VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-12-00204 Kate Wright Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The Draft Plan states that 'The site has only recently, in 2016, been granted temporary permission for 3 pitches. The inspector concluded that the development would have a significant adverse visual appearance and materially harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The site is not readily accessible to local amenities given its rural location.' It has been concluded that this will not be one of the sites which is considered for permanent occupation. This statement should be redrafted to include the following: This temporary site is planned for closure at the end of the existing term ie 09 Feb 2019, or earlier, when the new VALP is in place.

VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The sites identified are not in line with the Neighbourhood Plan and as such are not supported by the local community VALP16-07-22-00213 Geoff Pearman Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - I wish to be assured that the Gypsy Travellers site ( ref GT8 ) will continue to be designated as temporary and as such will be forced close after three years i.e. by early 2019. It is a far from ideal site and totally unsustainable for human habitation.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 1 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-22-00216 Joanna Male (Gregory Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Gregory Gray Associates is instructed to write on behalf of Wyevale Gray Associates) Garden Centres Ltd. owners of Worlds End Garden Centre, Road, , HP22 6BD.

The garden centre occupies a site which extends a total of 4.84ha and which is located to the north of the settlement of Wendover as shown on the attached site plan. A significant part of the site comprises previously developed land, and whilst it is located beyond any current settlement boundary, it is not subject to the Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations that constrain nearby sites.

The spatial vision for the Local Plan seeks to achieve an appropriate amount and distribution of sustainable growth based on an established settlement hierarchy. By concentrating the majority of new development at the most sustainable settlements, it is recognized that the need to travel can be minimized, and the delivery of facilities and services can be achieved efficiently.

My client considers that this stated approach is entirely compliant with the principles for sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, however does not consider that the proposed housing allocations provide the most appropriate means of implementing this vision in light of two other key tenets of national policy, namely the effective use of previously developed land and the permanence of the Green Belt.

Policy S2 Spatial Strategy for Growth indicates that strategic growth and investment will be concentrated in sustainable locations and that Wendover will be expected to accommodate housing growth of 25%. Table 1 indicates that such an increase on the existing housing stock in Wendover amounts to 834 dwellings, of which sites for 722 units still need to be identified as the HELAA failed to identify any suitable sites.

However, Policy D4 confirms that the housing requirement for Wendover will potentially be met by a site for 800 homes subject to it being found suitable for release from the Green Belt. The site in question is known as RSA-2. It extends 45ha and comprises an undeveloped ‘green field’ site located within the Green Belt.

The NPPF makes clear that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in ‘exceptional circumstances’ (para. 83). The Green Belt Assessment Part 2 concludes in relation to site RSA-2 that “Exceptional circumstances are likely to be justified if there is a large amount of outstanding housing need that cannot be met on land outside of the Green Belt” however it recognizes that the quantum of housing need has yet to be finalized and that “Consideration will need to be given to whether there are alternative sites outside of the Green Belt to meet this housing figure although the latest HELAA is showing this as being unlikely….”.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 2 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-22-00216 Joanna Male (Gregory My client disputes the findings of the HELAA which rejects the garden centre site as being suitable for housing and considers that Gray Associates) their site provides a preferable alternative to site RSA-2 given its location outside of the Green Belt and status as previously developed land.

One of the key strategic policies of the Draft Local Plan is Policy S8 which encourages the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land consistent with para. 17 of the NPPF and which weighs significantly in favour of the future allocation of our client’s site for residential purposes when compared with greenfield alternatives.

It is also noted that the assessment of site RSA-2 raises the issue of the capacity of the B4009 Tring Road to serve any future development. Use of the garden centre site to contribute towards meeting future development needs helps to alleviate highway concerns since any increase in traffic generation associated with the proposed residential development would be partially offset by the removal of the traffic associated with the existing commercial use.

The garden centre site is located to the north of the settlement of Wendover and provides easy access to this strategic settlement and the facilties it provides. It is located within an existing enclave of development and given the scale, bulk and activity associated with the existing use, is capable of redevelopment for residential purposes with no additional impact upon the character and amenities of the area. By contrast, site RSA-2 is currently undeveloped and any future built form will have a significant additional impact upon the character and amenities of the area.

It is considered that Worlds End Garden Centre provides a suitable site to accommodate future housing needs given its previously developed nature. As a result, it is considered erroneous to argue that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the release of RSA-2 on grounds of housing need, until optimum use has been made of previously developed sites such as that belonging to our client in accordance with the Council’s own draft policy and the NPPF.

Whilst it is recognized that Worlds End Garden Centre is not capable of meeting in full, the housing requirement for Wendover, it provides a sequentially preferable site of a scale which could provide adequate infrastructure and services to serve future residents and it is requested that the Draft Local Plan be amended in order to include it as a residential housing allocation capable of accommodating approximately 140 units.

I would be grateful if you could take the foregoing comments into account in the finalisation of the Local Plan. Should you have any queries regarding the above or relating to any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 3 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-22-00218 Terry Benwell Settlement Hierarchy - I am resubmitting the Critique on the advice of Cllr. Carole Paternoster, with whom I had occasion to seek assistance in gaining acknowledgement of the issues raised in the Critique. I note that there has been little change in the July 2016 Hierarchy Assessment from the 2015 model, although some concessions have been afforded in Section 6.3 under Other Settlements, " some development could take place if deemed appropriate through the planning application process". However the main thrust of my Critique is directed at the flawed reasoning with reference to schooling, class B1 business units and the 2km limitation, this should be inclusive regardless of which settlement the B1 units are sited. I can understand that any re assessment on the classification of will not impact on the development allocation, but I submit my evidence on the need for probity and rational application of the parameters set out in the Hierarchy Assessment. I am quite prepared to make myself available to debate these issues,^ Dear Sir, I append below two errors I have discovered to date in the above draft. 1. There is no record of Village. 2. Buckland Village has been awarded a points score of 3, one point being for a Public House, The Rothschild Arms in the village closed a few years ago. Therefore the points allocation should be 2. Yours faithfully, Terry Benwell VALP16-07-29-00237 Sue Belgrove New Settlement Study - Stand alone development to East of Haddenham. This is productive farm land within a superb landscape of small fields and hedgerows and it is completely outrageous that a new "garden village"should be built here for the following reasons: There is no infrastructure, No local facilities for such a population increase, Railway stations are already at capacity, Other local areas (Longwick, Princes Risborough , Haddenham and Thame) are having to have more housing resulting in a conurbation, The unspoilt countryside of Aylesbury Vale should not be sacrificed to meet the needs of neighbouring Authorities. VALP16-08-04-00250 P M Silver Green Belt Assessment - I have in the past written about this issue. I read in our local newspaper the Leighton Buzzard Observer it has been suggested that the area (valley farm) seeks Green Belt status. Since we live close to the proposed site of the housing, can see traffic problems for Leighton Buzzard would be immense. The traffic already is almost at stand still now. If there is a vote for Green Belt I strongly support it.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 4 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-05-00261 B Knight ( Settlement Hierarchy - Re: Response to VALP Consultation Parish Council) Ivinghoe Parish Council wishes to respond to the draft VALP and the draft settlement hierarchy assessment (July 2016).

Key services in Ivinghoe

1 Food Store

Ivinghoe only has one food store – Best One located in High Street. The hierarchy criteria wrongly states 2 shops.

1 Public House

The Rose & Crown PH, Ivinghoe is only Public House within the village of Ivinghoe. The hierarchy criteria wrongly states there are 2. The Kings Head, Station Road, Ivinghoe is a fine dining restaurant only.

Connectivity and Public Transport

Arriva 61 Bus Service Aylesbury – Luton. This now terminates in Dunstable, not Luton. This service does not run hourly please see attachment for timetable.

Red Line Buses 164 Bus Service Leighton Buzzard – Aylesbury CANCELLED. From 28th August 2016 this service is cancelled. Until the 28th August there was only one bus a day.

Bus Service 50 , RAF Halton & Aylesbury Only operates through Ivinghoe on a Sunday. This is the only bus service that runs on a Sunday through Ivinghoe.

Red Kite Bus Service 167 This is only a one day one service to Leighton Buzzard only on a Tuesday.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 5 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-05-00261 B Knight (Ivinghoe Redline Bus Service 175 Parish Council) This service was for a Thursday only, but no longer runs and is not shown on Bucks CC website.

No bus services run between Ivinghoe and Tring Railway Station or Railway Station.

Summary - Ivinghoe

Connectivity & Public Services: 1 In summary Ivinghoe only meets 1 point within the connectivity and public transport criteria.

Key Services: 6 Ivinghoe only has 1 public house, 1 shop, 1 post office, 1 school, 1 village hall and 1 recreational ground. A total of 6 key services.

Non key services: 3 Ivinghoe has 3 non key services which are correctly noted.

Therefore, Ivinghoe Parish Council request that Ivinghoe is categorised as a medium village in line with your criteria.

Ivinghoe Aston

Connectivity and Public Transport

Redline Bus Service 175 This service was for a Thursday only, but no longer runs and is not shown on Bucks CC website.

Summary – Ivinghoe Aston

There are no direct links to any major employment hubs.

VALP16-08-05-00261 B Knight (Ivinghoe Ivinghoe Aston is 4 miles away from , it does not adjoin Pitstone as stated in your document. Parish Council) Ivinghoe Aston does not have mains gas and limited broadband service and several homes are classified as being within fuel poverty. For these reasons Ivinghoe Aston should be graded as a settlement not a small village.

Ivinghoe Parish Council dispute any link between Ivinghoe and Ivinghoe Aston and Luton. Most residents travel for employment either North or South, there is no link to Luton for employment or otherwise.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 6 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-09-00275 Andrew Burnett Green Belt Assessment - See comments above regarding release of land from the green belt immediately to the north of Wendover. I strongly disagree with releasing this land, it meets the green belt criteria very well (you undervalue it) and government planning policy guidelines suggest that unmet housing need is not a good enough reason for 'exceptional circumstances' to apply. This seems particularly true when the unmet housing need is caused by shortfalls in other local authorities as a result of their land being constrained by the green belt. Or, to put it another way, why should we release green belt land when other authorities are not doing so, particularly when the land clearly meets the green belt criteria. VALP16-08-10-00290 Angus Smith Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Following a meeting at Village Hall, it is clear that the vast majority of attendees would prefer to keep the linear nature of the village and not have new buildings behind the current building line. The main suggestion of the group was to propose the land (owned by Marcello) North of Main Street at the East side of the village as one site to provide the shortfall of houses required over the next 17 years. This site continues the linear nature of the village and would have the least impact on the majority.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 7 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-13-00323 Guy Hawking New Settlement Study - Obviously as a local resident I wish to comment about the idea of a new settlement at Winslow. The scale of the suggested settlement would link Winslow with Great and and be at the edge of the western expansion of . This would create a new town larger than and radically change the country town and village culture of those communities.

There is reference to an "airfield". Is this a proposal to provide an airfield as part of a notional new settlement development? This seems to be an unnecessary transport option with Cranfield, Halton ad Luton airfields in the local area. The outline maps indicate that the "airfield" would be located on an area around Greenways Farm that is agricultural land and not listed as suited for development. Is the intention to build on green belt/farmland if this option is considered??

The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan indicated scope for an increase of 700 new houses in the period to 2020. There is wide support for expansion and growth in Winslow centred around the town centre and to support local amenities, shops and infrastructure. Phase 2 of WNP has yet to be produced and is contingent on the development of the E/W Rail link. The date for the construction of this link has is has not been confirmed and may no longer be possible due to funding crisis and the forecast recession I would suggest that the new settlement proposal would only be viable if the new station and rail link can be delivered within the plan timeframe to 2033. Is it possible to make development of the New Settlement conditional on the arrival of the rail link??

The traffic flow studies (GL Hearn) also highlights that existing road links and junctions on the A413 and the junction of Sheep Street and Horn Street could not cope with the increased traffic load from a new settlement. A link road would be required to divert traffic away from Winslow High Street and "this option requires more study". I also assume that this is not funded in current transport budgets.

A key part of WNP was to ensure expansion and house building supported the town centre facilities and retail businesses. A new settlement on the outskirts of town would undermine the commerce in the town and affect the viability of a vibrant town centre. The idea of an out of Town settlement was seen as a risk to Winslow High Street shops and this option is outcome was strongly rejected by the residents in the consultation about WNP Phase 1 & 2

VALP16-08-16-00339 Robert John Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - See comment above. Also, designation of MAR005 as "Commitment" is nonsense as it is already developed. Also, disregarding MAR006 is both incorrect (part already has planning consent for 2 units) and the reasons given or ill-considered. This is very much a part of the village and is a brown filed site, the remaining part being entirely asphalted. Its development of 6 further small houses would be welcome and highly suitable as well as easily achieved. VALP16-08-16-00341 Elaine Standen Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Bulbourne Yard has been omitted from this map. In fact it is currently waiting for planning consent to redevelop which will include some new housing for the Marsworth Parish.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 8 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-17-00362 Stephanie Lucas Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The gypsy, traveller and travelling show people sites should have good access to major roads and/or public transport. It is going to be difficult to persuade developers to provide a small allocation on some of the larger housing sites. VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - There are factual inaccuracies in relation to site WIN022. Family) Firstly, it says that the site is not well located to the settlement and separated by open fields. This is incorrect. The site is directly adjacent to sites WIN003 and WIN008, both of which are on site and under construction. It also bounds a nursery and the Link. With the exception of the small Winslow graveyard, the site is not separated from the settlement by open fields. Access to the high street would be a short walk or cycle ride to the high street or the new station, potentially via these new developments.

Secondly, it says that for WIN022 to be developed, improvements to the access road (Furze Lane) would be required. Yet according to paragraphs 4.25, 4.26 and 4.27 of the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan, Furze Lane is already earmarked for upgrade to accommodate development to the east of the road.

In terms of the site that has been added to the AV Draft Local Plan since it was revised (site WIN001) there is an inconsistency between what is in the HELAA and the draft local plan. The site in the HELAA is larger than what is placed within the draft local plan, with the HELAA's version spanning across the parish boundary line. Which version can accommodate 585 homes? Also, the HELAA appears to place quite a bit of emphasis on the neighbourhood plan, which was undertaken prior to the circulation of the AV Draft Local Plan. Given Winslow has been identified by AV as an area of strategic growth, to only add one site that has been deemed "part suitable" by the HELAA seems wholly inadequate.

Sustainability Appraisal

As previously stated, the Sustainability appraisal states in paragraphs 3.44.1 to 3.44.5 that the development of site WIN001 will:

1. Mean the loss of good quality farm land 2. Mean the loss of habitats of principal importance 3. Present High Flood risk 4. May sterilise important mineral resources

Much of these go against the local plan and therefore why is WIN001 viewed as the best site available to accommodate the chronic shortage of housing in the area?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 9 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00366 Mark Saccoccio Green Belt Assessment - AVDC Green Belt Assessment Part 2 Report (Leighton-Linslade Town Site Ref 109 Council) Address:- Land West of Leighton-Linslade, south of Leighton Road

At its meeting held 11th August 2016, the Planning and Transport Committee resolved to support the proposed designation of the above land parcel as Green Belt land for the reasons set out within the background document report. VALP16-08-21-00411 Julia Robinson Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - p147 Site Assessment Cheddington - Given that there is a need for bungalows and housing for the elderly, site CHE001 is a considerable distance from the village shop compared to sites CHE005 and CHE006. Site access is limited from the High Street - the site would have only one access road. The assessment that it would be possible to build 58 houses that meet VALP build critieria on CHE001 is open to considerable challenge Also the assessment takes no account of fauna and flora value of this site which contributes to the village environment. VALP16-08-22-00416 John Currell Green Belt Assessment - It is hard not to feel that the proposed re-designation of RSA-2 is not a cynical exercise to release more development land in Wendover. The commentary on pages 9 & 10 could equally well be used to support retention of this area within the green belt.

I presume that the area of RSA-2 as shown had been miss-drawn; as on page 11 it is stated that one of its durable boundaries (west) is the canal. Another boundary (north) is the old railway line. So the actual theoretical development area is much smaller than suggested by the plan on page 11.

