all, of the villages under threat. They presently exist in the "model" view expressed in VALP. They should be allowed to continue to do so.

VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great Vision and Strategic Objectives - Chapter 2: Vision and Strategic Objectives Horwood Parish Council) 2.1 Both the Spatial Vision and the Strategic Objectives for VALP are based on those included in the withdrawn Vale of Aylesbury Plan Strategy, May 2013, with some modifications and additions. GHPC notes that the draft VALP, unlike the VAP, does not list which policies are identified as implementing each objective, and considers that it might be helpful to include such a list. VALP16-09-07-01171 Nick Osgerby (Steeple Vision and Strategic Objectives - SCPC is pleased to see the proposals for Buckingham which will support its development and Claydon Parish Council) continued improvement in its role as a market town, particularly taking advantage of the university’s presence and its continued development as a social centre. We are pleased to see a commitment to proportionate growth in rural areas and believe that Winslow should be protected from disproportionate development to protect is rural character. Under objective 8 there is no reference to supporting the activities associated with Stoke Mandeville and its specialism in disability care and treatment. This is a USP of AV and perhaps could be included in the objectives of the plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 45 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01172 Simon Proctor (Proctor Vision and Strategic Objectives - Words such as “appropriate” and “proportionate” are subjective and robust evidence needs to be Surveyors (Stoke provided to provide definition and allow for changes in the plan’s policies for example increased housing or more housing in rural Hammond)) areas. VALP16-09-08-01205 Mark Rose (Define (on Vision and Strategic Objectives - BHL support the Spatial Vision set out in the Draft VALP. However, the explanatory commentary behalf of Bovis Homes)) should emphasise the Government’s policy imperative to provide sufficient housing to meet the full objectively assessed need (FOAN) for the HMA. Furthermore, whilst the commentary outlines the principal elements of the development strategy advocated by the Draft VALP, it makes no reference to the strategic development proposed adjacent to Milton Keynes. That should be remedied, together with an acknowledgement that given the physical and functional relationship between the District and the City, and the inevitable need for the City to continue to grow beyond the current authority boundaries if it is to continue to play its role as a critical social and economic focus in the region and indeed UK, additional strategic scale development will be required in this location. This matter is considered further in relation to Policy S2 below. VALP16-09-08-01207 Michael Knott (Barton Vision and Strategic Objectives - Vision and Strategic Objectives Willmore (on behalf of On behalf of MGHL, we consider that the VALP should set a positive vision for the future, one which will proactively drive and Manlet Group Holdings support sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places Limited)) that the country need. MGHL therefore broadly welcomes the proposed overarching vision for Aylesbury Vale to 2033, which is "to secure the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the people and businesses in the area", and the Spatial Vision which proposes "an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth, which will contribute to creating a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit, and where all residents enjoy a high quality of life". In accordance with national planning policy, this should reflect the full objectively assessed development and infrastructure needs including any unmet needs from elsewhere in the area which may need to be delivered in Aylesbury Vale District. In this regard, MGHL supports the Council's strategic objectives which recognise the need to ensure "new housing is provided in sustainable locations"; and that "unmet housing need from other areas will have been met where it was reasonable and sustainable to do so" .

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 46 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01209 Tim Coleby (Peter Brett Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.2 Associates LLP on 1.2.1 The Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP), through its publication of a Strategic Economic behalf of Plan, has set the context for economic activity in Buckinghamshire that in turn guide the priorities and activities of BA. Early priorities Buckinghamshire include: Advantage) Forward funding infrastructure, to accelerate development and unlock public sector assets; Skills infrastructure and support capability, to better match career aspirations to business needs; Accelerating provision of affordable housing by establishing a business friendly housing investment fund; Actively green-housing ‘Plan for Growth’ early-stage start-ups; and Bring in more globally outstanding firms by sorting access to finance, skills, sites and exporting needs. 1.2.2 Aylesbury is identified as a growth town that has and will continue to deliver high levels of employment and housing growth. Improving movement across Aylesbury and neighbouring towns will significantly improve the employment attractiveness of the town and offer the scope to renew and reposition Aylesbury’s employment provision. 1.2.3 In April 2014, Buckinghamshire Advantage was launched to act as the operational arm of BTVLEP on the delivery of BTVLEP funded schemes. The Aylesbury Woodlands development is being promoted by Buckinghamshire Advantage with a clear vision to: “assist the wider economic growth of Aylesbury with the early delivery of the Eastern Link Road South and providing a high quality, sustainable development; 2 J:32113 - Aylesbury EastPlanningVale of Aylesbury Local Plan consultation final.docx offer a mixed land use led by the provision of commercial premises facilitating employment growth, and including leisure opportunities to promote health and wellbeing and housing. This will be supported by integrated community, social and transport infrastructure; and be a high quality sustainable development designed to achieve exemplary standards of design within an extensive green space framework including protected water corridors, new tree and woodland planting, linear parks, informal play areas and formal and informal sporting and recreation facilities.” 1.2.4 The BTVLEP Strategic Economic Plan (2012 to 2031) sets out the framework within which the BTVLEP will deliver growth. The BTVLEP intends to accelerate innovation in ambitious, growth orientated companies, particularly in its priority sectors of high performance technology, life-sciences & medical technologies, information economy, creative industries, food and drink, business services, tourism, retail and care. 1.2.5 BTVLEP has identified five key pillars that underpin its Local Growth Deal. Connecting 400 hectares of expansion land through the Aylesbury East Expansion, including the Eastern Link Road (ELR) and ‘Stocklake Link’ is identified as a key project under the Transport Infrastructure pillar. Aylesbury Vale is covered by a second LEP, the South East Midlands LEP (SEMLEP), within the SEMLEPs Strategic Economic Plan (2015-2020) the ELR is identified as a Local Growth Fund priority.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 47 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01273 Adam Ross (Nexus Vision and Strategic Objectives - Spatial Vision Planning Ltd (on behalf Whilst the identification of a Spatial Vision for the district is wholly appropriate, and this is of course for the District Council to do, we of Gleeson consider that the Spatial Vision as currently expressed is overly generic and vague. Developments Limited, Most importantly, the Vision refers only to the provision of ‘an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth’. This is the Ernest Cook Trust, extremely vague and, as a consequence, is not helpful in terms of informing the Strategic Objectives and policies of the VALP. the Trustees of Lord It would be more appropriate, and helpful to the Council and all parties, if the Strategic Vision made it clear that by 2033 the VALP Carington’s 1963 intended that Aylesbury Vale District would have delivered sustainable growth to ‘meet identified needs’ rather than to provide ‘an Settlement and the appropriate amount’ – a statement which is wholly open to interpretation (and therefore misinterpretation) and which is inconsistent Pearce Family)) with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which requires that for plan- making, Local Plans should ‘meet objectively assessed needs’.