I assume that the last word on the first line under "Stage ! C: HELAA Site Assessment should be "west" rather than "east". The discussion in the following paragraphs about possible use of the site is interesting and maybe should be considered within a future Neighbourhood Plan. It is pleasing to note that it is stated that here is "a shortage of parking within Wendover which needs to be considered". However, I remain of the view that this site should not be released for development VALP16-08-23-00447 Alan Tipple Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Appd A Page 209 - object to Croft Meadow identified space for 58 dwellings when this is not in the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) Look again at identified sites in CNP if you really need another 35 - but ideally reject the whole idea of Unmet Need as this is purely AVDC sweeping up other authorities failure (by design or other reason) VALP16-08-24-00448 Michael Henderson New Settlement Study - See previous comments relating to policy D2. (Dinton with Ford and Upton Parish Council) VALP16-08-24-00472 Christine Fee Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Croft Meadows in Cheddington should be kept open as it is a significant feature of the village in that it not only affords views towards the Chilterns, but as the area is grazed it gives people a unique opportunity, in this day and age, to view farm animals. VALP16-08-24-00494 William Hubbick Sustainability Appraisal - In my opinion, the village will not be able cope with the additional traffic and will place a further strain on the local amenities, which the current resdidents have worked hard to develop over many years.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 10 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00529 Lucy Murfett (Chilterns Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The HELAA comes to brief conclusions on whether sites are suitable Conservation Board) without proper Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to consider AONB impacts from development proposed in the AONB and in the setting of the AONB. The impacts on the Chilterns AONB do not appear to have been studied by the Council in a systematic way; the Green Belt Assessment does not address impacts on the natural beauty of the AONB, and this appears to be a gap in the evidence base. VALP16-08-26-00536 Simon Vessey Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The village voted strongly against development of any sort on Croft (Cheddington Residents' Meadows and this has been reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan and 100 houses are being sited elsewhere as a result. Association) VALP16-08-27-00540 Rosanne Ward New Settlement Study - The New Settlement Scoping Study by G L Hearn is a very limited desk top study, which confines its range to AVDC area only, dealing only with road and rail connections in AVDC, failing to give any regards to the wider picture of near by developments in adjoining District Councils and their impact. See next section comments

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 11 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00568 Graham Tyack Settlement Hierarchy - Scrutiny of the Selection of Haddenham as a Strategic Settlement (Haddenham Village Society) References: A. Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Plan Strategy September 2012. B. The Vale of Aylesbury Plan Haddenham Fact Pack July 2011.

Introduction

1. Reference A was a key document in the development of the strategy for Aylesbury Vale planning. The assessment was informed by documents such as Reference B.

Analysis

2. As a result of this hierarchy assessment, Haddenham was categorised as a strategic settlement along with Aylesbury, Buckingham, Wendover and Winslow. The details of the assessments are shown in Annex A to Reference A. Haddenham apparently scores well for transport and connectivity and both key and non-key services. However, as shown in the critique below, the qualitative assessment is inconsistent and insufficiently refined. Its conclusions are therefore questionable.

3. It is arguable that the set of strategic settlements should be split into two groups of more comparable size, namely Aylesbury and Buckingham on the one hand and Haddenham, Wendover and Winslow on the other – perhaps called respectively strategic settlements and small towns/larger villages.

4. This would then allow a more realistic and detailed comparison of the pros and cons for future development. For example, Wendover has a significant amount of designated green belt in its vicinity, Winslow has a disused airfield potentially available for development and Haddenham is surrounded by high grade agricultural land and has lower capacity roads with a growing traffic problem because of the Chiltern Railway area Parkway service. Conclusion 5. In short, the process by which Haddenham, Wendover and Winslow have been categorised as “strategic settlements” is of questionable validity and is therefore challenged. Criticism of the Strategic Settlement Assessment Methodology (data taken from Reference A above)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 12 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00568 Graham Tyack Population – comparative descriptions are inconsistent with the comparative values (Haddenham Village NamePopulation RangeQualitative Description Society) Aylesbury56,392 to 65,428Very large population Buckingham10,445 to 11,572Large population Haddenham3,651 to 4,834Large population Wendover7,237 to 7,619Very large population Winslow3,818 to 4,519Very large population

Facilities – the crude scoring system suppresses some of the comparative strengths and weaknesses. For example, although Haddenham is shown being served by 3 bus routes, in reality the 200 route is a variation of the very frequent 280 route and the third one, the 112 route, runs once on Wednesdays and Fridays. NameRail?Bus RoutesB Class UnitsKey ServicesScore (out of 11)Non-Key Services AylesburyY21979641149 BuckinghamN9248381012 HaddenhamY38519116 WendoverY27323118 WinslowY (P)34217105

Omissions – aspects such as the capacity local roads, the impact of local railway Parkways, the effect of capacity limitations of rail transport, and the continuing need for high grade agricultural land were omitted from the assessment. VALP16-08-31-00570 John Abra Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - Re: GT5 Land opposite Causter Farm, Nash - I do not agree with the Evidence Document (page 20) relating to this site known as Nash Park. No reference is made to the Enquiry, on appeal, held on the 27th and 30th September 2011. The Planning Inspector concluded that the site caused considerable visual harm and was not a site that he would expect to be approved on a permanent basis. The site is in open countryside with poor access to services and facilities. The site lies within the Parish of which has its own Neighbourhood Plan. The site lies outside the settlement boundary as defined in the plan. There is no provision for travellers' sites or other forms of residential property in the plan for this part of Great Horwood. The countryside adjacent to the site is designated by AVDC as an area of important character. The site causes considerable environmental impact and is locationally unsuitable. The Evidence Document refers to providing a settled base to those living on the site who have established connections to local schools, etc. These connections have only been established because of the failure of AVDC to take the appropriate action, on what was initially an illegal site, at an earlier stage. With regard to the Conclusions, page 66, I do not think that this particular chapter (4) is particularly well presented. The site at Nash Park should, in my opinion, not be included in the stated capacity of 55 pitches as a decision from the Planning Inspector is still outstanding, (and again no reference is made regarding this).

VALP16-08-31-00576 Mary and Allan Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The agreed new housing is substanial for a village of our size and is likely glendinning to have a negative impact on trafffic problems already being experienced in our village and our school. It will also have an impact on all roads in the area as an increased number of residents travel from the village to their work, for shopping and for doctors and hospitals apart from recreational reasons.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 13 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00581 Fiona Lippmann (Halton Green Belt Assessment - Contrary to NPPF C4 Parish Council) VALP16-09-01-00633 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - This statement provides comments in relation to the draft ‘Vale of Planning Services (on Aylesbury Local Plan’ on behalf of Sonia Davis, Fiona Church and Roger Davis the co-owners of Corner Farm, Gib Lane, , behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs As has been set out, it is considered that the proposed strategic expansion of Aylesbury to the south and east to Church and Mr Davis of form a Garden Town (which will also contain Bierton, and ) to support the delivery of growth in the Corner Farm, Gib Lane district is considered logical, however there is a clear shortfall of allocations in comparison to the identified residual housing Bierton)) requirement (and the associated policy framework appears restrictive to the delivery of windfall sites within Bierton and Weston Turville). It is therefore considered that the council should seek to identify a greater number of allocations, and that Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton is ideally located and suitable to be identified for housing. In regards to this, it will be noted, that the site sits comfortably within the proposed urban expansion area, is surrounded on three sides by the existing built form of Bierton, whilst to the south will be a sports field on the north eastern corner of Orchard Green, one of the three new neighbourhoods consented as part of the Kingsbrook development. The presence of the sports field also means that the existing village and new neighbourhood will be kept separate. It will also be noted, that the site is identified as ‘suitable for housing’ in the Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment published in May 2016, (Reference number BIE027-Capacity 84 dwellings). This is further evidence supporting the case for the allocation of the site. We trust that these comments will be taken into account through the further preparation of the plan. (Site Location Plan (Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton) Appended)

VALP16-09-01-00634 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - This representation has been prepared to provide comments on the draft Planning Services (on Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and to promote the inclusion of ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’ as an allocation for behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs development. It is considered that the proposed expansion of Aylesbury to form a ‘Garden Town’ is a logical approach to delivery a Church and Mr Davis of substantial proportion of the district’s required growth, particularly given the committed development of ‘Kingsbrook’ providing 2,450 Corner Farm, Gib Lane, new homes to the east of the town. It is however noted that there is a shortfall between the identified residual housing requirement Bierton)) and the sites identified for potential allocation, whilst the policy framework appears to promote a restriction on the delivery of windfall sites within Bierton and Weston Turville. It is therefore considered that the council should be seeking to identify more sites for allocation, which concord with development strategy. Given the context of ‘Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton’, in relation to the Kingsbrook development commitment, it is considered that this site clearly represents an ideal location for allocation. In particular it is identified that the site would sit within the expansion area, and provide dwellings with access to serives and facilities in both Bierton and the new neighbourhood of Orchard Green. We trust that these comments will be of use in the further development of the emerging local plan. ( Site Location Plan (Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton) Appended)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 14 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Comments on: “DRAFT Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.VALP

The need for new housing is unarguable and most people would accept a fair and proportionate increase in their local housing population, provided it does not destroy the character, environment and general well-being of their community. The parish of has a population of around 1900, approximately 1% of the total population of Aylesbury Vale, but is required to accommodate nearly 10% of the entire additional housing (excluding unmet need from other districts) required under the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. Approximately one new house for each existing resident. This of course includes the 1885 houses treated in your document as a “separate” settlement, although it lies less than a quarter of a mile from Newton Longville’s village boundary and within its Parish boundary. To view NLV001 in isolation without consideration for the monumental impact it would have on the village and residents of Newton Longville is incomprehensible. Section 3 (S3) of the Draft VALP states: “In considering applications for building in the countryside the council will have regard to maintaining the individual identity of villages and avoiding extensions to built-up areas that might lead to coalescence between settlements”

NVL001 contravenes this requirement in that it extends the built up area of West and approaches Newton Longville’s border so closely that “coalescence” would be a real possibility in the future. Furthermore, the creation of a large development, more than twice its size and adjacent to Newton Longville cannot fail to adversely affect the “individual identity” of the village.

Many of the other sites under consideration for house building around this area were rejected under the Draft Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) for, among other reasons, that they were “exposed to views from surrounding settlements”. The southern half of the NVL001 site, below Weasel Lane, is fully visible when leaving Newton Longville on Whadden Road and is exposed to views from dozens of properties in the north western part of Newton Longville. Under the VALP all proposed sites for housing are required to be “sustainable” Whether NVL001 is sustainable is questionable for the following reasons:

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 15 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock • The site is currently agricultural land with minimal requirement for essential services, drainage, water gas and electricity. All of which will have to be significantly upgraded. • The main burden of providing social, health and education services would fall not to AVDC, but to MK Council. The premise of placing large developments on the boundary of neighbouring urban councils and remote from AVDC’s own stated “Strategic Settlements” is somewhat dubious. • Transport infrastructure to the east of NVL001 is good, however to the west the A421 leaves much to be desired. The only road south from NVL001 is Whadden Road, a narrow minor road, currently over-used by HGV’s, LGV’s and private cars using it as a rat- run between the A421 and recently opened A4146 by-pass. Newton Longville is an increasingly hazardous place for pedestrians, many of whom are elderly. Indeed it has no form of pedestrian crossing or traffic calming anywhere within the village and yet vehicle throughput consistently runs in excess of 50,000 vehicles a month and speeding into and out of the village is an ongoing problem. Any improvement to Whadden Road, outside the village, would be pointless as the main bottleneck is within Newton Longville itself. Some form of by-pass or relief road is the only practical solution, other than to restrict through-traffic. Whilst perhaps not directly a planning consideration the loss of 144 hectares of arable farmland to housing is an ecological own goal. Hardly a sensible deal for anyone other than the developer. The inclusion of NVL001 in the Draft VALP, which is already the subject of a planning application by South West Milton Keynes Consortium raises the prospect of a rubber-stamp approval of this very inappropriate development. Given that NVL001 is one of the largest developments outside of the Aylesbury area it seems ill-considered that Newton Longville village is also expected to accommodate the highest level of housing development of all the so-called “Medium” size villages (154) Surely placing two of the largest developments in the Draft VALP (NVL001 & WHA001) on the boundary of MK Council provides housing provision more appropriate to Milton Keynes itself rather than Aylesbury Vale. Milton Keynes has plenty of development land within its own boundaries without neighbouring districts providing additional housing on its own doorstep.

VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock In conclusion I believe the inclusion of NVL001 in the Draft VALP is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1.Extension of urban area of , contrary to S3. 2.Danger of coalescence with Newton Longville village, contrary to S3. 3.Serious adverse affect on the “individual identity” of Newton Longville, contrary to S3. 4.NVL001 south of Weasel Lane is exposed to views by many properties within Newton Longville. 5.Provision of social, health and education services largely provided by neighbouring district council. 6.Location is more appropriate for Milton Keynes housing than Aylesbury Vale. 7.One of the largest developments located remotely from AVDCs stated Strategic Settlements. 8.Seriously deficient infrastructure, particularly transport links to the south of the development. 9.Existing hazardous traffic environment within Newton Longville, increased significantly as a result of greater traffic volume and poor road infrastructure.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 16 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00647 Linda Currie Aylesbury Transport Strategy - 16. Regarding the Aylesbury Transport Strategy, the AVLP website states that “A transport strategy (Oxfordshire County for Aylesbury Town is required in order to support and accommodate future Local Plan growth, with the current transport network Council) already under pressure. A strategic plan for transport has been lacking and is now vital for ensuring that opportunities associated with the growth of the town and district are realised, including necessary infrastructure enhancements. The Strategy is being jointly developed by Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council using AECOM as consultants.” OCC requests involvement in these discussions given the impacts of growth on Oxfordshire strategic roads and the need for close working in this respect. 17. In addition, the Stage 1 Technical Note produced as supporting evidence ‘Aylesbury Transport Strategy Note’, 29 March 2016 states that ‘The focus area of the strategy will be Aylesbury Town but it will be framed in the context of the wider Aylesbury Vale area in developing the strategy.’ Again, OCC requests that this ‘frame’ is extended to include implications of housing/ employment growth and infrastructure proposals in the wider geographical area.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 17 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00647 Linda Currie New Settlement Study - Chapter 6 - Strategic Development at Haddenham (Oxfordshire County Para 6.3 mentions Thame Business Park and wider employment opportunities and services in Thame. This reinforces the need to Council) ensure that sustainable travel options between Haddenham and Thame are provided to reduce the amount of car travel between the two settlements. We agree with the assessment that the potential area for large scale development to the south east of Haddenham (site 6 on the Potential Options map) is less well connected to existing transport links (in comparison to other sites around Haddenham) and therefore is less accessible; connections to services, facilities and employment in Thame are not as good; and sustainable travel options would be more challenging to achieve. Para 6.20 states that an initial assessment of junction capacity and improvements necessary to support development has been undertaken, and considers the potential to accommodate 6000 homes. The results of this are outlined in Table 10 and paragraphs 6.25 and show that the most problematic junction is the A418 / A4129 junction on the Thame bypass. The modelling shows that significant queues form in all 2033 scenarios, even without the development. Para 6.26 and Appendix F outline potential improvements to the junction involving widening on each arm of the junction and modifications to the central island. However, the New Settlement Scoping Study was published in June 2016 and therefore we assume it does not take into account proposed growth within SODC’s draft Local Plan 2032 Preferred Options document, including 600 additional homes to be allocated to Thame, plus a potential strategic site at Chalgrove Airfield (or possibly at Junction 7 of the M40 / Harrington). It is anticipated that with this additional development, the transport impacts of housing growth in the area will be even more significant and more extensive improvements will be needed at the A418 / A4129 junction. Therefore we recommend that further assessment is carried out and includes potential growth proposed in South Oxfordshire so that the impact on roads and junctions around Haddenham and Thame can be fully understood and can be used to help inform the decision regarding the location of a new settlement. Furthermore, the impact of housing growth on other junctions in Thame should also be examined, not just the A418 / A4129 junction as the impacts of a new settlement are likely to affect a wider area. Table 13 outlines preliminary costs of junction improvements at £9.1 million. These are likely to be higher, particularly the A418 / A1429 works, as the need for more extensive improvements may be identified once additional transport modelling is conducted which takes full account of all the proposed development in the area. Furthermore, the proposed improvements to the A148 / A4129 roundabout result in the junction performing in line with the Do Minimum modelling scenario i.e. without development, and therefore would not be fit for purpose. Para 6.26 acknowledges that further investigation will be needed to take account of the impacts of development here and at other locations, including Aylesbury, on the capacity of the A418 junctions. Settlement Scoping Study Appendix E – Haddenham Options Assessment. OCC considers Option 2 least favourable from a transport point of view due to the fact that site 6 is further from Haddenham & Thame Station, existing highways infrastructure and public transport routes and therefore is not as accessible as the other options

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 18 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00647 Linda Currie Sites proposed in options 1 and 3 are more accessible and therefore have higher potential for sustainable travel options. (Oxfordshire County Option 3 with the western expansion (site 7) may also aid the delivery of a Thame to Haddenham cycle path (linking Thame to Council) Haddenham & Thame station) as one of the proposed routes of the cycle path might pass through site 7. NB: a number of different routes were proposed, but a preferred route was not agreed by OCC and Bucks CC and the scheme was not taken forward due to a lack of funding. Appendix F - Haddenham initial junction modelling These junction improvements have been proposed without taking proposed additional housing at Thame or potential strategic development sites at Chalgrove Airfield (or Junction 7 of the M40 / Harrington) into account. Once the impacts of these have been fully modelled, in particular the impacts on the A418, they may find that different / more extensive highways infrastructure improvements are needed. Education Infrastructure needed to support growth. OCC would like to see more detail about planned new or improved education facilities required to support proposed growth, including its phasing, funding and delivery mechanisms- . Policy I3 covers Education infrastructure in very general terms. If the new settlement is located close to Haddenham, in addition to the other Haddenham development, it will be particularly important to know whether the new education infrastructure to go with this development will include a new secondary school, as would be expected for this scale of development. Pupil census data from Sept 2015 shows there are a significant number of children currently travelling to Lord Williams’s School (LWS) in Thame from Haddenham (as well as from Aylesbury and Princes Risborough). Any new secondary school, particularly if comprehensive, might be expected to divert children from LWS, and need to be taken into account in both authorities’ school planning. Buckinghamshire villages such as and Brill are actually in the LWS catchment, and development there would be expected to increase demand for places at LWS, all other things being equal catchment map at https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/childreneducationandfamilies/educationandlearning/schools /catchmentmaps/4580_all.pdf). However, if there were to be a new secondary school to serve Haddenham, then it may be likely to also draw from Long Crendon and Brill.

VALP16-09-02-00652 Anthony Dlugosz New Settlement Study - Appendix E of the Settlement Study gives three potential options for expansion, two of which (options 1 and 3) appear to contradict the objections in HELAA to the western expansion of Haddenham (objections to sites HAD014 and HAD022 to HAD024). The objections in HELAA relate essentially to the fact that the sites are on the other side of the railway line to Haddenham and have poor highway access, whereas options 1 and 3 in the Settlement Study state that the western expansion (site 5 of option 1 and site 7 of option 3 "benefit from close proximity to existing transport infrastructure, including the A418 and rail station". These options appear to provide the most workable solution to the issue. The garden village of option 2, in contrast, has none of the advantages: it is relatively remote from the railway line and has poor road connections to the A418. The existing road to the A418 through Ford, in particular, would be totally unsuitable to any increase in traffic volume in view of subsidence on the sides of the road south of Ford caused by current relatively low traffic volume, the weight restriction on the road through Dinton and the width restriction in the road by the church in Dinton which scarcely allows two-way traffic flow.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 19 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00653 Parish Council Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - The gypsy, traveller and travelling show people sites should have good access to major roads and/or public transport. Location is important to ensure these sites are successful in allowing integration rather than hostility.

VALP16-09-02-00654 Tom Hutchinson (Land Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - We will be submitting separate emailed comments for our promoted sites. and Partners Ltd) VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The HELAA concludes that a potential capacity for 25,882 dwellings on Developments Ltd) 239 sites can be delivered during the plan period to 2033. In addition to this, there is also planning permission for 22 dwellings on sites outside of HELAA settlements, permission for 353 dwellings (already reduced by 10% for non-delivery) on sites below 5 and evidence that 876 dwellings could be delivered on windfall sites. Including this on top of the HELAA capacity, a total potential capacity of 27,133 dwellings is identified. The HELAA further states that of the total potential capacity, approximately 10,315 dwellings could be delivered within the next five years and 16,818 dwellings from specific sites that are considered developable in the longer term have been identified for years 6-15 years. Aylesbury Vale District Council published their Five Year Housing Land Supply Interim Position Statement in August 2016. The Statement identifies the Council’s housing completions for the past five years to be 1,103 dwellings for 2011/12, 934 dwellings for 2012/13, 990 dwellings for 2013/14, 1,419 dwellings for 2014/15 and 1,191 dwellings for 2015/16. This equates to a total figure of 5,637 dwellings that were delivered over the past five years. Furthermore, the Statement identifies the Council's deliverable supply from 2016–2021 to be 6,177 dwellings and deliverable supply from 2017–2022 to be 5,531 dwellings. Based on the above information in terms of the Council's past five-year delivery rate and expected future five- year delivery rate, it is unrealistic to suggest that 10,563 dwellings could be delivered over the forthcoming five-year period as identified in the HELAA and this is very unlikely to happen without a step change in the identification and delivery of housing. The HEDNA identifies the full objectively assessed need for housing (2013–2033) for Aylesbury Vale to be 21,289 dwellings. The Draft Plan estimates a figure of 12,000 to meet unmet needs from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks. Policy S2 identifies provision for 33,300 dwellings over the plan period to 2033. This figure does not account for additional need that may arise from Milton Keynes and therefore, in excess of 33,300 dwellings should be considered. Paragraph: 026, Reference ID: 3-026-20140306 of the Government's Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it may be concluded that insufficient sites/broad locations are identified against objectively assessed needs. Plan makers will therefore need to revisit the assessment, for example changing the assumptions on the development potential on particular sites (including physical and policy constraints) including sites for possible new settlements. If following this review there are still insufficient sites, then it will be necessary to investigate how this shortfall should best be planned for. If there is clear evidence that the needs cannot be met locally, it will be necessary to consider how needs might be met in adjoining areas in accordance with the duty to cooperate.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 20 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons It is clear from above that the housing requirement for Aylesbury Vale District (including unmet need) far exceeds the total potential Developments Ltd) capacity identified in the HELAA. It can therefore be deduced that insufficient capacity has been identified in the HELAA to meet the full objectively assessed housing need. However, there is no clear evidence provided by the Council to suggest the housing need for Aylesbury Vale can be met and there are limited constraints/designations under footnote 9 of the NPPF. Furthermore, the Council ave not considered how unmet need might be met from adjoining local authorities such as Milton Keynes, therefore resulting in a failure in the duty to cooperate. It is therefore clear that additional land will need to be identified as suitable for development over and above that in the HELAA in order to meet the housing requirement for the District. Larger. medium and smaller villages will need to contribute towards meeting this housing requirement through allocations. This is especially important as sites in villages (larger, medium and smaller) rather than just large, strategic sites will be required for housing development in the short term to meet the District's insufficient 5 year housing land supply. Settlements such as Bierton are well-placed to identify suitable and deliverable sites for housing growth over the plan period. The HELAA identifies my client’s site (reference: BIE011) on Land between Barnett House and Barnett Way, Bierton. For accuracy, my client’s land interest only includes a site area of 4.07ha as shown in the site location plan (reference: A46702). This does not include the north eastern part of the HELAA site BIE011. For reference, I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 June 2016 clarifying this position. The remainder of the site has not been put forward for consideration/assessment. The assessment of the site contained in the HELAA considers the site to be unsuitable for development. Reasons for this includes: a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area; loss of landscape views of and from the northern part of the site; development would break the linear form of the village and would be likely to have a poor relationship to the character of the village as a result. The assessment concludes that housing and/or economic development of the site is not achievable or suitable. The SHLAA identifies Bierton as a medium village. This is contrary to the Issues and Options Consultation published in October 2015 which identified Bierton as a larger village. We object to the re-categorisation of Bierton from a larger village to a medium village. Notwithstanding, it is considered that, for Bierton to be identified as either a larger or medium village, housing growth is required over the plan period at the village of Bierton (and not Aylesbury). The above site represents a deliverable and suitable (for reasons explained below) site to support the necessary housing growth for Bierton and Aylesbury Vale District. Indeed, part of the site is subject to a submitted outline planning application for residential development.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 21 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons The site is currently subject to a submitted outline planning application (reference: 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up Developments Ltd) to 70 dwellings and associated development. Supporting evidence has been undertaken to inform the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan including Landscape Evidence in the form of a Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Advice to Aylesbury Vale DC (March 2015) and Areas of Attractive Landscape and Local Landscape Areas Advice to Aylesbury Vale DC – Final Draft Report (October 2015). The March 2015 report considers whether any update is required to specific parts of the 2008 Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Area Assessment (produced by Jacobs) as a result of change since the on site assessment fieldwork on 2007- 08. The Jacobs report identifies the site to form part of Bierton Ridge (9.11) in the context of Landscape Character Types and Areas. The report identifies the character of landscape associated with the site and its immediate setting is considered to be of medium value. Likewise, the landscape character of Bierton Ridge is also considered to be of medium value, taking into consideration the presence of individual elements that may be highly valued in their own right. It is with consideration that the landscape of the site and its local setting cannot be described as particularly rare in overall terms, and its features are both common and widespread in the locality. The October 2015 report seeks to define and recommend the special qualities of local landscape designation in Aylesbury Vale District, including Areas of Attractive Landscapes (AALs) and Local Landscape Areas (LLAs). The report does not recommend the site or surrounding area of Bierton Ridge be considered as an AAL or LLA. Part of the site is currently subject to a submitted outline planning application (reference: 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up to 70 dwellings and associated development. The planning application is accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence. The proposed Concept Masterplan has been informed by landscape and heritage constraints. Supporting documents include a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and Heritage Statement, which have both identified the suitability of the site for the proposed development in landscape and visual terms and in the context of the CA and surrounding heritage assets respectively.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 22 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons The LVA submitted in support of the outline planning application states that, whilst the development of the site will result in material Developments Ltd) loss of pasture land adjoining the settlement, this loss is restricted to a site level and not considered to be of significance to the decision making process. The consideration of local landscape features and landscape character has assisted in limiting any adverse effects to both individual features and the overall character of the immediate landscape setting and wider setting of the Bierton Ridge. The assessment found the visual appraisal identified short-term effects of some significance that are limited to the receptors at the immediate boundaries of the site and the sections of public rights of way crossing the site. These effects are not considered to be uncommon or unexpected and are on the whole generated by virtue of the proximity of the receptor to the proposed change. The loss or change of these views will not affect visibility to or from particularly valued features within the local landscape setting. There is no sufficient supporting evidence to suggest the site is of significant valued landscape and is not recommended to be designated as either an AAL or LLA. In terms of landscape designation, the site is not covered by any specific landscape designation that would suggest an increased value. As such, the assessment of the site provided in the HELAA is misleading and the identified loss of landscape views of and from the northern part of the site cannot be reasonably justified to find the site unsuitable for development in the context of supporting evidence. The site lies at the northern edge of Bierton to the rear of houses along Aylesbury Road and directly north of modern residential development. The site lies adjacent but not within the Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA partly reflects the development of settlement along the main artery of Aylesbury Road. This has already been somewhat altered by residential developments along roads leading off the main road to the north and south. The suggestion therefore that development would break the linear form of the village is incorrect and again misleading. Development of the site would represent another example of the outward growth of the settlement. However, as the development is set back from the main road and not within any important lines of sight or viewpoints, the potential impact on the CA would be slight. The suggestion therefore that development would have a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area sufficient enough to find the site unsuitable for development has not reasonably been justified and potential mitigation measures have not been accounted for. It is also relevant to note that Bierton Clay Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located in close proximity to the site. A letter dated 9 November 2015 from Natural in response to the above planning application confirmed development of the site, carried out in strict accordance with details of the application, would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the SSSI has been notified. I enclose a copy of this letter.

VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons At present, the Council are unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the housing policies of Developments Ltd) the adopted Local Plan are not up to date. For the purposes of determining the planning application, paragraph 14 of the NPPF is applicable, whereby planning permission for proposals which are demonstrably sustainable should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. The technical reports which accompany the planning application confirm that there are no adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The benefits resulting from the development including provision of market and affordable housing are considered to be sufficient to justify the granting of the proposals in the planning balance. In view of the above, the site represents a suitable and deliverable site for housing development that should be strongly considered for allocation in the VALP Draft Plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 23 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Settlement Hierarchy - It is considered that there is no evidence to suggest why Bierton has been downgraded from a larger village Developments Ltd) to a medium village without any clear justification and an objection is raised. VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Sustainability Appraisal - Davidsons Developments Limited has interest in respect of Land between Barnett House and Barnett Developments Ltd) Way, Bierton. This site is presently the subject of a submitted outline planning application (reference 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up to 70 dwellings and associated development. On behalf of my client, we have made a number of comments in respect of how this site has been assessed within the HELAA (Site BIE011) which currently asserts that this site is unsuitable for development on landscape grounds, concluding that housing and/or economic development of this site is not achievable or suitable. Our objections to the HELAA should be read in conjunction with our comments on the SA. The role of the SA in plan making is considered vital and the appraisal of emerging and preferred options of the plan is a central pillar of the SA process. The SA process is intended to add a different perspective on why certain approaches to addressing planning issues may be preferred over and above others. It should not, in our view, be constrained by artificially imposed policy constraints or predetermination of options. The Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives, in our view, does not meet this overall aim and objective of the SA process. The NPPG, at paragraph 11-018-20140306 states, “Reasonable alternatives should be identified and considered at an early stage in the plan making process”. Paragraph 11-018-20140306 goes on to provide clarity on what is meant by ‘reasonable’, it states: “The sustainability appraisal needs to compare all reasonable alternatives including the preferred approach and assess these against the baseline environmental, economic and social characteristics of the area and the likely situation if the Local Plan were not to be adopted […] The development and appraisal of proposals in Local Plan documents should be an iterative process, with the proposals being revised to take account of the appraisal findings. This should inform the selection, refinement and publication of proposals (when preparing a Local Plan, paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework should be considered).” (emphasis added). We note that it may not be practicable to assess every small-scale site against every other site across the district. However, as a site that extends to 6.5ha, part of which is my client’s land interest at 4.07ha, close to Aylesbury and presently subject to a live application for 70 dwellings, we are surprised that this site has not been subject to an assessment to see how it performs against the SA criteria. As stated previously, in the Issues and Options consultation in October-December 2015 and the HELAA submission, we have expressly requested (copy of letter dated 7 June 2016) that clearly sets out that is should be the 4.07ha site hat should be assessed and considered. My client is concerned that, in light of our objections to the HELAA, the approach being taken is unnecessarily precluding reasonable sites and options for delivering development from assessment. It is not ‘iterative’, in that it is only considering favourable sites. This approach is not compliant with the SA regulations, nor is it in the spirit of the online Planning Guidance.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 24 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Moreover, m yclient is surprised that, at no point has the SA process sought to assess a strategic option for growth that allows for Developments Ltd) modest development within the village of Bierton. In line with its considered status as a larger village, and proposed status as a medium village (which is objected to above), Bierton is a sustainable location which should be considered suitable for growth. As discussed above, Bierton should expressly be dealt with as a separate settlement as the village must meet its own growth needs in order to sustain existing amenities and services and ensure the village contributes towards Aylesbury Vale’s overall housing figure through the delivery of market and affordable housing. The identification of a range of medium sites, such as BIE011 (the 4.07ha site) to meet this need, has different sustainability implications to the option within the draft plan, particularly in respect of social sustainability. Finally, my client observes that the HELAA does not identify sufficient land to meet the identified housing need. There is, therefore an urgent requirement for additional sites to be considered and released. The premature rejection of sites and preclusion from assessment leads us to conclude that the process cannot be considered ‘sound’ and will need to be revisited in due course. We would respectively request AVDC to re-assess site BIE011 (the 4.07ha site) taking consideration of the evidence which has been submitted in respect of the current outline planning application which clearly identifies as a site able to deliver up to 70 dwellings. Please note that the housing growth identified in the Draft Plan is not the final figure and further evidence is required. In view of the above, the site represents an achievable, suitable and deliverable site to support the necessary housing growth for Aylesbury Vale District.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 25 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00670 Ken Barnes Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The published draft of the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan for Stoke Mandeville has at least two major omissions that render the plan unfit for public consultation because members of the public cannot make a valid and objective assessment when the information they are given is incomplete and misleading. Local residents commenting on the plan in its present form will not be aware that what they see is not what they are going to get.

The first of these major omissions is any reference to HS2 and the associated infrastructure work which is expected to begin as early as next year. It is as if HS2 has done the vanishing act! But this is, of course, far from the truth and when construction gets underway it will have a huge impact on this community. In preparing a Local Government plan for future development it is absurd to act as if a Central Government plan for development over the same area does not exist. That HS2 does not fall within the remit of local planners and that it has yet to receive Royal Assent is not justification for air-brushing out of existence this crucial area of forward planning – nor is it right or fair to Stoke Mandeville to do so. It is not right because the HS2 development and the Local Plan development are unavoidably interconnected and to pretend otherwise will result in confusion and poor planning decisions. It is not fair because those living on the route of HS2 will be subjected to significant disruption and stress and do not deserve to be further assaulted by yet more development that takes no account of the burden that HS2 will inflict on the community. The communities bearing the brunt of HS2 will pay a heavy price which they are told is a sacrifice that must be made in the national interest. It is not then unreasonable to expect them to be given some relief from the ravages of additional major development, at least until HS2 has been completed and the dust has settled. At that time the picture will be much clearer and wise decisions based on known outcomes can be made for future development that is both integrated with HS2 and sympathetic to local communities. For local planners to ignore this major parallel development amounts to a form of corporate madness that would not be tolerated in any other business or industry and it cannot be justified.

The second serious fault with the draft plan is that it does not give a complete and accurate picture of the full extent of proposed building development. It shows only that some of the green fields that separate the village of Stoke Mandeville from Aylesbury have been identified as suitable for building and that these fields are at the hospital end of the site. What the Local Plan does not reveal is that planning permission for a substantial development of 117 houses is also being granted at the village end of this site on farm land east of Lower Road, which is not shown on the plan as being designated as suitable for housing. Before being asked to respond to the consultation local people are entitled to know that what is in fact being proposed is that this rural village, which has existed for nearly a thousand years, shall be consumed by urban sprawl and turned into a suburb of Aylesbury.