Changes Sought Amend the Spatial Vision to make reference to meeting objectively assessed development needs.

Strategic Objectives We support Strategic Objectives 1 – 3 which make it clear that in order to accommodate growth and deliver development in accordance with the Spatial Vision, that: i.provision will be made for balanced sustainable growth which will deliver new housing and jobs to meet the needs of new and existing residents;

ii.provision will be made for the housing needs of the new and existing population including unmet needs from elsewhere if reasonable and sustainable; and

iii.development will be distributed across the district but with the majority focussed at the most sustainable locations of Aylesbury, Buckingham, Haddenham, Winslow and Wendover. It is right, and important, that the VALP acknowledges the need to deliver housing to meet identified needs, including unmet needs from elsewhere in the Housing Market Area, and the need to accommodate this development in the most sustainable way which rightly focusses on the most sustainable settlements - the largest of which is Aylesbury town.

VALP16-09-08-01283 Simon Proctor (Proctor Vision and Strategic Objectives - Words such as “appropriate” and “proportionate” are subjective and robust evidence needs to be Surveyors (Stoke provided to provide definition and allow for changes in the plan’s policies for example increased housing or more housing in rural Hammond 2)) areas.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 48 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus Vision and Strategic Objectives - There are concerns relating to the negative terminology and clarity of the Vision and the Group (on behalf of Strategic Objectives which can be simply addressed through re-wording whilst maintaining the overall Vision and the Strategic Jeremy Elgin)) Objectives, as follows. The terminology within the Spatial Vision is not sufficiently clear. The term “appropriate amount of sustainable growth” is subjective and will differ based on an individual’s interpretation. The Spatial Vision should provide greater clarity and be more positive, including a reference to meeting needs. Similarly, paragraph 2.4b should be phrased more positively such that unmet housing need from other areas will have been met in the most sustainable locations, rather than only where this is reasonable (which is again a subjective judgment). Paragraph 2.4i identifies the vision for a new settlement to be developed in Aylesbury Vale which is to be supported, as it is considered that this is the only available strategy to ensure that the housing needs of Buckinghamshire are provided for. However, the paragraph only requires that the new settlement will be under development, but to meet the full housing needs, the vision should go much further and plan to deliver a significant number of homes within the plan period. This is supported by Table 1 which identifies a need for the delivery of 4,500 homes within the plan period. The first Strategic Objective refers to the protection of existing sites, but it is not clear which type of sites will be protected and for what reason. The second Strategic Objective again refers to meeting unmet needs only where this is “reasonable” which is a subjective measure and obviates the requirement of national policy to meet housing needs. The second Strategic Objective refers to a phased approach to delivery. The adoption of a phased approach should not be a Strategic Objective (although may be required as a policy mechanism) as this serves to limit much needed housing delivery in the short-term. This Strategic Objective should be phrased more positively to “ensure a continuous supply with timely infrastructure delivery”. VALP16-09-09-01397 Delia Shephard Vision and Strategic Objectives - This council understands the reasoning behind the vision and a strategic objective set out in (Bletchley and Fenny Section 2 of the plan and recognises the need for additional housing, employment and associated development. However, the Stratford Town Council) designation of Aylesbury as a Garden Town with 50% growth will have significant impact on the infrastructure in Milton Keynes district and Bletchley and Fenny Stratford in particular because of its scale and the specific potential housing allocations identified to the north west of Newton Longville and adjacent to Bletchley.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 49 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01399 Cllr Phil Yerby Vision and Strategic Objectives - Comment on Vision and Strategic Objectives Section (page 20 on) 7. The Spatial Vision is, of course, aspirational including many things around improving transport, community facilities, narrowing the gap between rich and less well off, and lifelong learning. We have no issues with the aspiration. But they are meaningless words if they cannot be delivered. Indeed they are contradicted by the policies and plan itself. 8. At 2.4g) the aspiration is to grow Aylesbury significantly. There are significant question marks around the aspirational growth the Council seeks and the sustainability credentials of Aylesbury to accommodate such growth. 9. At bullet point 2.4g) 4 it recognises that “significant transport improvements” are necessary but the evidence so far shows that, even when these are provided, it does not result in a sustainable transport outcome. 10. Bullet point 2.4g) 6 states that strategic infrastructure should be provided “without compromising the character of surrounding villages or community cohesion”. The reality is that this is exactly what the plan for the over-expansion of Aylesbury will do. It results in coalescence and seriously compromises the character of surrounding villages. 11. We therefore object to this demonstrable over-expansion of Aylesbury to the South. Comment on Strategic Objectives (page 24 on) 12. These are not genuine objectives. An objective needs to be able to be tested against the modern benchmark of SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time based. There are no specifics. As such these are no more than aspirational claims that are difficult to argue with and impossible to measure the success of this plan against. 13. Sadly, many of the Council’s proposed policies do not pass this simple test. As a result the policies are generally weak and do not provide a sufficient level of robustness to allow clear future decision-making. We have highlighted some of these in our comments on policies in this submission: there may well be others. 14. As a result many policies need to be completely overhauled to contain at least meaningful specific targets to allow for some evaluation of the delivery of this plan. To help the Council in this, we have made some recommendations on improving and clarifying the wording of some policies. VALP16-09-09-01402 Stephen Beal Vision and Strategic Objectives - Leave rural communities within their own parish boundaries - improve infrastructure to stop rat run.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 50 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01408 Mike Galloway (Newton Vision and Strategic Objectives - We agree with the general thrust of this, however there is a clear contradiction between what is Longville Parish Council) here and the allocation of sites around Newton Longville and Whaddon as well as locating a new settlement near Winslow. 8.2. It is not clear that in all cases there are strategic or delivery policies to cover all aspects within the vision and strategic objectives. 8.3. The Oxford to Cambridge Expressway (not the A421 as it is incorrectly referred to several times in the draft plan) is not a certainty at this point and any decision is some time off. Whilst a preferred route is likely to emerge in time for the publication version it will not then have been subject to any consultation and will have to be subject to detailed approvals before it can beimplemented. It is inappropriate to allocate development of sites on the basis of this until there is a lot more clarity. 8.4. Similarly, the date for the likely opening of East West Rail keeps moving back. 8.5. Point 2.4 g 3. seems a bit over optimistic by referring to Aylesbury as becoming an integral part of the national rail network. 8.6. Point 2.4 j refers to growth at “larger sustainable villages”. However, the proposed allocation for large and medium sized villages is very similar. 8.7. Objective 3 within paragraph lists a number of matters to be secured, however not all of what is then listed is provided for within subsequent policies. 8.8. There should be a clear commitment to “I before E” - that infrastructure is provided before expansion.