VALP16-09-02-00670 Ken Barnes Many Stoke Mandeville residents will be given false assurance by what they see in the draft Local Plan and feel no need to comment and those that do respond to the consultation will do so on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate information. As a result the consultation process for the draft Local Plan, in so far as Stoke Mandeville is concerned, cannot give a valid indication of public opinion and should be disregarded and re-run with the full facts made clear.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 26 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00675 Mr and Mrs Hudson Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - With reference to ICK003 - We believe the comments made by HELAA are correct. They state - Unsuitable - "The site is in an exposed location at the entrance to the village without any corresponding development opposite in Sheldon Road. Developing the site would not relate well to the character and townscape established in the village". This is backed up by the Jacobs Landscape Character & Sensitivity Report 2008 - Site classed as highly sensitive. Its important to note that ICK003 is situated before the entrance of the village which is known as Little . Little Ickford sits in its own identity with village pond and thatched cottages. Should ICK003 be developed Little Ickford would lose its historical identity by no longer being at the end of the village. The site ICK003 is also of archaeological interest with specific evidence recorded. It has an abundance of nature with regular visitors such as barn owls roebucks foxes, great crested newts and bats. (evidence of the nature is available). The footpath follows the width of the field through the middle of site ICK003 which is an open and extremely scenic space. The site is enjoyed and well used by walkers, ramblers and visitors to the village. The site is subject to significant flooding in the winter and the furrows can be completely full. These furrows hold back the flooding so other surrounding areas don't suffer. It would be a travesty to allow planning on ICK003 as it would have a detrimental effect on the countryside and overall character of the village. Therefore we fully support the views of HELAA whereby they state ICK003 is Unsuitable.

VALP16-09-04-00744 Cllr David Finch Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The land at Croft Meadow affords an extremely important contribution to the character of the village. The views it affords across to the Chiltern Hills are Areas of Natural Beauty; plus the historic example of ridge and furrow cultivation contained therein. The land is of significant value to the local community as an important open space and should be designated a Local Green Space. In any event it should be removed as a site for housing from the Cheddington Potential Housing Allocations map. (Croft Meadow is site CHE001). VALP16-09-04-00745 Marianne Faux Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The land at Croft Meadow affords an extremely important contribution to the character of the village. The views it affords across to the Chiltern Hills are Areas of Natural Beauty, plus the historic example of ridge and furrow (See Additional Notes) VALP16-09-04-00753 Alan Branch Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Don't know if this is right place to re-inforce my previous comments but the Newton Longville site map would seem to indicate a potential for protecting the village by closing off Whaddon Road at the old railway bridge! VALP16-09-04-00755 Joyce Docherty Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Croft Meadows Site (CHE001) should not be a Potential Housing Allocation - it should be kept open because of: its significant contribution to the character of the village; the views which it affords to the Chiltern Hills AONB; and the example of historic ridge and furrow cultivation which it contains. The land is of significant value to the local community as an important open area and should be designated a Local Green Space and in any event removed as a site for housing from the Cheddington Potential Housing Allocations map. VALP16-09-04-00756 Andrew Docherty Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Croft Meadows Site (CHE001) should not be a Potential Housing Allocation - it should be kept open because of: its significant contribution to the character of the village; the views which it affords to the Chiltern Hills AONB; and the example of historic ridge and furrow cultivation which it contains. The land is of significant value to the local community as an important open area and should be designated a Local Green Space and in any event removed as a site for housing from the Cheddington Potential Housing Allocations map.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 27 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00757 Steve Heath Transport Modelling - Why is it that transport modelling reports are always written to hide and make obscure data. The Plots are provided in blocks for the whole county and therefore the relevant charts for a particular area are scattered throughout the different files and over many hundred pages.

For Newton Longville, the volume demands exceed the current road capacity without taking into account some of the proposed developments impact. As a result village life is effectively being sacrificed to developments that do not have suitable transport infrastructure improvements to reduce the impact. For a plan that is supposed to be preserving rural life, this is a major discrepancy.

There also appears to be no checking on the estimates from previous plans to see how accurate(or not) they have been. Instead the models are taken as gospel yet like all models, are only as good as the information put into them and the accuracy of the way the reality is measured.

Judging by the recommendations and guidance that is provided by the model suppliers e.g TRL and the comments that they are being used incorrectly and blindly, I have little faith that the model data bears any relationship of reality.

The Newton Leys development that used Plan data predictions for 2015 traffic in Newton Longville are a gross underestimation of what is experienced today. None of it predicted the rise in traffic using the village as a Bletchley bypass or the increase in HGV traffic. What confidence is there that this information is any better.

VALP16-09-04-00787 John Bromley Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Various proposals to overturn the provisions set out in the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan agreed and ratified in accordance with Local planning policies set out be then UK Government with regard to provision of housing on land designated for commercial / industrial / non-housing purposes. Winslow has presently little employment opportunities and those proposed in the approved Winslow planning document seek to provide local employment within the Winslow area. The VALP does not respect these agreed objectives as employment is centred away from Winslow and therefore is in danger of turning Winslow from a balanced and thriving community into a soulless commuter housing estate. Thus repeating the mistakes of other communities up and down the UK in accordance with the then current planning policies.

VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Green Belt Assessment - page 9, RSA-2, southern part of parcel 7a - land north of Wendover: I object to this being taken out of its current Green Belt status - the main field bordering the John Colet School, the canal and Tring Road, as well as the land on the opposite side of the canal (bordering Water Meadow Way). Building 800 houses on this site would be detrimental to Wendover and to the views from Bacombe Hill. There is already severe pressure on local schools and the town centre parking is already inadequate and another 800 houses would make these much worse. Tring Road, between Manor Road and the High Street, the High Street and the mini-roundabout by the clock tower is frequently congested / clogged up at peak times and would be even worse with the proposed development. Why take this land out of Green Belt, yet look to extend the Green Belt to cover plot 105 (page 26)?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 28 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Housing & Economic Land Availability Document shows / states that most sites in and around Wendover are unsuitable for development, including RSA-2, Parcel 7a, so even if taking this plot out of Green Belt status, that shouldn't then make it suitable for development. VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Sustainability Appraisal - The Sustainability Document clause 3.46.8 refers to the frequent bus service that would serve this development if it goes ahead - but current timetables show it's only frequent during the working week / hours and is very limited outside these hours and also at weekends. VALP16-09-05-00812 Simon Russell Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - As above the evidence base should reflect that the commitments for retail (Amethyst Planning) development at the Tesco site on London Road, Buckingham (having been implemented) effectively precludes B class development from being realised on the site. The housing assessment aspect of the associated appraisals should be revisited prior to the allocation of greenfield sites in settlements lower in the hierarchy than Buckingham. VALP16-09-05-00856 S Raven Settlement Hierarchy - We agree with Nash’s designation as a Smaller Village in the Settlement Hierarchy Assessment. However, we request that the connectivity assessment is updated to reflect that Winslow, approximately 4 miles away, is more local to Nash as a main Service Centre and strategic settlement with benefit of the proposed East-West rail link than Milton Keynes, which is more than 7 miles away. VALP16-09-05-00865 Jo Tiddy Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Despite the fact that sites in Ickford have at present been deemed unsuitable for future housing development, due to the tenacity of housebuilding firms and planning consultants, I would like to state the following in terms of particularly Site ICK004 and ICK005:

The open land to the rear of Road is essential for the overall character of this part of the village. Worminghall Road is defined as having a linear pattern that has developed piecemeal over time. Modern infill has been permitted on sites between older historic buildings, but this has not impinged on longer range views across the countryside, or detracted from the historic character.

This part of the village is a conservation area, centred on the Rising Sun PH, and incorporating pockets of listed historic buildings both to the west and east of the road. The overall character of the area is of a rural leafy lane which leads to the more built up village core. These ribbon developments are a pattern of the settlement of Ickford, and can also be seen on Bridge Road.

Increasing the built up envelope of the village to the east of Worminghall Road will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of local residents and the historic environment. Access to any new development would impact on the existing road layout to a great extent due to the requirement for sight lines etc. The village roads are busy enough, with inadequate footpaths in places, and would not cope with the additional traffic generated. The school in Ickford is at full capacity. The drainage system in the village has no additional capacity

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 29 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00888 Josephine Bromley Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Various proposals to overturn the provisions set out in the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan agreed and ratified in accordance with Local planning policies set out be then UK Government with regard to provision of housing on land designated for commercial / industrial / non-housing purposes. Winslow has presently little employment opportunities and those proposed in the approved Winslow planning document seek to provide local employment within the Winslow area. The VALP does not respect these agreed objectives as employment is centred away from Winslow and therefore is in danger of turning Winslow from a balanced and thriving community into a soulless commuter housing estate. Thus repeating the mistakes of other communities up and down the UK in accordance with the then current planning policies.

VALP16-09-05-00904 Christopher Wayman Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The final HELAA draft contains (at pages 118 to 135) a total of 68 sites in (Buckingham Town Buckingham having been considered for future development. Of these, 42 are considered unsuitable, leaving 26 sites allocated for Council) either housing or economic development (12 for housing only, 9 for employment only, and 5 mixed). Housing Numbers: From the Table, it will be noted that: 1 Some sites allocated in the draft VALP have already been developed, or are under development. Additional “new” housing will therefore be less than the total shown; 2 Nevertheless, the housing numbers proposed by the draft VALP far outweigh BNDP expectations. Whereas the BNDP allocates land for 617 new dwellings (plus a reserve for 300 dwellings), the draft VALP anticipates 2,376 new homes – an increase of over 60%. Even including the additional 400 student rooms that BNDP allows for in addition to new dwellings, and ignoring that they would thereby release dwellings for residential, rather than student, use, Buckingham is expected to absorb well over 50% more “accommodation units” than anticipated in BNDP; 3 In particular, site BUC051 proposes a huge estate of nearly 300 additional houses extending unbroken from north of BNDP site H ( Road) to the Road, and east into a great swathe of . In view of the traffic infrastructure implications for Buckingham town centre alone, this should be resisted.

Employment Provision: The HELAA raises few concerns about draft VALP employment provision; although it is perhaps worth noting that completed developments at the Royal Latin School and outstanding development of the London Road Tesco site are included in the Table. (Table Reproduced) Unlike some more specific parts of the plan, some of these items are more commentaries rather than leading to specific policies:

• MK comments that the HEDNA doesn't refer to the impact of the MK HMA on the Vale. • Luton says that its needs have not been considered. • No other organisation seems to understand the calculation of the 10,000 unmet need. • No comment is made on the impact of the planned 10,000 houses at Bicester, almost on the boundary of the Vale. • There is little mention of Silverstone and the huge importance of the motorsport economy in this area (most of which goes to surrounding Districts perhaps due to the apathy of AVDC as illustrated here). It is also a huge leisure destination.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 30 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00909 Jean Watson Settlement Hierarchy - I write with reference to the development of Cuddington ,now termed a middle sized village. I disagree that the village should be moved from 'small village' designation.Although the village has certain facilities access to the nearby large village of Haddenham is not good for older folk who do not drive. The infrequent bus service does not go to Haddenham and the narrow lane along which many lorries and the double decker bus thunder has no footpath. Dadbrook ( the name of the lane) is used as a "rat-run" to Bicester ! Also crossing the main road A418 to access Haddenham is exceedingly dangerous on foot. If a large number of houses was to be built leading on to Dadbrook or the road access would be difficult and create further danger. I appreciate housing is a priority but I feel that there would be many accidents arising due to the high volume of traffic and the narrowness of the roads.

VALP16-09-05-00910 Nick Shute (Nick Shute Green Belt Assessment - See comments under S4 Green Belt above Associates)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 31 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00916 Alan & Kathleen Settlement Hierarchy - Page 2 District Key Diagram Jackson We would like to lodge our objections to Whitchurch being classed as a large village within the VALP. Whitchurch is not a large village having only:

1 Public House A post office which is only open half a day for 5 days offering limited services and housed in the local Petrol Station No shop but a small selection of groceries and small off licence can be bought from the local Petrol Station

This does not compare with other large villages, ie which has:

2 Hotels 3 Public Houses Post office which is open 5.5 days a week all day for 5 days half a day for Saturday and offers Mail: - Drop & Go - Parcelforce Express Services Driving: - Vehicle Tax Travel: - Foreign Currency - Euros only - Travel Money Card Plus - National Express - Tickets Finances: - Current Account - Servicing - Savings application forms - Lotto prize payments - Lotto ticket sales

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 32 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00916 Alan & Kathleen Aston Clinton Stores opening 7 days a week from 7pm until late Jackson Aston Clinton Coffee Shop Bridal Stores Aston Clinton Vets Transport Treasures Home Furniture and Interiors

and numerous other opportunities for employment nearby

Other villages marked as large also encompass several public houses, shops and employment opportunities, namely Long Crendon, , Wing, etc.

It is only fair, therefore, that Whitchurch be classed as a small/medium village as is , which has 1 public house, school, local shop run voluntarily and small amount of employment opportunities, which is comparable with Whitchurch.

I would therefore request that further investigation is undertaken with regard to the classification of Whitchurch as a large village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 33 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00927 James Yeoman (Savills Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The selected Spatial Option taken forward by the VALP must take into on behalf of Lands account the deliverability of sites for development and the lead-in time associated with strategic site delivery. A balance needs to be Improvement Holdings achieved between shorter term site release at existing settlements where delivery is less constrained (for example the northern (LIH)) parcel of the Airfield site), versus the potential long term delivery of large scale strategic sites where infrastructure requirements may dictate delivery later in the plan period. The northern parcel of the Airfield site is a deliverable housing site that provides a unique opportunity to provide new homes and supporting facilities in a highly suitable location. LIH are confident it can be delivered in the short-term and as such it provides an excellent opportunity to the Council to assist with meeting the serious existing housing shortfall. LIH and its consultant team have undertaken some initial high-level design work, alongside various technical assessment work. The enclosed Concept Masterplan illustrates the potential of the site to deliver a residential-led mixed use development. LIH would like to discuss the development options with the Council and local community but at present this broadly comprises of the following: in the region of 700 new homes, of a variety of types and tenures, including affordable housing provision; scope for an extension to the existing Haddenham Business Park; scope for a new primary school and additional community facilities, linking to those already provided in the southern parcel consented scheme; and scope to expand the extensive formal and informal recreation facilities, again linking to those already provided in the southern parcel consented scheme; LIH is keen to work with the Council to ensure any development proposals on the Airfield site respect local landscape character and are sensitively designed to reinforce the distinctive local character of Haddenham. We trust the above comments clearly communicates LIH’s position at this stage. LIH look forward to engaging with AVDC through the continued preparation of the VALP. LIH formally responded to the Draft HELAA (October 2015) at the VALP I&OCD consultation period. Subsequent detailed representations were submitted to AVDC’s Planning Department, outside of the formal consultation period, in March 2016. The purpose of this submission was to assist the Council in respect of the HELAA Version 3 document preparation. These representations provided a Masterplan Concept Document and Landscape Representations concerning the Airfield Site. The HELAA Version 3 (May 2016) assesses the Airfield under Site Reference HAD005 – Land North of Pegasus Way, Haddenham Airfield. As per the HELAA Version 2 (October 2015), the document reports a site area of 68 hectares. Only the southern parcel of the site (26 hectares) is assessed by AVDC (October 2015) as being suitable for residential, retail and employment development. The Council’s assessment reports:

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 34 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00927 James Yeoman (Savills a) Site is part suitable – 26 ha of the site is allocated in the neighbourhood plan for mixed use development including 300 dwelling on behalf of Lands and 4.85ha of employment land. The site has planning permission for 233 dwellings, 6,456 sqm B1 uses, 4,366sqm B2 uses, Improvement Holdings 9,661sqm B8 uses, 418sqm D uses and 501sqm A1 uses; (LIH)) b) the northern part of the site is unsuitable due to landscape impacts; c) development should protect the openness and views into the village from the north and reflect ecological interests. The Council’s assessment of the northern part of the Airfield is unchanged between Version 2 and 3 of the HELAA, albeit a reduced capacity from 300 to 233 residential units is reported to reflect the consented scheme. Both the Neighbourhood Plan and 14/03289/AOP confirm the sustainable credentials of the site and the suitability of the southern parcel of the Airfield for development. These conclusions are supported by the HELAA and in turn by LIH. The same sustainable credentials (i.e. employment provision, facility provision and transport service) are applicable to the northern parcel of the Airfield site, owing to its location immediately adjacent to consented scheme 14/03289/AOP, and the ability to provide further facilities as part of any development proposal. Owing to its own extensive landscape and visual assessment work associated with the Airfield site, LIH strongly objects to the Council’s conclusions at bullet (b) and (c) above for the following reasons: 1. There is limited landscape evidence (either relative to the emerging VALP or within the withdrawn documents) to substantiate these bullets; 2. There are no landscape designations which cover the Site; 3. Whilst the Brill-Winchendon Hills AAL lies to the north of the airfield (the southern boundary of which follows the A418), the emerging policy does not look to resist the principle of development, but for development to have ‘regard to distinctive features and key characteristics’. Furthermore, the emerging planning policy does not seek to protect the setting of the AAL; 4. The ‘ridgeline’ present within the Site is not perceived in elevated views from the north. The ridge is perceived as following the A418 as a skyline element views from within the Thame valley to the north. The skyline is formed of a varied combination of treebelts, hedgerows and woodland blocks. This pattern can be continued through the introduction and careful design and management of new planting along the northern edge of the Site to continue this varied treatment; 5. The existing edges of Haddenham are visible in views from the southern edge and elevated views within the AAL to the north (as set out in the Landscape Representations, March 2016, enclosed, and demonstrated in the LVIA submitted with the consented scheme Ref.14/03289/AOP). This includes the large sheds associated with the Business Park, the existing residential edge to the south-east of Site and also the recently completed residential areas of Chilworth Gate; 6. The consented scheme, in the short term, will come forward in the long distance views from the north, but will not extend the visual envelope associated with the current or future northern edges of Haddenham. The consented scheme includes a 10m wide landscape buffer along the northern boundary;