VALP16-09-09-01413 Michelle Thompson Vision and Strategic Objectives - Page 23 j-1-7 located correctly is a great opportunity to improve infrastructure and with clever design can replace miles of substandard roads. Leave rural communities out of the rat-run. Green infrastructure and community areas very important. VALP16-09-09-01416 Kathryn Hedges Vision and Strategic Objectives - New developments must also have more than adequate infrastructure.

VALP16-09-09-01423 Ruth Millard (Maids Vision and Strategic Objectives - We note in 2.4c that “the main town centres in Aylesbury and Buckingham will be enhanced to Moreton) deliver retailing, services and other activities that communities need”, yet nowhere in the draft plan are there any details of how this will be achieved and what level of investment will be provided to upgrade roads, provide additional schools and doctors’ surgeries, etc. This smacks of motherhood and apple pie. Although there has been substantial investment in Aylesbury over the last 25 years, Buckingham and the surrounding villages have continually been treated as the poor relations, receiving very little investment. We have no confidence that this approach will change in the future and fear that the VALP is simply a plan for houses and not for people and communities.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 51 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01427 Phil Yerby (Hampden Vision and Strategic Objectives - 7. The Spatial Vision is, of course, aspirational including many things around improving transport, Fields Action Group) community facilities, narrowing the gap between rich and less well off, and lifelong learning. We have no issues with the aspiration. But they are meaningless words if they cannot be delivered. Indeed they are contradicted by the policies and plan itself. 8. At 2.4g) the aspiration is to grow Aylesbury significantly. There are significant question marks around the aspirational growth the Council seeks and the sustainability credentials of Aylesbury to accommodate such growth. 9. At bullet point 2.4g) 4 it recognises that “significant transport improvements” are necessary but the evidence so far shows that, even when these are provided, it does not result in a sustainable transport outcome. 10. Bullet point 2.4g) 6 states that strategic infrastructure should be provided “without compromising the character of surrounding villages or community cohesion”. The reality is that this is exactly what the plan for the over-expansion of Aylesbury will do. It results in coalescence and seriously compromises the character of surrounding villages. 11. We therefore object to this demonstrable over-expansion of Aylesbury to the South. 12. These are not genuine objectives. An objective needs to be able to be tested against the modern benchmark of SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time based. There are no specifics. As such these are no more than aspirational claims that are difficult to argue with and impossible to measure the success of this plan against. 13. Sadly, many of the Council’s proposed policies do not pass this simple test. As a result the policies are generally weak and do not provide a sufficient level of robustness to allow clear future decision-making. We have highlighted some of these in our comments on policies in this submission: there may well be others. 14. As a result many policies need to be completely overhauled to contain at least meaningful specific targets to allow for some evaluation of the delivery of this plan. To help the Council in this, we have made some recommendations on improving and clarifying the wording of some policies.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 52 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01427 Phil Yerby (Hampden 15. From the outset we wish to make it clear that it is extremely difficult to the point of being unrealistic to comment on specific Fields Action Group) policies when fundamental questions about the strategy still exist and are challenged by this Action Group. The Council should be in no doubt that our comments on policy must not in any way be taken as agreement with the overall VALP strategy, especially, but not limited to: • The over-development of Aylesbury to coalesce with Stoke Mandeville and Weston • Turville; • The entirely inadequate and unacceptable Transport strategy contained in the • published material; • The lack of consideration of genuine options other than pursuing vast development • around Aylesbury; • The lack of a sequential or Exception test as set out in it’s own Strategic Flood • Risk Assessment 2. • The easy dismissal of sites identified in the New Settlement Scoping Study for • either a site for a new settlement or, a site for significant growth albeit not to the • level of a new settlement (as defined by AVDC) • The failure to consider large infrastructure projects such as the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway and East-West Rail that could result in a more sustainable plan. 16. In any case, as previously mentioned, the VALP documents lack enough information to allow a meaningful consultation on the strategy that AVDC are promoting. For example, the vital area of transport is poorly documented. Again, despite claiming as a key part of the plan that infrastructure needs to be secured in a “timely and well located” manner there is no detail of infrastructure requirements including plans for health and education provision. 17. The Council will be aware of the Action Groups views regarding this matter were clearly set out in our letter of 23rd June 2016. We do not feel that this has been in any way sufficiently answered. This view is shared by an extremely large number of local residents, some of which will no doubt respond to this consultation. VALP16-09-09-01440 Nick Butler Vision and Strategic Objectives - Not enough road and infrastructure consideration. As the housing grows grows particularly A41. Through Aylesbury.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 53 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01451 Geoff Culverhouse Vision and Strategic Objectives - 2.1 We note that growth will be accompanied by delivery of infrastructure, services and facilities (North Bucks Parishes in the right place at the right time. (Para2.4 d) Given the ongoing delays to delivery of East West Rail (EWR) and the fact that the Planning Consortium) Oxford Cambridge Expressway (OCX) is , at this stage no more than a consultation on potential need we consider it foolhardy in the extreme to plan development on the assumption that either or both will be completed within the plan period. Much clearer evidence of firm delivery dates for each of these major infrastructure projects is needed. 2.2 We note that a ‘new settlement’ (NS) will be under development (p23 6.i). This does not suggest that the NS will only be developed if there is a proven need. Much will depend on levels of unmet need to be catered for in the final version of the plan. It is clear that the figures promoted as unmet need by neighbouring authorities to the south are entirely arbitrary and that they themselves have not done sufficient to meet their own needs particularly when considering proposed density levels. If the unmet need proves to be considerably less than the 12,000 figures quoted then there will be no requirement for a new settlement. 2.3 Para 2.6 item 4 recognises the importance of ‘phasing’ of development. Policies related to phasing will need to be tightly drawn to ensure that housing delivery matches need and is in line with the delivery of infrastructure and services.

VALP16-09-09-01468 Sarah Hamilton-Foyn Vision and Strategic Objectives - The Spatial Vision states that by 2033 Aylesbury Vale will have seen an “appropriate amount and (Pegasus Group (Revera distribution of sustainable growth”. It is not clear what is meant by “appropriate amount of sustainable growth”. It is considered that Limited on behalf of this is a subjective statement. The Spatial Vision should provide greater clarity and positively seek opportunities to meet the M&G Property Limited development needs of the area, in accordance with the NPPF (para 14). Partnership)) Similarly, paragraph 2.4b should be phrased more positively such that unmet housing need from other areas will have been met in the most sustainable locations, rather than only where this is reasonable, (which it again implies a subjective judgment). Paragraph 2.4g, i.e. the growth of Aylesbury is supported, it is noted that Bierton is considered to be part of Aylesbury as Table 1 states that the housing requirement for Aylesbury includes that of Stoke Manderville (larger village), Bierton and Weston Turville (both classified as medium villages). The first Strategic Objective refers to the protection of existing sites, but it is not clear which type of sites will be protected and for what reason. A review of sites should be undertaken as part of the preparation of the plan to assess whether sites are suitable, available and achievable in accordance with the NPPF. The second Strategic Objective refers to meeting unmet needs from outside the district only where it is “reasonable and sustainable, as identified through the VALP and in future revisions of the Local Plan”. This is a subjective statement and obviates the requirement of national policy to meet housing needs. Furthermore, there is no need to refer to future revisions of the Plan, this point is superfluous as it will be matter for the subsequent review of the Plan to address any future housing needs. The second Strategic Objective also refers to a phased approach to delivery. The adoption of a phased approach should not be a Strategic Objective as this serves to limit much needed housing delivery in the short-term. This Strategic Objective should be phrased more positively to “ensure a continuous supply with timely infrastructure delivery”.

VALP16-09-12-01514 Simon Proctor (Proctor Vision and Strategic Objectives - Words such as “appropriate” and “proportionate” are subjective and robust evidence needs to be Surveyors (Gawcott)) provided to provide definition and allow for changes in the plan’s policies for example increased housing or more housing in rural areas.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 54 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01515 Cameron Austin-Fell Vision and Strategic Objectives - A Vision for Aylesbury Vale to 2033 and Spatial Vision (RPS Planning & The Spatial Vision is generally supported. Development (on behalf For the Spatial Vision to happen the Local Plan appropriately recognises that new housing will be provided in sustainable locations of Richborough Estates and it appropriately seeks to protect the Green Belt. Site - Churchway, In relation to Aylesbury (criterion g) the Spatial Vision helpfully acknowledges the future Garden Town role the principal settlement in Haddenham)) the district is to perform, and is acknowledged as ‘a recognised centre for investment and growth providing new housing opportunities for all’. Given the role Aylesbury is to perform, RPS considers this wording should be amended to ‘the recognised centre’ for investment….’ Criterion I indicates the potential new settlement role which the vision indicates will be under development. Within these representations clarification is sought on the nature of the new settlement and, in particular, the manner in which it is considered it may come forward. Criterion J indicates that the rural areas will have accommodated proportionate growth, focused at Winslow, Haddenham and Wendover. Whist RPS is supportive of this general aim, given the plans approach to the settlement hierarchy, it is considered the Spatial Vision should specifically reference these three Strategic Settlements acting as local service centres and the focus for the majority of the development (see Strategic Objective 4), rather than just a proportionate scale of growth. Strategic Objectives The Strategic Objectives are appropriately grouped with commitment to delivering new housing and jobs including delivering unmet needs from elsewhere. Additionally, the Objective of meeting the majority of the development at the five principal settlements is supported, albeit further clarification is required in relation to the New Settlement proposals. VALP16-09-12-01521 Sean Carolan (Winslow Vision and Strategic Objectives - 11) Para 2.4 leaves a number of questions. 2.4 (b) refers to “unmet needs from other housing Town Council) areas”, it is not clear what this refers to, other counties, other districts or other parishes. 2.4(h) refers to active links between Winslow station and Buckingham, presumably a bus service? With regards to the provision of a new settlement, the first in Buckinghamshire since Milton Keynes in 1961, it is hoped that this will be built to the same standard as an independent town and not compromised by trying to reduce the cost and tacking it on to an existing settlement. 12) Para 2.6.1 talks about a more intensive use of existing sites. This can only be done where appropriate, ensuring that the rural character of settlements is maintained and that neighbourhood plans are respected. Transport infrastructure includes public transport something that is so often forgotten or at the bottom of the list. AVDC need to ensure that public transport, which is vital in the rural areas, is an integral part of the planning structure, along with BCC. We note that for point 7, on the issue of climate change, no reference is made to public transport. 13) It is hoped that the aims (para 3.15) of minimising the need to travel and optimising sustainable means of travel by maintaining and enhancing the roles of Aylesbury, Buckingham, Winslow, Wendover and Haddenham in the Vale’s settlement hierarchy is actually adhered to. This will require investment in public transport and investment in creating employment opportunities.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 55 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01523 Cameron Austin-Fell Vision and Strategic Objectives - A Vision for Aylesbury Vale to 2033 and Spatial Vision (RPS Planning & 2.2 The Spatial Vision is generally supported. Development (on behalf 2.3 For the Spatial Vision to happen the Local Plan appropriately recognises that new housing will of Richborough Estates be provided in sustainable locations and it appropriately seeks to protect the Green Belt. Site - Lower Road, 2.4 In relation to Aylesbury (criterion g) the Spatial Vision helpfully acknowledges the future Garden Aylesbury)) Town role the principal settlement in the district is to perform and is acknowledged as ‘a recognised centre for investment and growth providing new housing opportunities for all’. Given the role Aylesbury is to perform, RPS considers this wording should be amended to ‘the recognised centre’ for investment….’ 2.5 Criterion I indicates the potential new settlement role, which the vision indicates will be under development. Within these representations, clarification is sought on the nature of the new settlement and in particular the manner in which it is considered this may come forward. 2.6 Criterion j indicates that the rural areas will have accommodated proportionate growth, focused at Winslow, Haddenham and Wendover. Whist RPS is supportive of this general aim, given the plans approach to the settlement hierarchy, it is considered the Spatial Vision should specifically reference these three Strategic Settlements acting as local service centres and the focus for the majority of the development (see Strategic Objective 4), rather than just a proportionate scale of growth. Strategic Objectives 2.7 The Strategic Objectives are appropriately grouped with commitment to delivering new housing and jobs including delivering unmet needs from elsewhere. Additionally, the Objective of meeting the majority of the development at the 5 principal settlements is supported, albeit further clarification is required in relation to the New Settlement proposals.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 56 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01541 Sarah Copley (Stoke Vision and Strategic Objectives - Chapter 2 – Vision and Strategic Objectives Mandeville Parish Para 2.1 – “It sets the ambition and direction for the District as a whole, which all relevant strategies and delivery plans of the Council) Council and its delivery partners should support.” Whilst the Parish Council understands and recognises the hierarchy of the development plan, it is concerned that such a statement implies a top-down dictatorial approach to planning. It suggests that all other plans should be subservient to rather than informed by the local plan. The Parish Council would prefer the use of words that imply partnership and collaboration. Spatial vision The Parish Council believes that the spatial vision for the District is generic and vague, with little to make it specific to Aylesbury Vale. There are unique characteristics and strengths within the District that could be referenced which would give the vision a unique Vale flavor, such as its links to the Paralympic Games and its motorsport heritage. Para 2.4 – Sections a-f Again the Parish Council thinks that these statements are generic and idealistic, with little to differentiate them from anywhere else other than the inclusion of place names in sections c and d. As stated above, Aylesbury Vale has characteristics and strengths that could be referenced. Para 2.4 – Section g The Parish Council is disappointed that the significant growth in Aylesbury is not described as being led by or at least supported by neighbourhood planning, since much of this growth is in areas and Parishes that are developing neighbourhood plans, such as Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville. It is surprised that this particular feature about Aylesbury’s growth is not mentioned in any of the ten aspirations for the town. The Parish Council questions how the District Council will secure the sixth aspiration, where it refers to “well-designed, connected, healthy, safe and integrated greenfield urban fringe sites” that will help “deliver identified strategic infrastructure without compromising the character of surrounding villages or community cohesion.” Stoke Mandeville Parish Council is sure it is not alone in asking how these ‘urban fringe sites’ in neighbouring Parishes will avoid coalescence. It believes that section g needs to be developed in conjunction with the Town and Parish Councils who will be supporting and making major contributions to the growth of the town, rather than prepared in isolation from those Councils. Without such involvement, this collection of aspirations reads as a number of ‘motherhood and apple pie’ platitudes. STOKE MANDEVILLE PARISH COUNCIL