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 35 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00927 James Yeoman (Savills 7. The New Settlement Scoping Study (June 2016) sets out that constraints and environmental impact can be addressed, in part, on behalf of Lands through careful masterplanning and appropriate mitigation (para 2.30). Similarly, these techniques can be applied to further Improvement Holdings development at the Airfield Site; (LIH)) 8. the Airfield Site is suitable for development through the evolution of a sensitively designed, high quality scheme that reflects the key characteristics of Haddenham. The development of the Site could be set back from the northern edge of the site for the combined retention of the existing vegetation and the inclusion of further mitigation measures, such as additional native structure planting (consistent with the advice received on the consented scheme) to: minimise the impact of development in views from the north and in particular those views from the valley; continue the existing well treed edge character to the northern edge of Haddenham; and provide a robust and defensible green framework to this side of the village (in accordance with the spatial vision of the VALP) to provide a landscape buffer to the AAL; and therefore overall, considering the above in place, would result in no greater impact than the development of the current consented area.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 36 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00928 Tim Northey (Rectory New Settlement Study - The objective of the New Settlement Study is to consider the feasibility of delivering a new settlement Homes Limited) within the district as a important housing delivery option for the plan period. In the context of this study, a new settlement is considered both a freestanding community or an enlargement of an existing community by over 50%. The study identifies a number of potential candidate location options across the district and consideration was given to amongst other things, whether they would be of an appropriate scale, largely free of significant environmental and policy constraints, served by high quality public transport services and able to make a substantial contribution towards housing delivery over the plan period. The study concludes that the two strongest performers in terms of location are Haddenham and Winslow and that further work is required to assess in further detail these options. The identification of Haddenham as the preferred option is fully supported with the study as it relates more strongly to the higher-value markets, is well related to the unmet housing needs in districts to the south and has established rail and road connections to major employment markets which may itself help aid its ability to develop a stronger employment offer itself. Three separate growth options at the village were identified in the study which included; grow Haddenham / northern eastern expansion; a new garden village; and western expansion. However, it is considered that a combined approach is required to support both development needs in the short to medium term, together with a separate longer term strategy. The short to medium term housing needs would be delivered through the expansion of Haddenham which already has the infrastructure in place to enable housing delivery in this timeframe. In particular, option 1 involving growth to the north and east is considered the most suitable option as it has the least environmental and policy constraints, and would also have a lesser landscape impact as the topography of the land is more able to mitigate the impact of development. The longer term option would be the provision of a new garden village to the south east of Haddenham (aligning the A4129 and close to the railway to allow development of a new dedicated rail station), but at this stage the plan should not be overly reliant upon this option until it has been proven as capable of delivery through confirmation of willing landowners and developers and due to the fact that it is highly unlikely to deliver anywhere near the anticipated 4,500 dwellings required over the plan period as housing delivery would be many years away with the majority of housing likely to come forwards in a future plan period. In promoting this option in the plan, the Council should be seeking to engage with relevant landowners at this stage as it will be fundamental in demonstrating that the housing requirement will be met and thus, the plan will be found to be sound.

VALP16-09-05-00932 Gerald Eames Sustainability Appraisal - This site is unsuitable for housing due to traffic issues on an already overloaded ring road and the Road is also unsuitable for increased traffic movements. The direct route into the town centre via Gawcott Hill is unsuitable for the existing traffic use and more housing in this area will exacerbate the problem. Pedestrian access to the town centre entails crossing the ring road and the existing planting on the Gawcott Road roundabout makes visibility difficult. VALP16-09-05-00951 Charles Robinson (DLP Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The proposed housing sites for Grendon Underwood are considered to be Planning Limited) inappropriate for the following grounds : (i) The sites are small and will fail to deliver the affordable housing required to meet identified local needs; (ii) additional sites are required; and (iii) The identified sites will affect the setting and morphology of the historic part of Grendon Underwood. There is a large site adjoining the Springhill Estate in Grendon Underwood, currently the subject of an outline planning application, that would address these points and which should be identified as a potential allocation.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 37 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00955 Jonathan Clover Aylesbury Transport Strategy - As I understand this the first 3 stages have been completed and there are 3 further stages to go. A number of issues have been raised. It seems at this stage that no ideas have been decided on to encourage effectively more public transport use and walking/cycling options. Is there scope for public education, and the use of forums or parish councils to do work on this as part of the Neighbourhood Plan review or as a separate exercise following this up.. Are the stakeholders referred to simply council officers/councillors or is there public participation on the stakeholder groups. Given that no final strategy exists I reserve comments although I think there should be a public consultation exercise to develop a strategy as soon as possible. I have made comments on the need to improve public transport use in the main document.

VALP16-09-05-00959 Penny Pataky Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - HELAA suitable/part suitable sites under counted ( Parish The table on page 79 shows Edlesborough as having potential for 96 houses and Appendix A identifies the relevant sites as EDL002 Council) (10 dwellings), EDL020 (6 dwellings) and EDL021 (80 dwellings). What appears to have been overlooked is that only part of site EDL003 has been committed under application 14/01261/APP and the remaining one third of the site still has potential for the remaining 15 houses of the 45 originally identified by the HELAA. The correct HELAA figure for Edlesborough in the table on page 79 should therefore be 111. VALP16-09-05-00967 James Robinson Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Do not agree with the HELAA. The discussion of the HELAA does not refer to the involvement of neighbourhood plans despite in the identification and prioritisation of potential development sites. Unless this occurs and the local communities are involved, at every stage, in site identification, the process will be driven by owners and predatory developers and will not command public assent. VALP16-09-05-00971 James Cadwallader New Settlement Study - I would like to comment on the possible new ‘Garden Village’ to the southeast of Haddenham. 1. Any proposal for such significant development must be seen in the context of the proposed development of Princes Risborough and Longwick. These latter developments will on their own cause traffic problems on the A4129, B4009 and A4010 as people must travel to work, much of which is by car. Several thousand new households southeast of Haddenham will use these same roads to get to south Bucks, the M40 eastwards and Greater London. 2. As someone who walks the footpaths between Longwick and Haddenham, I know that the land is boggy under foot outside the summer months. It is a flood plain. Building on such land is likely to cause flooding problems elsewhere. 3. One of the joys of the local AONB is to look out from vantage points on the Chilterns ridge across the Vale of Aylesbury. This visual amenity would be lost for ever, negating the AONB protection. 4. It is suggested in the document that the hamlets of Aston Sandford, Owlswick, Ford etc would be protected by a buffer. With a settlement of 7000 houses (nearly twice the size of Thame!) southeast of Haddenham, protection of the character of the local hamlets will be impossible.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 38 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00972 Samuel Dix (Smith Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Our client welcomes the Housing and Economic Land Availability Jenkins) Assessment although it should be updated to include details of additional sites that have come forward. This will assist the Council in demonstrating that it has considered all ‘reasonable alternatives’. Enclosed is a map of our client’s land (outlined in red), which is 3Ha and therefore able to accommodate around 90 dwellings. It is solely owned by our client and is available immediately for development or alternatively later in the plan period. It is not under option to any developer at this time. The site is presently used for an existing dwelling and outbuildings, along with stables and paddock land with two existing accesses from Lower Road. It is therefore partly previously developed land, which in combination with its sustainable location makes it suitable for development. There are no other physical or legal constraints to development so we trust that the HELAA may be updated in due course to confirm that the site is available and potentially suitable, either on its own or in combination with other strategic sites around Stoke Mandeville. VALP16-09-05-00991 Ron Busby Settlement Hierarchy - See Attached VALP16-09-05-00994 Sue Busby Settlement Hierarchy - See attached letter VALP16-09-05-01012 Alysoun Glasspool New Settlement Study - Whilst I appreciate the council has legal obligations to deliver VALP within certain time constraints, to have a consultation period over the summer holidays on such a contentious and substantive topic is poor timing. Residents have had relatively very little time to discuss a range of developments that will substantially alter people's lives, their village, and the immediate countryside in which they live.

There is strong local feeling that AVDC is using the government's obligations on it to consult with other local authorities as crude means of pushing through unwelcome and insensitive developments that have hitherto been successfully opposed.

The weblink here: https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.780247,-0.923872,-151.54h,-9.48p,1z shows the view of the conservation area and its protecting Wychert wall. What a pity if all this is lost. VALP16-09-05-01014 Gavin Gallagher (Barton Settlement Hierarchy - Please refer to attached letter Willmore) VALP16-09-05-01016 Gordon Pell Settlement Hierarchy - The Settlement Hierarchy document is substantially flawed. Basing the selection of village size on a limited number criteria places a number of small settlements into the large category. As examples both Ivinghoe and Whitchurch are approximately half the size of some of the more developed locations. Indeed in Aylesbury Vale's own Village Fact Pack for Whitchurch the village is "relatively small" (AVDC Village Fact Pack - Whitchurch p.19) which counters the decision to nominate Whitchurch as 'large'. In comparison to neighbouring large and medium settlements villages such as Brill (population, number of homes, 3 pubs, numerous employment opportunities, Post Office and shops) is substantially larger in almost any measure than Whitchurch, and yet is classified as 'medium'. It is obvious that Whitchurch with its population of less than 1000 should not be in the same category as settlements such as Wing, Aston Clinton and Waddesdon. Indeed certain medium villages are significantly larger (double the size) of Whitchurch and are thus more capable of integrating growth than the "relatively small" Whitchurch (and Ivinghoe). VALP16-09-05-01032 Helen Cleaveley New Settlement Study - Please see previous comments regarding unsuitability of Winslow. VALP16-09-05-01045 Richard Boother (RPS Sustainability Appraisal - see accompanying statement Planning and Development)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 39 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01109 John Hamilton (Nash Sustainability Appraisal - Sustainability Appraisal of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Reasonable Alternatives: Sites Reasonable Parish) Alternatives SA Report July 2016’ The above lists Site NSH003. However as the report states at paragraph 3.22.6 ‘There are no train stations within 1km of Nash. No frequent bus services stop in the village, therefore access to public transport is limited. As residents of Nash are likely to rely on travel by car, development at NSH003 may lead to an increase in traffic and associated greenhouse gas Emissions.’ It then goes on to state at paragraph 3.22.7 that ‘There is not a leisure centre within 2km of Nash, but the village has a playing field and a children’s play area. There are no GP surgeries in Nash and no hospitals within 8km of the village. As such, access to healthcare is considered poor from NSH003 (SA Objective 11).’ The development of this site would presumably give rise to approximately 15 new dwellings which would be a considerable increase to the housing stock of Nash both in numbers and percentage. The Report does not mention drainage from the site and whether the drainage infrastructure in the High Street (onto which any development would drain) would be able to cope with the increased demand. Nor does the Report consider the suitability, or otherwise, of access to the site. Without detailed consideration of both of these it would be premature to consider the site is ‘sustainable’. VALP16-09-07-01121 Ken and Viv Birkby Settlement Hierarchy - Cuddington does not satisfactorily meet 4 of the 5 criteria for a medium village in the settlement hierarchy: - •Size – Population is 569. It would be the smallest of the medium villages and less than half the average of 1152 (in a range of 680- 2115) for the proposed medium villages. •Connectivity – Whilst only being 1.5 miles from Haddenham, there is no public transport to Haddenham, no footway and the necessity to cross the dangerous A 418 at an accident black spot. The public transport to Aylesbury is infrequent. This is not being ‘well connected’. •Employment – None. Insufficient weight has been given to the lack of employment – most of the settlements in the medium village group have some employment. This is an important issue. •Facilities – Key services are - Food store, Pub, Post Office, General Practice, Village Hall, Recreation, Primary School Non - Key Services are - Pharmacy, Library, Places of worship, Secondary schools

Cuddington is assessed to score 6 of the 7 on the list of key services. (no GP) However, the system gives one point irrespective of how many shops/ pubs etc there are in the village. Various of the medium villages have greater numbers of each of these services but still the same score applies.

The Cuddington school site is not a full Primary School, in that Cuddington and Dinton School is located on two sites, the junior school being in Dinton, with infants in Cuddington. The school is also heavily over- subscribed. It serves not only Cuddington but also Dinton, Chearsley and Lower Winchendon and these primary pupils are bused-in or driven to school.

•Qualitative assessment – recommends, throughout, small village status. The description of being ‘well connected to a service centre’ is incorrect.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 40 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01124 James Yeoman (Savills Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) on behalf of Mr N and Thornbrook House - SMD015 Mrs V Bartman - land Our client’s land interest, SMD015, was assessed as part of the HELAA Report V3 (May 2016). The 6.7 hectare site was assessed owners at Thornbrook to be unsuitable for economic or residential development. The HELAA states: House) Unsuitable - The development would not be substantially enclosed by existing development. Further, it is also considered it would fail to satisfactorily complete the settlement pattern and would bring the built environment closer to the open countryside in an intrusive manner. Finally, it is considered the development proposed would disrupt the uniform pattern of ribbon development along Risborough Road and introduce a backland form of development which is at odds with this established pattern.

The following response is made to the key points of AVDC’s HELAA assessment, as follows: 1. The development would not be substantially enclosed by existing development… The site abuts residential development to the north-east (at Chapel Lane), east (at Risborough Road), and south (at Old Risborough Road). This represents substantial enclosure by existing and proposed development, noting recent decisions of 15/02821/A17 and 16/00861/A17 at land adjacent to Whitethorn Farm, which lies to the south of the site. It is also relevant that the site does not extend further west than existing overall built form of the settlement and is contained by the stream and strong, established, tree line to the south west. 2. ...It is also considered it would fail to satisfactorily complete the settlement pattern… This reason is unclear and ambiguous given that it has not been made clear what settlement pattern it is that the development should be trying to complete. This reason is inconsistent with AVDC’s Officers own pre-application response (dated 28 June.2016; AVDC Reference 16/01679/PREAPP) which states that: “development would relate quite well to the existing structure of the village, appearing as an extension to the existing pattern of development. The site is partially enclosed by built development to the north and east and the south-western boundary features a strong, established tree line.” 3. ...Would bring the built environment closer to the open countryside in an intrusive manner… This reason is also inconsistent with the aforementioned pre-application consultation response which states that: “The site appears visually well contained, and subject to evidence and details to be submitted, could appear as an extension to the existing pattern of the development that could be absorbed into the wider landscape without significant harm.” The response also makes the point that “although the site is bounded by open countryside to west and south, it is evident that the landscape quality of the countryside in this area would be devalued in any event by the dominating impact of HS2, assuming that project goes ahead.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 41 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01124 James Yeoman (Savills It is noted that the HELAA fails to identify the route of HS2 to the west of Stoke Mandeville. The enclosed HS2 Plan (see page 7) on behalf of Mr N and demonstrates the proposed route alignment which clearly separates SMD015 from the wider countryside to the west. This principle is Mrs V Bartman - land noted from pre-application dialogue and should be afforded consideration through an updated HELAA assessment. Likewise owners at Thornbrook highway infrastructure amendments proposed at Stoke Mandeville, which includes the closing off of the A4010 should be afforded House) consideration through the HELAA assessment process. 4. … it is considered the development proposed would disrupt the uniform pattern of ribbon development along Risborough Road… This reason is inconsistent with other findings of the HELAA site assessment at Stoke Mandeville which serve to detract from the ribbon form of development along Risborough Road, but are considered to be suitable, or part suitable for housing development (e.g. SMD001 and SMD002). This reason is also inconsistent with the pre-application consultation response as noted with regard to point 2 above: “... the development would relate quite well to the existing structure of the village, appearing as an extension to the existing pattern of development.” 5. …Introduce a backland form of development which is at odds with this established pattern. A ‘backland form’ of development is already established to the west of Risborough Road both at Chestnut Way, Yew Tree Close, and Chapel Lane (to the north) and at land at Old Risborough Road to the south. As such, this is not a new form of development in the context of the locality and this assessment conflicts with conclusions associated with SMD001 and SMD002. Conclusions The Owners support the identification of Aylesbury as the focus for the majority of growth in the District, and the apportionment of growth to the Larger Villages also. The identification of Stoke Mandeville as a Larger Village is also supported based on the results of the Council’s Draft Settlement Hierarchy Assessment. However, there is a considerable shortfall in AVDC demonstrating its ability to meet the quantum of housing growth reported as required by the Draft VALP. Indeed the Council recognises that the housing target for the District could yet increase. The Council proposes a ‘cap’ in respect of delivering growth at settlements and in some cases a ‘zero-delivery’ mechanism (e.g. at Stoke Mandeville) regardless of this overall shortfall in meeting housing growth requirements.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 42 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01124 James Yeoman (Savills The effective ‘capping’ of Stoke Mandeville’s growth requirement to 217 dwellings undermines the Council’s housing strategy. Stoke on behalf of Mr N and Mandeville is one of the most sustainable settlements in the ‘Larger Villages’ category and has by far the highest capacity for Mrs V Bartman - land delivering housing development within this ‘tier’, as acknowledged by the Council’s HELAA document. The Council’s failure to owners at Thornbrook translate this potential delivery source to actual housing risks the VALP being found un-sound through the Examination process. House) Our clients consider that a proportionate amount of growth should be delivered at Stoke Mandeville. In addition our clients contest AVDC’s assessment of SMD015 via the HELAA process. The appraisal undertaken is inconsistent with the assessment of other sites in Stoke Mandeville (e.g. backland development) and contradicts the pre-application advice provided by AVDC in respect of this particular site. SMD015 represents a logical extension to Stoke Mandeville which would contribute to the delivery of much needed housing delivery in the District. As such, the Council should revise the assessment of the SMD015 to reflect the suitability of the site for development within 5 years. Based on capacity testing exercises to date, the site could deliver up to circa 120 dwellings. For this reason, our client confirms the availability and deliverability of its land interest for development.