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 57 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN – FURTHER INFORMATION Page 4 of 11 Para 2.4 – Section j The Parish Council is pleased that the District Council wishes to see the rural areas (including Stoke Mandeville) remain predominantly rural in character, but is not clear how this will be achieved bearing in mind the significant risk of coalescence between Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville village. It does, however, dispute the statement that growth will have been proportionate and reflect community aspirations, since it has already experienced the District Council recommending that applications be approved where growth is far from proportionate and clearly fails to reflect local aspirations. It would welcome understanding how and from what point the District Council will ensure that development reflects the character of the local circumstances, since recent events suggest that this principle is not currently applied. The Council looks forward to the development of a well-managed network of green infrastructure but does ask how this, once established, will be maintained. Strategic Objective 1 The Parish Council would welcome a definition of ‘balanced sustainable growth’ and whether this will be achieved through adopting ‘a flexible and pro-active approach to promoting sustainable development’. It suggests that perhaps a clearer objective would be to state that the Council will ‘plan for homes and jobs that match existing and future needs, on a combination of greenfield and brownfield sites across the District.’ Strategic Objective 2 The Council reiterates its previous point about unmet needs from elsewhere. It suggests that the statement should be strengthened from ‘if reasonable and sustainable’ to ‘where proven’. It also repeats its point about housing being required to meet a range of needs rather than just those of an ageing population. Strategic Objective 3 The Parish Council recognises the importance of infrastructure but suggests that the District Council may wish to state that the list (numbered 1 to 7) is not in any priority order, since it is felt that social care and health infrastructure may be significantly more important in many communities than accessible green infrastructure (for example). It is also confused by the specific reference to HS2 linked to the provision of broadband in remote areas, since in the earlier chapter it talked about HS2 as a proposal. The Parish Council would welcome increased clarity on this matter since it has faced the threat of HS2 for more than six years, and has engaged with the Promoter throughout this period, a requirement not expected of developers.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 58 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment Strategic Objective 5 The Parish Council welcomes the District Council’s desire to enhance local centres and village facilities and looks forward to further discussions to identify how such improvements can be achieved in the Parish. Strategic Objective 6 The Parish Council would appreciate knowing how and from what point the District Council will manage development in a way that ensures the protection and enhancement of the District’s built, natural and historic environment. It seeks this clarification, since one particular recent application recommended for approval by the planning authority fails to protect or enhance any of these three aspects in Stoke Mandeville village. Strategic Objective 8 Whilst the Parish Council applauds the spirit of this objective, it is rather meaningless without offering any thought to the actions that will help achieve this. It also questions whether the District Council’s actions in relation to hire of sports pitches actually increases health inequalities across Aylesbury. VALP16-09-12-01604 Nayan Gandhi (RPS Vision and Strategic Objectives - Paragraph 2.4, Point i Planning & Development 2.7 RPS supports the creation of new settlements where these can be sustainably achieved and meet other objectives. To this end, on behalf of Ainscough RPS requests that this Point is amended to include a second paragraph at its end, as follows: Strategic Land) “Additionally, a new sustainable settlement will be developed at the former Marsworth Airfield which will have a good mix of residential development and employment opportunities set within a high quality development to support the rural economy in the south-eastern part of the District.” Strategic Objective 2 2.8 RPS supports this objective, particularly that AVDC will meet its own housing needs as well as assist neighbouring districts in meeting their unmet where these can be achieved sustainability, such as at the former Marsworth Airfield. Strategic Objective 4 2.9 RPS supports AVDC who are seeking to locate appropriate levels of development in the most sustainable settlements in the rural areas, however, we also request that AVDC recognise the opportunity to create a new sustainable settlement by redeveloping the former Marsworth Airfield as submitted in the HELAA review. We request the following change to reflect other new settlement opportunities as a result: “…together with an appropriate level of development at the most sustainable settlements in the rural area, and sustainably located new settlements”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 59 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01636 Oliver Taylor (Gleeson Vision and Strategic Objectives - Strategic Objectives Strategic Land on behalf (i) We support Strategic Objectives 1 – 3 which make it clear that in order to accommodate growth and deliver development in of Linden Homes) accordance with the Spatial Vision, that: (ii) provision will be made for balanced sustainable growth which will deliver new housing and jobs to meet the needs of new and existing residents; (iii) provision will be made for the housing needs of the new and existing population including unmet needs from elsewhere if reasonable and sustainable; and (iv) development will be distributed across the district but with the majority focussed at the most sustainable locations of Aylesbury, Buckingham, Haddenham, Winslow and Wendover. It is correct that the VALP acknowledges the need to deliver housing to meet identified needs, including unmet needs from elsewhere in the HMA, and the need to accommodate this development in the most sustainable way which rightly focusses on the most sustainable settlements.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 60 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01641 MICHAEL KNOTT Vision and Strategic Objectives - Gallagher Estates consider that the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan should set a positive vision for the (Gallagher Estates) future, one which proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving places that the country need. Gallagher Estates therefore broadly welcome the proposed overarching vision for Aylesbury Vale to 2033 which is "to secure the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the people and businesses in the area" and the Spatial Vision for "an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth, which will contribute to creating a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit, and where all residents enjoy a high quality of life." However, whilst the Council's strategic objectives recognise the need to ensure "new housing is provided in sustainable locations"; and that "growth will be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure, services, and facilities in the right place and at the right time", Gallagher Estates consider that the Vision and accompanying objectives do not go far enough to plan for "economic growth" or "housing need" which are both key Government priorities enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The focus of the vision should be on building a strong and competitive economy, and in accordance with Paragraph 19 of the NPPF, should "support sustainable economic growth". This is emphasised at Paragraph 7 of the NPPF which states that the planning system should be used: " ... to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure ... " Moreover, there should be greater emphasis in the District's vision on significantly boosting housebuilding to meet full and objectively assessed housing need in line with Paragraph 47 of the NPPF. This should include consideration of sustainable sites in Aylesbury Vale, on the edge of Milton Keynes, which could include land which crosses into a neighbouring authority's administrative area to accommodate such provision (therefore meeting the Council's obligations under the Duty to Cooperate). The proposed development strategy as set out in the proposed spatial vision (specifically criteria g - j) does not currently recognise the significant benefits which development, within Aylesbury Vale District on the edge of Milton Keynes, can provide. The plan's vision should therefore be amended to include reference to development on the southern edge of Milton Keynes. As set out in detail below, it is considered that the focus for a significant majority of the planned level of growth through Aylesbury Vale Local Plan and Plan:MK should be on the south eastern edge of Milton Keynes (some of which is in Aylesbury Vale District) which sits alongside the 'growth corridor', an area which we consider has significant potential future growth prospects. Land at Eaton Leys also has potential to support the delivery of East West Rail (Objective D) and the wider "Growth Corridor" objectives as recognised in the Government's recent consultation (August 2016) on the potential of Cambridge- Milton Keynes- Oxford corridor "as a single, knowledge intensive cluster that competes on the global stage, whilst protection the area's high quality environment and securing the homes and jobs the area needs."

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 61 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01646 Nick Stafford (DLP Vision and Strategic Objectives - Vision and Strategic Objectives Planning (on behalf of 2.1 The spatial vision (paragraph 2.4j.) states that the rural areas (consider to include Stoke Hammond), will have to accommodate September Properties)) “proportionate growth”. While this aims to reduce the impact of development on the existing character of villages, it must be recognised that circumstances vary in different locations and that “proportionality” must recognise the local situation, rather than applying a standard approach to all villages. 2.2 In terms of the sustainable objectives set out at Policy S1 these are broadly supported. The policy is clear that in assessing the most sustainable locations priority will be given to delivering community needs to both new and existing communities (Policy S1c). The policy also states that, “The council will work proactively with applicants to find solutions so that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area”.

VALP16-09-12-01660 Mark Harris (DLP Vision and Strategic Objectives - Vision and Strategic Objectives Planning on belhalf of 2.1 In regard to rural areas, the spatial vision (paragraph 2.4j.) states that larger villages (including Edlesborough), will have to Robin Gaymer) accommodate “proportionate growth”. While this aims to reduce the impact of development on the existing character of villages, it must be recognised that circumstances vary in different locations and that “proportionality” must recognise the local situation, rather than applying a standard approach to all villages. 2.2 It is not agreed that the detail of developments in larger villages should come through neighbourhood plans, as stated in paragraph 2.4j.1. The NPPF is clear (at paragraph 16) that Neighbourhood Plans should shape and direct development in their area “outside the strategic elements of the Local Plan”. Meeting the assessed housing need of the area is a strategic issue for the Local Plan to deal with. Therefore, it should not be left for Neighbourhood Plans, which may or may not be prepared for different settlements, to deliver these strategic elements. VALP16-09-13-01674 Nicola Thomas (Milton Vision and Strategic Objectives - State in the Local Plan clear, explicit support for the NEP’s document, the “Vision and Principles Keynes Natural for the Improvement of GI in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes”. This represents the body of opinion from experts from a broad Environment range of sectors who the NEP has brought together to define the Vision for GI in Buckinghamshire in 2030, and the Principles by Partnership) which to achieve it. The document serves as an update to the 2009 GI Strategy for Buckinghamshire and includes the collective NEP-recognised definition of GI. The NEP is looking for all Local Authorities in the area to recognise the importance of the Vision and Principles document, not least in Local Plans, and to work together to deliver it. Reference should be made, for example, in Section 2 of the draft Local Plan, Vision and Strategic Objectives, and in the definition of GI at Para 3.43, which currently does not include “blue” infrastructure.