VALP16-09-07-01143 Giles Monks Settlement Hierarchy - Marsworth should remain designated as a small village as: •Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% is disproportionate and does not reflect the current size of the village. •Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are infact extremely limited amenities within the village. •Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. •There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts making public travel to employment or further education extremely difficult. •Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost two pubs and the garage. •Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages’ proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work – not proper long- term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 43 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01154 Laura Dudley-Smith Sustainability Appraisal - 5.0 Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal (SEA/SA) (Strutt and Parker (on 5.1 The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (2004) (the SEA Regulations) impose a number of behalf of Mr Talbot requirements on Local Authorities in the preparation of Local Plans. It is critical that these are complied with in order for the Local WGR009)) Plan to be legally compliant. 5.2 The SEA Regulations include the requirement that all reasonable alternatives be considered and assessed to the same level of detail as the preferred approach; and that the reasons for the selection of preferred alternative, and the rejection of others, be set out. 5.3 We draw the Council’s attention to the judgment in respect of Heard v Broadland District Council, South Norfolk District Council, Norwich City Council [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin), which confirms the above. 5.4 We note the publication of ‘Sustainability Appraisal of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Reasonable Alternatives: Sites. Reasonable Alternatives SA Report’ (July 2016). This reports appears to seek to explain the reasons for the rejection and selection of alternatives within the AVDLP. 5.5 However, we note that our client’s site (WGR009) has not been assessed at all with this report, let alone to the same level of detail that other, preferred sites have been. 5.6 WGR009 is identified on a map within Appendix B of the Reasonable Alternatives SA Report as being “Unsuitable for housing or economic development”. However, there is no explanation within the report as to how this conclusion has been reached. It is particularly difficult for the reader to infer what the reason(s) for its rejection may be, given that this option not been assessed within the Report.

5.7 In addition to concerns in relation to how the specific sites such as WGR009 have been considered, it is unclear how options in relation to the strategic approach to housing distribution have been assessed and how a preferred approach has been identified. For example, it is unclear how the Council has come to the conclusion that the provision of a new settlement is a preferable to potential alternatives, such as directing a greater level of growth to larger villages. Again, we remind the Council of the need to comply with SEA Regulations in respect of the consideration of reasonable alternatives and urge the Council to reconsider its current approach in this respect.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 44 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great New Settlement Study - Great Horwood Parish Council provided comments to this study in the appendices of their attachment. Horwood Parish Council) Their comments were on the relative suitability of sites at Winslow and Haddenham for a new settlement (Appendix B) and on the traffic effect in Great Horwood of a possible new settlement north of Winslow (Appendix C). The conclusions are provided below: Suitability of Sites 3.3.1 Given the choice of two locations, Haddenham and Winslow, for a new settlement of 4,500 dwellings in the VALP plan period with an expected expansion to 6,000 dwellings, Great Horwood Parish Council believe firmly that the evidence in favour of Haddenham is overwhelming. The site at Winslow is too far from the source of the additional housing need, and is in a different functional housing market area and a different travel-to-work area from the source of that need, so that national policy argues against the choice of Winslow. The Sustainability Appraisal prepared for the draft VALP, using a methodology considering effects rather than need, found little difference between the two sites with a marginal benefit for one of the Haddenham options. The proposed site at Winslow is in fact too small for the development requirement, and there are further specific disadvantages concerning flood risk, highways, and visual impact. While some further development to the north of Winslow will be expected over time, both as part of the town's natural expansion and as part of the Government's policy for development of the “Brain Belt” between Didcot and , this specific proposal cannot be regarded as feasible. Traffic Effect 3.1 The promoters of the 2008 application were clear that, if their application were to succeed, then a new link road would be needed to take traffic from Winslow Green to the A421. 3.2 The current options for a new settlement north of Winslow are significantly larger than the 2008 proposal. The authors of the Study note that a new link road would be beneficial, but shy away from recommending it. For the reasons given above, Great Horwood Parish Council believes that the Study has seriously underestimated the problems that would arise without such a link road. Without prejudice to the Parish Council's general view on the appropriateness of a new settlement north of Winslow, it believes that any such development without a link road would be unacceptable.

VALP16-09-07-01164 Peter Dean Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for requesting a re-classification to a small village are as follows: 1. Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741) and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. To be categorised with population of 2000, nearly treble the size is unjust. 2. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE school is awarded 1 point and yet even the strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. 4. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. 5. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 45 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01172 Simon Proctor (Proctor Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - SHM006 - The land is not part of the conservation area, nor is it within the Surveyors (Stoke curtilage of a listed building being physically and visually discrete from the Old Rectory. The closest building is a modern residential Hammond)) dwelling of brick and rendered elevations under a tile roof. The garage of this property abuts the land. By its very use and nature such a building would be incongruous to the historic developed nature of the immediate village. There is a range of older and more modern development in the immediate area. The land is removed from the sphere of influence of both The Old Rectory and the church, which cannot be seen from the land. Appropriate development of this land would help to mitigate past less appropriate development within the area and be more in keeping with the vernacular of this part of the village. The land abuts the west of the village and is not within the Brickhills Area of Attractive Landscape that is located to the east of the village. A clearly defined western boundary exists in the form of the West Coast railway line, running in a cutting thereby reducing visual and noise impacts. Views into and out of the site are generally contained by existing trees and there are no ready visual or physical linkages to open countryside. No public rights of way offer views into the site. Development of the land would be consistent with recent settlement patterns in the village. The character of the wider settlement is unlikely to be affected as there is limited inter-visibility with the rest of the village. There would be no elevations facing onto key roads, pedestrian routes or major residential streets.

SMH001 - The eastern part (45 dwellings) is now under construction by Bellway with a number of dwellings completed, sold and occupied. Once that development is completed the rest of the site will abut and be fully integrated into the existing settlement. The remaining part of Brook Farm would be a logical extension of that development and the village with a clearly defined western boundary in the form of the West Coast railway line. Further development would be consistent with the settlement pattern and not impact upon the Brickhills Area of Attractive Landscape that is located to the east of the village. Infrastructure required for the ongoing development has been designed with additional capacity to serve the remainder of Brook Farm. In light of the above it is contended that site SMH001 is in fact entirely suitable for residential development.

VALP16-09-07-01185 Matthew Carter Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The Site assessment summary and plans for Marsworth (page 226) looks at 5 sites in the village and I disagree with the reasoning why site Mar006 is rejected. Mar006 is no more "outside the built up area of the settlement" than Mar005 which received planning permission for 13 houses. I am aware a planning application has been submitted for 6 houses and I suspect an appeal will follow should it be refused. A permission has recently been granted for a conversion of the former public house building on this site to 2 residential units which should be taken into account in the new housing numbers. VALP16-09-07-01185 Matthew Carter Sustainability Appraisal - The Sustainability Appraisal July 2016. Page 66 Transport para 3.21.6. The No 61 Bus no longer runs through Marsworth and is NOT a service available to the residents of the village. We have no regular bus service and certainly not hourly.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 46 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01185 Matthew Carter Settlement Hierarchy - "Para 1.5 Changes to the settlement hierarchy have been made following the comments made during the Issues and Options Consultation held in 2015. These are identified and explained in Appendix C." Appendix C refers to Mars worth previously being identified as a "larger village" and now reallocated a "medium village". This is incorrect. The 2015 Issues and Options Consultation Document states that Marsworth was previously a "smaller village".(see reference at end of the Appendix" Note: the symbol /\ denotes a change from a smaller to a larger village"). The criteria adopted for assessing a village as of "medium size" refers to 11 factors and to register the village must meet at least 6 of the those factors: the table in para 5.16 states Marsworth meets 6. This is incorrect and Marsworth only passes on the following 5 tests: Within 4 miles of a service centre Pub Village hall Recreational facilities Primary school Marsworth fails on the 20 units of employment factor within 2km of the village. The nearest employment of any significance is at Pitstone Green Business Park which is outside the 2km distance. The only employment within the zone are the local pubs, the seasonal reservoir cafe, the primary school and the farm shop at Wilstone. AVDC must be aware that the egg factory at Gubblecote and the garage, the White Lion public house and the former British Waterways depot in the village have now all closed down. The only other village which only scored 5 points but is awarded medium size village status is , justified because of its size. This cannot be the case with Marsworth which is the 3r smallest of the 19 villages in the group. For this reason Marsworth should not be within the medium size village category and instead be within the small village definition.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 47 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01201 Ruth Monks Settlement Hierarchy - Marsworth should remain designated as a small village as: •Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% is disproportionate and does not reflect the current size of the village. •Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are infact extremely limited amenities within the village. •Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. •There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts making public travel to employment or further education extremely difficult. •Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost two pubs and the garage. •Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages’ proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work – not proper long- term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

VALP16-09-08-01206 Celia Levett Settlement Hierarchy - First we have a population of 569, less than half the average of 1152 for the proposed medium villages. We are also the only village of similar size to be so designated. This new designation requires us to provide 50 new house , as opposed to the manageable 20 in the original plan which would result in an un sustainable in release to our existing population of in the region of 35 per cent. Second whilst Cuddington is only I .5 miles from Haddenham, there is no public transport between the two villages. No footway is provided for pedestrians, who would also have to cross the highly dangerous A418 at an accident black spot. Public transport to Aylesbury is infrequent. This hardly qualifies Cuddington as being 'well connected'. Third, Cuddington offers no employment. Most of the villages included in the medium category offer some. Fourth, although Cuddington scores 6 out of 7 in facilities defined as 'key services', the system awards one point irrespective of how many facilities of each type there are in the village. For example we have one shop which gives us a score one point; a medium village, such a Brill, has several and yet is also given a score of one point for the same category. This is manifestly imbalanced. Also the facilities are w eighted evenly on the plan when for example a population with a high proportion of older people' could be more likelyto consider a GP's surgery more important than a school. (It is worth pointing out that the surgery in Haddenham already struggles to cope with existing demand.) Cuddington primary school - which caters for infants only with the juniors schooled in Dinton and which serves not only the village but also Dinton, Chearsley and Lower Winchendon - is oversubscribed already.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 48 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01224 Chris Rattue Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. ·All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long- term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 49 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01226 Mike Mullally Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village. VALP16-09-08-01235 Duncan Hartley (Rural Settlement Hierarchy - Aston Clinton and settlement hierarchy Solutions (on behalf of Objection Nick Moore, Brian and Harrison, Malcolm The hierarchy consultation report rightly assigns Aston Clinton as a ‘Larger Village’ (page 17 of the hierarchy assessment, para Cotton, Pauline and 5.14). Jane Allum)) Aston Clinton is the second largest of the ‘Larger Villages’ in the District after Pitstone. Aston Clinton is clearly a sustainable place to locate new housing development.

Aston Clinton is the best geographically placed of the Larger Villages to a main urban centre (Aylesbury) and its associated services and facilities.

Aston Clinton is therefore the most logical location of the ‘Larger Villages’ for concentrating new development to meet the needs of the District and should therefore receive a greater % of the allocation for ‘Larger Villages’.

Aston Clinton contains a range of identified suitable sites (including Site reference AST005 – see representations below) which will assist in meeting the current identified draft Local Plan shortfall in meeting the required 5 year housing land supply.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 50 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01286 Oliver Bell (Nexus Sustainability Appraisal - As part of the consultation on the VALP, the Council is also asking for comments on any new evidence Planning Ltd (on behalf documents that have been published. This includes the Sustainability Appraisal (“SA”). of Westonmead Farm Section 3.7 provides an assessment of all the Sites within Weston Turville and we welcome inclusion of site WTV017 in this section. Ltd)) Paragraph 3.7.1 of the SA states that development at WTV017 may affect the setting of a statutory listed building. As mentioned in more detail later in these representations, and having regard to the current planning application on the adjacent site (land to the north of Aston Clinton Road), mitigation measures can be identified which once implemented would reduce any impact to a negligible level upon the setting of the listed building. For this reason, WTV017 should score a neutral impact in this regard, rather than a single negative. Paragraph 3.7.7 of the SA states that WTV017 contains hedgerows with trees, which are likely to have good biodiversity value. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. Technical work undertaken by ACD and discussed in more detail later in these representations outline that mitigation measures can be used to enhance the biodiversity of the area. While development on site may result in the loss of some hedgerows, important hedgerows will be retained and overall, there is the opportunity to enhance the area and therefore accord with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. As such, the site should score more favourably in this regard. Paragraph 3.7.9 of the SA outlines that WTV017 lies partially within flood zone 2 and 3. Paragraph 100 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. The masterplan identifies that at least 230 dwellings could be accommodated outside of flood zone 2 and 3, therefore directing development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. Essential transport infrastructure can however be located within such areas, in accordance with the NPPG. Paragraph 3.7.14 identifies that WTV017 is located within 400m of a bus stop that provides frequent service, this point is wholly supported.

VALP16-09-08-01301 Aston Clinton Sarl Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - 2.10 The Council’s HELAA is amended to identify that site WTV016 will (Nexus Planning Ltd) deliver 400 dwellings and 5,000sqm of employment floorspace instead of 150 dwellings and 30,030sqm of economic floorspace

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 51 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus New Settlement Study - 12.1 The New Settlement Scoping Study correctly identifies the Government’s support for new garden Group (on behalf of villages as part of the solution to boost housing supply. It draws attention to the paper on Garden Villages by Lord Taylor which Jeremy Elgin)) identified that the current model of delivery which relied upon development adjacent to existing communities was ‘politically toxic’; that the sustainable opportunities for such development have been largely exhausted; and that the land values associated with such development have increased exponentially such that the delivery of infrastructure was undermined. Lord Taylor concluded that new villages and towns provided a solution to better meet housing need. In so doing Lord Taylor explicitly discredited development adjacent to settlements, such as that proposed in all but one of the identified options for a new settlement and supported the delivery of a freestanding new settlement such as that at Waldridge Garden Village. 12.2 The New Settlement Scoping Study also notes that the recent Government Prospectus for garden villages defined to apply only to new freestanding settlements. Nevertheless, the Study does go on to consider alternatives including extensions to existing settlements which will be subject to the issues identified by Lord Taylor and should therefore not be preferred. 12.3 The Study identifies the potential benefits of extensions and new settlements in paragraph 2.31. Extensions can link to existing infrastructure networks and can be perceived as having fewer environmental impacts. However, new settlements provide for truly sustainable development by delivering a holistic package of land-uses and supporting infrastructure. Indeed, a new settlement can deliver the infrastructure in a more sustainable and accessible form than would be provided in an existing village, and would not burden the existing infrastructure. Similarly, in terms of environmental impact a new settlement can provide scope for environmental improvements which are unlikely to be available to extensions. In all regards, freestanding new settlements have the potential to provide for more sustainable growth. 12.4 The Study also identifies that the scale of a new settlement and its relation with existing facilities (in the case of an urban extension) affect the ability to provide infrastructure. The Waldridge Garden Village has the capacity for a greater number of homes and has the potential to provide for nursery and primary schools, middle schools, a secondary school, a health centre, pharmacies, local shops, pubs, post offices, community centres and local centres based on the thresholds in Table 2. 12.5 The Study identifies in the second bullet of paragraph 2.49 that urban extensions closer to existing settlements could result in competition which may compromise delivery rates. It also proposed that new settlements have a greater potential to achieve self- containment in paragraph 2.53. 12.6 Based on the methodology identified the Study identifies Haddenham and Winslow as representing strong candidates for major growth. It identifies a number of options at each of these settlements for further consideration including Waldridge Garden Village. This option (Option 2 at Haddenham) is the only one which accords with the Taylor Report and the Government’s Prospectus on Garden Villages.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 52 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01306 Layla Vidal-Martin Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The HELAA identified the site as not having a suitable access to the site (Nathaniel Lichfield & due to the current access width. The current access measures 6m at its narrowest point when measured from the edge of each Partners) fence between the dwellings, which are 8.6m from apart when measured from the edge of each dwelling to each dwelling. In order to facilitate two-way traffic movements to a site comprising up to 23 dwellings a shared carriageway width of 4.8m would normally be provided. A shared carriageway width of 6m is therefore appropriate in terms of serving a development of this scale. It would therefore be possible to provide an appropriate access and footpath, which overcomes the Council's objection in the HELAA. Furthermore, the adjoining properties which sit either side of the access are owned by the landowners. The boundaries and layouts of these properties could be amended as necessary to provide a wider access and footpath in the event that it was demonstrated that it would be necessary to make development acceptable. There should therefore be no objection to the allocation of the site in highway safety terms. The HELAA makes reference to the fact that the site relates to the historic area of Stewkley and the Conservation Area, but does not raise objection in this respect. The site abuts the Stewkley Conservation Area on its western boundary. The buildings here comprise the two pairs of modern semi-detached dwellings which bound the access; three large detached dwellings; and Stewkley Methodist Church. None of these buildings are Listed Buildings. The nearest Listed Building is 58 High Street South, on the opposite side of the road (source: www.magic.defra.gov.uk) It is considered that through sensitive design and appropriate boundary treatment the development of Chapel Field could come forward without a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the Listed Building 58 High Street South. It should also be noted that the site has been subject to an Agricultural Land Quality survey (alongside the nearby Road site), which confirmed that the site is Grade 3B Agricultural Land. A copy of this survey is enclosed with these representations.

VALP16-09-09-01310 Mr and Mrs Nurden Settlement Hierarchy - We understand the village meets the criteria for more houses by being a medium sized village, but it's current population is only 741. We consider Marsworth to be a small village. Our reasons being . No shops within walking distance, the nearest one is in Pitstone. A very, very poor bus service, A small first school, 4 to 7 year olds, limited numbers by its size. It is unreasonable to put this school in the same category as a full primary school. A recreation ground that takes 15 to 20 minutes to reach, down an over grown unsafe lane. A village hall with limited parking, and the need to park in Vicarage Rd when used for larger events. Limited employment opportunities within the actual village. I hope you will consider our comments.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 53 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus Sustainability Appraisal - A Sustainability Appraisal has been prepared in support of the draft Local Plan. This has assessed the Group (on behalf of existing baseline conditions for all potential allocations (including the new settlement) and considered the effect of residential Jeremy Elgin)) development on these conditions. However, it does not assess the opportunities provided by the options including the improvement of services and/or masterplanning to minimise any harm or provide for enhancements. The Sustainability Appraisal does not therefore accord with the NPPG (11-013) which identifies that the mitigation of adverse effects and the maximisation of beneficial effects needs to be considered. Furthermore, the Sustainability Appraisal contains a number of mistakes which need to be corrected. The Sustainability Appraisal as it relates to the options for a new settlement at Haddenham are considered in the following paragraphs, by way of example. Paragraphs 4.2.2 to 4.2.5 identify the heritage assets which relate to each of the options. It identifies that the Grade II* Listed Building of Waldridge Manor and the Grade II Listed Buildings of Pasture Farm and Barn are within the indicative area of Option 2 (Waldridge Garden Village). It also identifies that the scheduled monument of a Nucleated Medieval Settlement lies within this option and that the development of this option would be within the Aston Sandford Conservation Area. However, all of these actually lie outside of the circular area defined on the options map. Whilst this circular area is indicative only, the landholdings are sufficiently large and unconstrained that the built form of the new settlement will be designed to minimise and where possible avoid these heritage assets and their settings. Indeed, the conceptual masterplan included in the attached Position Statement indicates a built form which would entirely avoid the settings of Waldridge Manor, the scheduled monument, and the conservation area. Therefore, the assessment of the impacts on heritage impacts is both misinformed and does not take account of the ability of Option 2 to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. Indeed, Option 2 should score more favourably than Option 3 which will necessarily impact on the setting of the Haddenham Conservation Area given the fact that the potential development area is limited by Flood Risk Areas and there is no flexibility to design around constraints. Paragraphs 4.2.6 to 4.2.10 consider the baseline landscape for the options. It is identified that Option 3 is likely to have the highest visual impact from the existing settlement and that it also sets a precedent for growth towards Thame. In relation to Option 2 the Sustainability Appraisal identifies that this is disconnected from the settlement and so the impact would be greater, but also identifies that the impact on the setting of settlements is likely to be greater. These would appear to be at odds. In any case, the development of a new settlement at this location would be designed to incorporate buffers to the surrounding villages in order to avoid or minimise any impacts on their setting, as demonstrated through the conceptual masterplan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 54 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus Paragraphs 4.2.11 to 4.2.13 consider the biodiversity value of the options. A small woodland area is on the border of the Option 2 Group (on behalf of site as identified in paragraph 4.2.11. However, as set out previously, it is likely that any disruption to the biodiversity value of this Jeremy Elgin)) area could be minimised through appropriate masterplanning of the new settlement. Otherwise, it is recognised that Option 2 is not considered to have high biodiversity value. Paragraph 4.2.13 identifies that in Option 3 there is a potentially biodiverse patch of woodland which would appear to be broadly consistent with the biodiversity receptors in Option 2, and yet for some reason Option 3 is scored more favourably in terms of biodiversity. This is especially surprising when this option does not provide the same flexibility in terms of land area which may provide additional opportunities for biodiversity enhancement. A fair assessment should consider Option 2 to score at least as well as Option 3. Paragraph 4.2.14 considers flood risk and identifies that all options lie in Flood Zone 1 (low risk of flooding). However, it goes on to identify that Option 3 borders areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 and that Option 2 has an area at medium/high risk of surface water flooding. Development in either location may therefore have adverse effects on flooding, but for some reason Option 2 is scored as providing a neutral or negligible effect without justification. Furthermore, any development of this scale would incorporate SuDS and there may be opportunities to mitigate and potentially improve flood risk. Paragraph 4.2.15 identifies that all of the options consist of Grade 3a and 2 best and most versatile agricultural land. However, this is incorrect as the new settlement within Option 2 is actually Grade 4 and therefore not the best and most versatile agricultural land. This option should therefore score much more favourably than Option 3 which does consist of the best and most versatile land. However, for some unjustified reason both options score the same. Paragraphs 4.2.16 to 4.2.17 discusses the existing sustainable transport connections to the options. Whilst it is true that Option 3 is closer to Haddenham and Thame Parkway train station and that it is better served by bus services, this negates any consideration of the potential for improvements to sustainable transport provided by the options. Option 2 would incorporate a Green Transport Link facilitating sustainable travel between the site and Haddenham, with connections to the existing transport infrastructure. It could also provide improvements to the existing bus services through financial contributions which would not be provided by Option 2.

VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus Paragraphs 4.2.18 and 4.2.19 identify the health related facilities that currently exist. The only differentiation between the options is Group (on behalf of that Haddenham Medical Centre is not as close to Option 2. However, once more this entirely negates any consideration of any Jeremy Elgin)) healthcare facilities that would be expected to be provided as part of a new settlement. Indeed, the provision of additional healthcare facilities to complement existing provision within a new settlement would be a significant benefit and would ensure that healthcare was accessible to all new residents. Furthermore, the higher order healthcare facilities of Thame Community Hospital and Stoke Mandeville Hospital are both quicker to access from Option 2 than from Option 3 using either public transport or the private car. Therefore, Option 2 should score at least as favourably as Option 3 in regards to health, if not more so.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 55 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01335 Sandra Costello Settlement Hierarchy - Further to the proposal to reclassify Marsworth as a "medium sized village" and therefore to qualify it for a considerable amount of extra housing, I wish to express my objections. Regarding the reclassification, while the population of the village just edges it into the band for a medium-sized village, its facilities in no way support this move. On a points basis there is no justification: Our local school takes a mere 25-30 children aged 5-7, has no nursery facilities, and all the children must move on to schools elsewhere at the end of that time. Marsworth has an extremely limited bus service, and has lost its shop, post office and one of its pubs. There is no employment significance within the parish. VALP16-09-09-01402 Stephen Beal Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - Agree - if you monitor properly - Gypsys and travellers need proper consultation. VALP16-09-09-01413 Michelle Thompson Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - Already covered but integration should be very important with their interests considered. However - location is paramount to successful sites. VALP16-09-09-01416 Kathryn Hedges Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - Located in settlements close to infrastructure and facilities already existing i.e. outskirts of cities on HS2! VALP16-09-09-01417 David Wilson Aylesbury Transport Strategy - A woefully incomplete and flawed Transport Strategy

The council is inviting comments on the Aylesbury Transport Strategy. Yet the only information on the Aylesbury Transport strategy is a very top line overview with inadequate detail to make development decisions for future generations. The basic premise of the model effectively inflates the traffic situation in the “Do Minimum” scenario and thus underestimates the true impact of the council’s proposals. Yet, even given that the model that underestimates traffic flows AVDC’s plan will have a severe impact on the road system. AVDC’s own consultants conclude that “it is unlikely that the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues in its current form”. The model underestimates the traffic flows around Aylesbury by typically 5% in peak periods - a significant error. Such a crucial piece of work demands that an appropriate and accurate model should be used. The council, of course, is well aware of the importance of this work, given that it has recently experienced a significant adverse Secretary of State decision, which cited traffic as a major issue in Aylesbury Town. It is also clear that the planned development would significantly worsen congestion on the A41 Tring Road, the A413 Wendover Road and in particular the Gyratory system in Aylesbury. The model does not address the fact that there is very little long distance traffic to bypass Aylesbury. The Jacobs traffic report demonstrates this, as do the limited Road Side Interviews that have been produced. What little transport information that is published with the plan clearly shows that the thinking behind the orbital link road strategy around the south of Aylesbury is seriously flawed. The council should at the very least publish the information, which prompted AVDC and BCC to pursue an “Orbital Strategy”.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 56 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01429 Ian Jones Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - I am writing to register my objection to the new houses planned on Shlick005/006. Shlick006 will have 1 entrance in and out.Worminghall rd is already becoming a busy through traffic rd/racetrack, from a safety point of view it is becoming far too dangerous. Also we are all concerned about the infrastructure of the village, what used to be a nice village is turning into a small town. We have a school that is full and a shop which is very fragile, as we in the village all put money into it to keep it going. Also we are concerned about the amount of building traffic through the village, the roads around here are not the best, God knows what will happen when it has tons of building lorries/diggers etc running up and down it, the bus makes our house shake!!!