So the Plan should ensure it places equal emphasis on early and strategic planning for a green infrastructure network to deliver maximum benefits to Aylesbury Vale, as it does on grey (built) infrastructure such as road and rail connections. This should be set out in the Introduction, Paras 1.17 – 1.19 and at Section 2 (Vision and Strategic Objectives) and in Section 3 (Strategic), and GI infrastructure should be included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 62 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll Vision and Strategic Objectives - 10)Para 2.4 leaves a number of questions. 2.4 (b) refers to “unmet needs from other housing areas”, it is not clear what this refers to, other counties, other districts or other parishes. 2.4(h) refers to ‘active links’ between Winslow station and Buckingham, presumably a bus service, or the cycle path, or both or what? With regards to the provision of a new settlement, the first in Buckinghamshire since Milton Keynes in 1961, it is therefore to be hoped that this will be built to the same standards as an independent town and not compromised by haste and trying to reduce the cost and simply tacking it on to an existing settlement.

11)Para 2.6.1 talks about a more intensive use of existing sites. This can only be done where appropriate, ensuring that the rural character of settlements is maintained and that Neighbourhood Plans are respected. Transport infrastructure includes public transport, something that is so often forgotten or at the bottom of the list. AVDC needs to ensure that public transport, which is vital in the rural areas, is an integral part of the planning structure, along with BCC. We note that for point 7, on the issue of climate change, no reference is made to public transport. VALP16-09-13-01696 Mark Owen (Barton Vision and Strategic Objectives - The Draft VALP sets out the following broad spatial vision in Section 2: Willmore (on behalf of “By 2033 Aylesbury Vale will have seen an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth, which will contribute to Hampden Fields creating a thriving, diverse, safe, vibrant place to live, work and visit, and Consortium)) where all residents enjoy a high quality of life.”

As indicated in Chapter 2 of these representations, this overall vision for Aylesbury Vale is supported by the HFC who are encouraged to see that the Council are proactively planning for growth within the District.

This broad spatial vision is followed by a set of more topic-specific objectives that focus on the shaping of growth, the provision of housing, the delivery of infrastructure and transport and other strategic considerations. We support these objectives and consider that the Hampden Fields proposal can assist the Council in meeting these objectives, in particular, supporting growth at Aylesbury town.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 63 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01704 Nick Freer (Hallam Land Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.1. Hallam Land Management (HLM) notes that the Spatial Vision set out in Para 2.3 of the Management) Draft Plan is largely neutral in its construction – an “appropriate” amount of development will have taken place by 2033 which will have had a role in contributing towards the creation of a thriving diverse safe and vibrant place to live work and visit. 1.2. HLM consider that as drafted the Spatial vision does not set out a positive approach to sustainable development or growth or reflect the trends and baseline circumstances which have been set out in section 1 of the Draft Plan and are also described elsewhere in the Plan. 1.3. The NPPF requires development plans to adopt a positive approach and to be aspirational. It does not appear to Hallam that the Spatial Vision as drafted sets out such an aspirational approach as the basic framework for the Plan. 1.4. In HLM’s view a more appropriate approach or spatial vision which would satisfy the requirements of the NPPF would: be to aspire in the first instance to the creation of thriving, diverse and vibrant places to live work and visit (rather than to simply to ensure that what growth is allowed to take place (the “appropriate level” contributes to this aim); seek to deliver aspirational levels of growth in the knowledge that such levels of growth will help to deliver the ambition for thriving communities and will provide the best opportunity to ensure all residents are able to benefit from the policies and approach of the plan; and further to the bullet above, the spatial vision should commit to both realising promoting and realising the economic potential of the district and to seek to fully address the affordable housing needs of existing and future communities. 1.5. In short a positive and aspirational growth orientated spatial vision should form the basis for the development of the more detailed polices of the VALP. This would satisfy the requirements of the NPPF, respond to the economic and underlying trends in the area, drive the agenda for all agencies involved in its implementation and best meet the needs of all sections of the community. 1.6. With regard to the Strategic Objectives, HLM considers that the spatial strategy should provide a further and particular recognition of the roles of Aylesbury and Buckingham in the vision for the District. Located in different parts of the District, the two towns are the principal towns of the District with significantly greater facilities and infrastructure but also opportunities – economically, in terms of the availability and deliverability of development sites, and to create thriving and inclusive communities. Further discussion of the benefits of the roles of both towns as focal points for development is set out in HLM’s comments in relation to Draft Policies S2, D1 and D4. Suffice to say at this stage that Strategic Objective 4 should prioritise Aylesbury and Buckingham as the principal locations for development rather than both towns being included with other towns and locations. 1.7. Notwithstanding the observations made below by Hallam in relation to the apparent inadequate provision in the Local Plan, the prioritisation of Aylesbury and Buckingham as locations for development (over and above other potential options) is of importance, if or when the District Council seeks to revise the overall level of planned provision following further work on meeting unmet needs.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 64 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01708 Rachel Wileman Vision and Strategic Objectives - Spatial Vision (Buckinghamshire County Council) BCC consider that the growth of Aylesbury Vale should be considered spatially within the context for growth across the County as a whole, to take account of the proposed expansion of Princes Risborough and High Wycombe within the M40 growth corridor, the protection of the Green Belt and AONB and the capacity for taking some unmet housing from the Chiltern and South Bucks Districts, where appropriate.

BCC also welcome the joint working with AVDC to plan strategically across boundaries with the adjacent authorities, including Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes. BCC are keen to continue to work on an integrated spatial vision locally with AVDC and as part of the broader sub-national partnership working. For example addressing the impact of significant growth along the M40 corridor, East-West connectivity as part of the Oxford – Cambridge – London triangle, north-south connectivity between Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire and Thames Valley authorities such as Slough, Reading and the London Boroughs.

The spatial vision for Aylesbury Vale as presented in the draft VALP is generally supported, the County Council welcomes the importance of place-shaping to deliver sustainable communities, the emphasis on high standards of design and respect for the Green Belt. BCC consider that additions to the Green Belt may be required to to define urban areas and protect communities from inappropriate development, for example between Thame and Haddenham, between the south of Aylesbury and Wendover, to the west of Aylesbury between Waddesdon and to the east of Aylesbury in order to avoid urban sprawl or coalescence of settlement expansion.

Strategic Objectives

BCC welcome the objectives presented in the draft VALP except objective 4; distributing development across Aylesbury Vale appears to counter the spatial vision for consolidating growth, with the potential to unnecessarily increase impacts associated with increasing the need to travel and costs associated with additional infrastructure investment, such as the provision of public transport, walking and cycling routes, access to additional school places, shopping and leisure amenities, health care and social services. Worth also noting that energy distribution networks are at capacity within Aylesbury Vale and considerable more investment would be needed to improve the security and distribution of energy supply networks across development areas. The County Council would be pleased to explore this further with AVDC.

VALP16-09-13-01708 Rachel Wileman The County Council would welcome reference to resource efficiency both in terms of energy and waste management in assessing (Buckinghamshire the most sustainable locations for sustainable development within Aylesbury Vale. Resource efficiency should be included as a County Council) priority for assessing the most suitable locations for development to both mitigate (low carbon impact) and adapt to the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events / flood risk. Such factors could be included in the Aylesbury Garden Town initiative as exemplar design to showcase technologies and high design standards for managing growth.

VALP16-09-13-01717 Michael Brown Vision and Strategic Objectives - To maintain a village community and retain the character with the limited amenities it presently has.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 65 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01718 Craige Burden Vision and Strategic Objectives - No Comments (Persimmon Homes) VALP16-09-13-01722 Sarah James Vision and Strategic Objectives - The villages of aylesbury vale are renowned for the beautiful countryside and field walks used by many locals as well as horse riders,what will happen when to these areas...it's hardly a scenic route threw a housing estate

VALP16-09-13-01731 Stephanie Schneider Vision and Strategic Objectives - Chapter 2.4 section j4 states that ‘Growth will have been proportionate and reflect community aspirations in terms of scale, phasing, type and design of growth. Further details will come through neighbourhood plans in most cases’. However, there does not seem to be much evidence that developers have listened to, let alone followed, ‘community aspirations’ up to now and have, in fact, appealed against neighbourhood plans. VALP16-09-13-01801 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Vision and Strategic Objectives - The vision and strategic objectives set out in the draft plan appear to correlate with the core Planning Services Ltd principles of the planning system, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. (on behalf of Mr and Mrs 2.10. It is therefore considered that the vision and objectives promote a positive agenda for the delivery of growth and development, Collier)) and is appropriate for Aylesbury Vale. 2.11. It is also considered positive approach, that development is to be distributed across the entire district, and to facilitate the substantial growth of the town of Aylesbury. VALP16-09-13-01817 Simon Proctor (Proctor Vision and Strategic Objectives - Words such as “appropriate” and “proportionate” are subjective and robust evidence needs to be Surveyors (Newton provided to provide definition and allow for changes in the plan’s policies for example increased housing or more housing in rural Longville)) areas. VALP16-09-13-01818 Mike Bodkin MA MRTPI Vision and Strategic Objectives - Vision & Strategic Objectives (Strutt and Parker on Paragraph 2.4g Commitment to the timely delivery of infrastructure to support growth is welcomed. Increased accessibility to other behalf of Trustees of the centres as a result of new transport infrastructure will not only increase opportunities for existing businesses and inward investment, Claydon Estates) but create increased housing pressures through longer-distance commuting. It is not sufficient to note the environmental mitigation of the new transport infrastructure, moreover AVDC should be actively seeking to capitalise upon the opportunities which the new infrastructure will bring. Paragraph 2.4i The establishment of a new settlement in the District during the Plan period is noted. However, for reasons which will be outlined later in this submission, related to market plurality and responsiveness as well as to effectively provide for longer-term strategic planning in the District, it is argued that there should be provision for the early stages of more than one new settlement to be established during the plan period. Text changes to facilitate this should be incorporated both here and at paragraph 2.6(4).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 66 of 67 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Vision and Strategic Objectives

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-16-01827 John Davies Vision and Strategic Objectives - To those responsible for the Aylesbury local Plan, I am disappointed at the lack of imagination shown in the preparation ofthis document which seems wholly preoccupied by numbers Where is the Vision? Where is any sense of excitement at the opportunity. Here you are, a Conservative Authority under a Conservative Government, you have access to Ministers and the opportunity to dispute the housing numbers imposed upon us and, in return, to pioneer smaller settlements which enhance the Vale. The attached article from the Times this week sets out some of the ideas you could pioneer in knocking Developers heads together so that they combine to build housing above space consuming shopping malls, encourage Building Societies to work with Developers to construct terraces of small dwellings akin to the Victorian By Law properties so popular nowadays- both enterprises simplifying transport problems Such enterprises need talents other that than those displayed in your Plan which essentially responds in a wholly orthodox way to the challenge of meeting the growth inevitable in the Vale and I look to you to respond with imagination and courage VALP16-09-19-01834 Martha Simpson Vision and Strategic Objectives - p.30 para 3.11 I do not agree that AV should take the unmet need of other areas. They should look closely as to where they build their own need in their own neighbourhood. VALP16-09-19-01837 Ann Alcock Vision and Strategic Objectives - I agree that AV should challenge the extra 12,000 houses from Wycombe and South Bucks

VALP16-09-19-01838 Phyllis Simms Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.13 I agree that AV should argue against Wycombe passing their unmet need over. Wycombe should look again and find sites. 12,000 extra houses in unacceptable VALP16-09-19-01839 Robert Skinner Vision and Strategic Objectives - 1.13 I agree with AV challenging Wycombe's assumption that they can't fulfil their need. They increase the density of dwelling. VALP16-09-05-01856 Nick Freer (David Lock Vision and Strategic Objectives - Associates on behalf of 1.1. New College(NC) notes that the Spatial Vision set out in Para 2.3 of the Draft Plan is largely neutral in its construction – an New College Oxford) “appropriate” amount of development will have taken place by 2033 which will have had a role in contributing towards the creation of a thriving diverse safe and vibrant place to live work and visit. 1.2. NC consider that as drafted the Spatial vision does not set out a positive approach to sustainable development or growth or reflect the trends and baseline circumstances which have been set out in section 1 of the Draft Plan and are also described elsewhere in the Plan. 1.3. In NC’s view a more appropriate approach or spatial vision which would satisfy the requirements of the NPPF would: - be to aspire in the first instance to the creation of thriving, diverse and vibrant places to live work and visit (rather than to simply to ensure that what growth is allowed to take place) and - seek to deliver aspirational levels of growth in the knowledge that such levels of growth will help to deliver the ambition for thriving communities and will provide the best opportunity to ensure all residents are able to benefit from the policies and approach of the plan. 1.4. In short a positive and aspirational growth orientated spatial vision should form the basis for the development of the more detailed polices of the VALP.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 67 of 67