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 57 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01487 Carole Hawkins Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically; it has a population of 741 and has only gradually risen to this – it was 564 in 1861 and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village or its normal rate of development. It is also numerically smaller than some other villages which have been designated as small villages. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet has very limited amenities within the village. However despite only just being given the minimum points necessary to be a medium village, there has been no scaling down of the proposal for building. 41 people less or one point less would have meant Marsworth is a small village and only expected to grow by 5%. 41 people and 1 extra point will mean a 19% increase which is a huge difference and will have a huge impact on this very small village. Several of the points have been unfairly applied to Marsworth, for example, Marsworth First School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is wrong to award a full point for the school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village which has recently been subject to further cuts. It is unrealistic to apply a point for this very limited amenity. Anyone who lives in Marsworth must use a car to do any shopping, visit a doctor or bank, go to work or do any other task. Elderly people in the village who do not drive are reliant on neighbours or taxis. To take a bus to the nearest town is difficult as there are so few, they have no disabled access and return to the village very infrequently. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed as has HSBC and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance, has in rent years lost a pub and very recently its garage. It is therefore wrong to designate Marsworth as a medium village as on page 45 of the plan it says the plan must “avoid placing additional burden on the existing community” and due to the lack of amenities this would happen. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double counted in that they appear in other villages’ proposals too, many are further than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village, most do not offer employment and those which do mostly offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work. Therefore for all the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village. It has a small existing population, poor connectivity, virtually no employment opportunities and very limited services and other facilities. The plan states that “Medium sized villages are moderately well served with services and facilities” Marsworth is not.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 58 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01491 W.G. Hawkins Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically; it has a population of 741 and has only gradually risen to this – it was 564 in 1861 and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village or its normal rate of development. It is also numerically smaller than some other villages which have been designated as small villages. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet has very limited amenities within the village. However despite only just being given the minimum points necessary to be a medium village, there has been no scaling down of the proposal for building. 41 people less or one point less would have meant Marsworth is a small village and only expected to grow by 5%. 41 people and 1 extra point will mean a 19% increase which is a huge difference and will have a huge impact on this very small village. Several of the points have been unfairly applied to Marsworth, for example, Marsworth First School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is wrong to award a full point for the school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. 4.There is a very limited bus service to and from the village which has recently been subject to further cuts. It is unrealistic to apply a point for this very limited amenity. Anyone who lives in Marsworth must use a car to do any shopping, visit a doctor or bank, go to work or do any other task. Elderly people in the village who do not drive are reliant on neighbours or taxis. To take a bus to the nearest town is difficult as there are so few, they have no disabled access and return to the village very infrequently. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed as has HSBC and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance, has in rent years lost a pub and very recently its garage. It is therefore wrong to designate Marsworth as a medium village as on page 45 of the plan it says the plan must “avoid placing additional burden on the existing community” and due to the lack of amenities this would happen. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double counted in that they appear in other villages’ proposals too, many are further than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village, most do not offer employment and those which do mostly offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work. Therefore for all the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village. It has a small existing population, poor connectivity, virtually no employment opportunities and very limited services and other facilities. The plan states that “Medium sized villages are moderately well served with services and facilities” Marsworth is not.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 59 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01508 Mr and Mrs Marsh Settlement Hierarchy - The village does not satisfactorily meet the AVDC criteria for a medium village and should revert to its previous classification as a small village. Cuddington does not meet 4 of the 5 criteria for a medium village: - Size- Population is 569. It would be the smallest of the medium villages and less than half the average of 1152 (in a range of 680- 2115) for the proposed medium villages. Connectivity- Whilst only being 1.5 miles from Haddenham, there is no public transport to Haddenham, no footway and the necessity to cross the dangerous A 418 at an accident black spot. The public transport to Aylesbury is infrequent. This is not being 'well connected'. Employment- None. Insufficient weight has been given to the lack of employment- most of the settlements in the medium village group have some employment. This is an important issue. Facilities - Key services are - Food store, Pub, Post Office, General Practice, Village Hall, Recreation, Primary School Non - Key Services are - Pharmacy, library, Places of worship, Secondary schools We only have a small store/post office with very limited supplies and mainly staffed by only one person at a time. The pub has only spaces for about 6 cars. There is no General Practice and no primary school - the Cuddington school site is not a full Primary School, in that Cuddington and Dinton School is located on two sites, the junior school being in Dinton, with infants in Cuddington. The school is also heavily oversubscribed. It serves not only Cuddington but also Dinton, Chearsley and lower Winchendon and these primary pupils are bused-in or driven to school. A qualitative assessment leads to on all accounts that Cuddington merits a small village status. The description of being 'well connected to a service centre' is wrong. For example, there is no consideration of other relevant local factors that restrict the capacity for growth. At Cuddington these include :- Much of its area is in a Conservation Area. There is only one site identified in the HELAA (Housing and Economic land Availability Assessment) so far (for 6 houses) and this is in the Conservation Area. In order to adequately protect the built environment, this proposal needs to be assessed against sites, including those outside the Conservation Area, that might come forward. The village is situated within an Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL) Proposals for major expansion at Haddenham could lead to the prospect of coalescence with Cuddington.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 60 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01515 Cameron Austin-Fell Sustainability Appraisal - In addition to the publication of the Preferred Options Local Plan, the Council has published for comment (RPS Planning & the Reasonable Alternative Sustainability Appraisal Report, dated July 2016 Development (on behalf This Sustainability Assessment (SA) of the Preferred Options document is focussed on the assessment of sites submitted through of Richborough Estates the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) including the growth options for a new settlement within Site - Churchway, Aylesbury District. What the SA does not include is an assessment of the plan as a whole, including the interrelationships between Haddenham)) policies and an assessment of the proposed housing requirement/distribution. The SA explains (paragraph 5.3.3 refers) that this full SA will be undertaken following the consultation of the Preferred Options Local Plan consultation. In terms of what is considered, the SA undertakes to review each site that has previously been submitted to the Council’s SHLAA and scores them against the sustainability objectives set out within the document. Comments in this response are made in relation to sites included within the assessment for Haddenham and in particular, land at Church Way, which has not been included for a comparative assessment as part of the SA. RPS considers this to be an omission on the part of the SA, which has failed to account for reasonable alternatives as part of the decision making process. As indicated in paragraph 1.4.1 of the July 2016 SA, the only sites that have been included are those determined to be suitable or suitable in part within the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). For the reasons explained in Section 4, Richborough Estates land requires assessment (on the reduced parcel of land), which has not yet been appraised by the Council. Turning to the HELAA, this Site is included as part of a wider parcel, referenced as HAD002 as indicated in the preceding chapter. The reasons for discounting the site (as evidenced on page 193 of the May 2016 HELAA), indicate that the site is not well related to the rest of Haddenham, located in the open countryside and exposed on all sides. Turning to the Council’s assessment in the HELAA, the reasoning seems incongruous with the other assessments for Haddenham, in particular, site HAD007 which is directly opposite HAH002 has been included within the Council’s assessment as partially acceptable, noting that the northernmost area should be excluded for the assessment. The same argument could therefore by made for site HAD007 which if developed as part a wider northern extension would complement the surrounding area for residential development. This potential scenario for northern growth in Haddenham has however been tested by the Council as part of the potential options for a new settlement (Appendix E of the new Settlement Scoping Study refers). This study considers three growth options for Haddenham, including site HAD002 as ‘site 3’ in the Council’s Option 1 for development. Within the supporting text, the Council indicates that: “Land to the east (3) considered not suitable within HELAA - could potentially accommodate development if sensitively designed and establishes an appropriate settlement edge”.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 61 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01515 Cameron Austin-Fell The Council clearly sees potential in the site and it is unclear why the site was not recommended for partial suitability, which has led (RPS Planning & to the omission of the land for development. Clearly, if the site is included as part of a wider strategic site the individual parcels of Development (on behalf land should also be appraised. Additionally, RPS does not consider that this represents a sound reasoning to discount the site when of Richborough Estates the Council is promoting a number of preferred housing extensions which extend into the countryside, including new settlements Site - Churchway, which would have a greater and more significant impact on the surrounding landscape. For this reason, the Council’s approach is Haddenham)) flawed. Land promoted by Richborough Estates at Haddenham presents a smaller site than indicated in the HELAA which is responsive to the character of the existing development and the Council’s proposed housing allocations. RPS offers further comments on the appraisal of HAD002 below both individually and as part of the strategic option for a new settlement at Haddenham. As indicated in Section 6, Richborough Estates considers that the site is deliverable for up to 100 dwellings which should form the basis for the consideration of the site as part of the SA. It has not been possible to provide a critique of whether the spatial housing objectives, such as growth and distribution, are the most sustainable as this assessment has not been undertaken as part of this SA. RPS considers that issues of strategic importance should be reviewed at each stage of the plan making process and the Council’s decision to delegate this to a subsequent SA has presented a serious weakness in the Council’s approach. This restricts the ability for a full and thorough SA to be considered as part of public consultation at an early opportunity but also leaves the Council on a path towards a particular strategy that may not be the most sustainable option to take. Sustainability Appraisal – Land at Church Way, Haddenham (HAD002 Revised) As part of this submission RPS has submitted a ‘call for sites’ form which indicates the extent of land currently promoted by Richborough Estates. This includes a reduced site boundary which follows Church Way, in line with the Council’s proposed allocation North of Rosemary Lane (HAD007). The site proposed by Richborough Estates shares many of the same characteristics with this site, though beneficially does not fall within the Haddenham Conservation Area as HAD007 does. As this site has not yet been SA tested by the Council, RPS has undertaken this work to inform future stages of the Local Plan and unlikely to be considered at Examination and tested by the Inspector. The SA of Church Way, Haddenham is presented alongside the other sites considered as part of the assessment for Haddenham village. The site assessment below indicates that land at Church Way performs well against the Council’s SA objectives and includes a number of favourable scores for development. In addition, the SA determines that the site is less constrained than other sites presented by the Council, making this site one of the more sustainable locations for growth in Haddenham and also the wider District.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 62 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01515 Cameron Austin-Fell In particular, the site scores more favourably in relation to the impact to cultural heritage (SA Objective 1). Unlike other sites (RPS Planning & promoted by the Council, HAD002 falls outside of the Haddenham Conservation Area and is considered to have a neutral effect Development (on behalf against this objective. In all other regards the site performs in a similar way to HAD007, a site included in the Council’s preferred of Richborough Estates options. The agricultural quality of this site has yet to be determined and the site has been scored accordingly. Site - Churchway, Cultural Heritage Haddenham)) Two of the three sites in Haddenham have scored poorly against this SA Objective, on the grounds that they fall within the Haddenham Conservation Area (paragraph 3.17.2 of the SA refers). Site HAD016 is adjacent to the Conservation Area and has been awarded a neutral score and following a similar approach, RPS considers it appropriate for HAD002 to be awarded a similar score. As indicated in Chapter 6, the Haddenham Conservation Area has been considered as part of the illustrative masterplan for the Site. Landscape The view on this SA Objective has been framed using the Council’s impact of HAD007 as a guide but is also informed by preliminary landscape studies (referred to in Chapter 6). The extent of the proposed Site follows the existing pattern of development along Church Way and would be sympathetic with the current form of development. The appraisal of this site against this SA Objective has the benefit of the illustrative masterplan prepared in support of the Local Plan consultation. This demonstrates that the physical development can be supported by extensive green space and landscape buffering which would minimise the impact on the landscape. For this reason the score has been adjusted to minor adverse to neutral. Natural Resource The Council’s assessment of the three sites in the SA takes the view that all of the sites present moderate adverse impacts against this indicator, based on the scoring of agricultural land. The Council’s assessment of this issue makes no allowance of available agricultural land elsewhere and how much land is needed in accordance with the NPPF/NPPG. As a result, there is no definition between each of the sites in the SA, which nullifies the usefulness of this indicator for comparative purposes. Further work in this regard is recommended to ensure that the SA can actually present differing information to assist in selecting the most sustainable options for growth. Biodiversity Preliminary biodiversity studies have been undertaken in this promotion of this site. This has identified that there are no significant ecological issues which correspond with the sources considered as part of the SA (Table 2.6 refers). The scoring against this indicator reflects this and considers the scoring of the adjacent site (HAD007) which has been awarded a neutral score against this objective.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 63 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01519 Lisa Cooper Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long- term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 64 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01523 Cameron Austin-Fell Sustainability Appraisal - Sustainability Objectives (RPS Planning & 5.1 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Draft Local Plan document considers each site that has previously been submitted to the Development (on behalf Council’s SHLAA (now known as HELAA) and scores them against the sustainability objectives set out within the document. of Richborough Estates 5.2 In addition to the publication of the Preferred Options Local Plan, the Council has published for comment the Reasonable Site - Lower Road, Alternative Sustainability Appraisal Report, dated July 2016. Aylesbury)) 5.3 This Sustainability Assessment (SA) of the Preferred Options document is focussed on the assessment of sites submitted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) including the growth options for a new settlement within Aylesbury District. What the SA does not include is an assessment of the plan as a whole, including the interrelationships between policies and an assessment of the proposed housing requirement/distribution. The SA explains (paragraph 5.3.3 refers) that this full SA will be undertaken following the consultation of the Preferred Options Local Plan consultation. 5.4 In terms of what is considered, the SA undertakes a review of each site that has previously been submitted to the Council’s SHLAA and scores them against the sustainability objectives set out within the document. 5.5 Comments in this response are made in relation to sites included within the assessment for Haddenham and in particular, land at Lower Road, Aylesbury, which is included under part of a wider site referenced as SMD004 as part of the July 2016 SA (page 27 refers). This appraisal has been informed by the Council’s May 2016 Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), which considered the site suitable for development. 5.6 Maps provided at the rear of the SA illustrate the Council’s current thinking on the suitability of sites, indicating (Appendix B refers) that of the sites to the south of Aylesbury, the site promoted by Richborough Estates SMD004 remains only one of two sites considered suitable in whole. 5.7 Despite this positive recommendation in the emerging Local Plan, RPS has a number of concerns with the assessment of the site against the Council’s SA criterion, these are set out below. It should be noted that land promoted by Richborough Estates does not account for all land proposed as part of SMD004, which has been taken into account as part of the assessment below. 5.8 It has not been possible to provide a critique of whether the spatial housing objectives such as growth and distribution are the most sustainable, as this assessment has not been undertaken as part of this SA. RPS considers that issues of strategic importance should be reviewed at each stage of the plan making process and the Council’s decision to delegate this to a subsequent SA has presented a serious weakness in the Council’s approach. This restricts the ability for a full and thorough SA to be considered as part of public consultation at an early opportunity but also leaves the Council on a path towards a particular strategy that may not be the most sustainable option to take. RPS Assessment for SMD004 – Using Up-dated Evidence Base Comparative Sustainability Appraisal Assessment – Lower Road, Aylesbury (SMD004 Revised)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 65 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01523 Cameron Austin-Fell 5.9 The below assessment has been undertaken using the Council’s own sustainability framework and provides a comparative (RPS Planning & assessment of the Council’s appraisal which has been informed by preliminary evidence for the site. Development (on behalf 5.10 The table below indicates that SMD004 Land at Lower Road presents one of the more sustainable locations for growth with no of Richborough Estates significant adverse scores in relation to the Council’s SA framework. Site - Lower Road, 5.11 An important consideration that should be included within the assessment is the likely sustainability score of delivering a Aylesbury)) strategic extension to the south of Aylesbury as part of the Council’s Garden Town proposals. Whilst it is clearly important to consider the sites individually, the Council makes no assessment of the wider strategic growth aims for the south of Aylesbury, despite this forming a significant part of the overall strategy for development in the Local Plan. Cultural Heritage 5.12 The SA for this indicator indicates (paragraph 3.5.3 refers) that the site falls within an Archaeological Notification Site (ANS) and has been given a significant adverse score on this basis. This is a broad archaeological area of search and the presence does not automatically denote archaeological significance in the site. The Council has applied this scoring without undertaking assessments of the site. 5.13 As part of the site appraisal document attached to these representations, initial site assessments have been undertaken by Richborough Estates. This study has reviewed the archaeological study and takes the view that the recorded finds on the site are most likely to originate from manuring of the fields and do not suggest Roman archaeological activity on the site. 5.14 Trial trenching also appears to have taken place within the site. This recorded only one pit, the fill of which contained Bronze Age pottery and a flint flake (HER reference 0564001000). Such a feature is considered to be of low archaeological significance in itself. No other archaeological remains were recorded within the site. 5.15 Updated with this evidence, the site has been adjusted accordingly. Climate Change Adaption 5.16 The Council has marked this feature against a negative score for climate change mitigation, in comparison to the surrounding sites which have been awarded a moderate positive score. The Council has applied no evidence why SMD0004 cannot provide the same level of climate change mitigation and the scoring has been adjusted accordingly. Transport 5.17 The Council’s own assessment (paragraph 3.5.12) indicates that SMD004 is less than 400m from a bus stop that operates frequent links into Aylesbury. The Council indicates that this is of minor significance in its methodology, however RPS consider that this service is unlikely to change and additional housing in this location will only strengthen the service.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 66 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01523 Cameron Austin-Fell 5.18 The presence of the bus stop close to the site should be regarded as positive indicator of transport sustainability and the (RPS Planning & Council should not score this unfavourably. It is likely that as part of a wider redevelopment of the area will bring with it a range of Development (on behalf local services and facilities, which will enhance the area and reduce the need to travel. The score has been adjusted accordingly. of Richborough Estates Health Site - Lower Road, 5.19 A number of parcels to the south of Aylesbury (including SMD004) have been awarded neutral or negative scores against the Aylesbury)) Council’s SA Framework, however this does not take into account the likely benefits that will be generated through a wider comprehensive development in this area. For example, all of the sites in this area have scored poorly in relation to Health (SA Objective 9). Putting aside the fact that Stoke Mandeville Hospital is directly adjacent to the sites proposed for development in this area, the capacity generated for such a proposal may be significant enough to justify the need for a new GP and other health services. Equally, there are a number of different indicators such as biodiversity (SA Objective 3), climate change mitigation/adaption (SA Objective 4) and transport (SA Objective 9) to name a few that have scored poorly individually, though could receive positive scores as a combined scheme that is capable of supporting wider growth aims. Summary 5.20 It is expected that as part of a subsequent SA the Council takes on board the comments made in relation to the individual SA assessment of SMD004 and in addition considers the SA of the wider redevelopment of land to the south of Aylesbury and the sustainability implications that this may have. As indicated above, based on more up-to-date evidence base and appropriate assessment, a more positive score from SMD004 (Lower Road Aylesbury) is achieved.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 67 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01527 James Tree-Booker Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long- term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

VALP16-09-12-01532 Gill Mabey Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 68 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01534 Ian Manktelow Sustainability Appraisal - Furthermore we also note that there is no draft sustainability appraisal to accompany the draft plan. (Wycombe District Council) We understand your decision not to publish a draft sustainability appraisal to accompany the draft plan as the draft stage is non- statutory. However, this makes it difficult to understand what has underpinned some of the decision making that has informed the draft plan. This is particularly the case in relation to settlements such as Wendover which as one of the Vales’ more sustainable settlements has a relatively limited level of housing proposed when compared to the other settlements in the District. We look forward through the continuing joint working to better understand the choices made within the plan.

VALP16-09-12-01536 Gareth Owens Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 69 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01538 Jon Gateley (Savills (on Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - 4.2. This study has identified the Shenley Park site (reference WHA001) behalf of Crest Strategic as an ‘achievable’ and ‘suitable’ site for 2,000 dwellings, during the 6-15 year period. A site area of 90.1 hectares is identified in Projects)) order to deliver the site as an urban extension to Milton Keynes, incorporating a landscape buffer to the west in order to maintain separation from the village of Whaddon to the west. 4.3. Commentary is provided on page 235 of the HEDNA report as follows: ‘Part Suitable – (55ha of all but a large landscape buffer to Whaddon village) at around 35dph for housing in the longer term (years 6- 15) once the adjacent Tattenhoe Park site in Milton Keynes is substantially built out (is due to complete around 2025). The site is highly sensitive in landscape/visual impact terms so the scale, layout and form of development will be very important. There would also need to be biodiversity surveys of potential Badger setts. In light of constraints and likely mitigation and green infrastructure, sustainable drainage and landscaping, the eventual development potential from a suitable site area could be lower than 2000 dwellings. This would need to be refined at the detailed development planning stage.’ 4.4. CSP agrees with the principle of development on the WHA001 site, and the need for careful consideration of landscape, visual, ecological and other environmental factors, as identified above. However, as set out in these representations and accompanying plans, a substantial, permanent and sufficiently protective landscape buffer to Whaddon village does not require such a substantial reduction in the developable area, as suggested by AVDC. With careful consideration of topography, structural landscape planting and site layout, it would be possible to accommodate a figure approaching the full 2,000 dwelling target for this site, at a density that is appropriate and in a manner that protects landscape character and the distinctiveness of Whaddon.

VALP16-09-12-01538 Jon Gateley (Savills (on New Settlement Study - 4.13. This document considers the concept of a new settlement. The process of this document first behalf of Crest Strategic identifies the constraints, then ranks and subsequently reviews the capacity and deliverability of suitable locations for development. It Projects)) asserts that Milton Keynes is one of the fastest growing towns in the country and outlines that at least 1,750 dwellings will be required per annum. 4.14. The document has considered two sites which could accommodate strategic development in Aylesbury Vale: Haddenham and Winslow. However, the scale and pace of these developments will take a long time to come into effect. Paragraph 7.17 exemplifies this by stating: “completions of new development would be unlikely to be achieved on sites not already identified/ allocated (such as in existing neighbourhood plans) prior to 2021”.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 70 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01538 Jon Gateley (Savills (on Sustainability Appraisal - Sustainability Appraisal of the Aylesbury Vale District Council Issues and Options Consultation behalf of Crest Strategic Reasonable Alternatives SA Report (October 2015) Projects)) The potential for including an urban extension to Milton Keynes / Bletchley was considered in this report as part of a multi-faceted consideration of growth options and the effects of each in environmental terms. The findings of this process are complex and detailed, however we note in particular that: - Paragraph 3.2.12 (and other parts of the document) note that impacts associated with residential development are ‘somewhat lessened’ where sites are already influenced by existing development on the built-up side; - Paragraph 3.2.15 (and other parts of the document) acknowledges that a proposed urban extension to Milton Keynes could minimise the need to travel, by contributing to existing sustainable transport networks; this having a positive regional effect; - It is also acknowledged in the document that residents of urban extensions to major settlements would have the benefit of immediate access to existing services. These factors add significant weight to the case for AVDC to allocate sites adjacent to Milton Keynes. VALP16-09-12-01539 Anita O'Keefe Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has inrecent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 71 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01540 Caron Owens Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village. VALP16-09-12-01544 Nancy Wardle Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 72 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01546 Mr and Mrs Bonham Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village. VALP16-09-12-01548 Richard Cooper Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 73 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01567 Laura Tilston (Gladman Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - HEDNA and HELAA comments: Developments) Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (January 2016) Gladman commissioned Regeneris to undertake a critique of the updated housing needs evidence (Buckinghamshire HEDNA 2016), this follows on from an earlier critique report on the Central Buckinghamshire HEDNA, which has previously been submitted to the Council. A number of the concerns raised within this earlier submission remain in the updated evidence. The Regeneris critique of the AVDC housing needs evidence (Buckinghamshire HEDNA) concludes that there are various elements where either further clarification of the evidence and assumptions is needed or where the data points to the OAN being higher than the 21,300 (1,065 dpa) accepted in the VALP. The full critique report can be found in Appendix 1 to this submission. The key issues and areas of concern are summarised as follow: 2014 based SNPP and SNHP – The new 2014 based SNPP and SNHP are significantly different for Aylesbury Vale and suggest that the modelling of the district’s OAN would differ both for its demographic starting point and economic growth scenarios were these applied. The implication may be that Aylesbury Vale’s OAN figure could be significantly higher than the Buckinghamshire HEDNA proposes. Implications of a Higher OAN – The implications of a higher OAN for Aylesbury Vale would have a knock on effect on the proposed housing requirement for the district. Since the VALP’s proposed requirement includes 12,000 additional homes more than the claimed OAN, a higher OAN would imply either less headroom to accommodate the unmet housing need from other local planning authorities or a further revision to the housing requirement figure. If the OAN were higher and the unmet need still accommodated then the Council would need to find more options to accommodate this higher scale of housing growth. Household Formation – Specific consideration needs to be given as to whether the lower household formation rates in younger age groups suggested by the 2014 SNHP compared with the earlier 2012 SNHP needs to be further tested and whether it represents a reasonable trajectory to assume. Employment Growth – The employment growth evidence that underpins the HEDNA suggests that there may be some grounds to consider whether Aylesbury Vale should be planning for a higher level of jobs growth than the 17,600 assumed in the study. This includes the implications of planned major investments in the district. A higher jobs growth figure could imply a higher OAN figure. Economic Activity Rates – The HEDNA’s assumptions about the housing need necessary to support future jobs growth look to be based on an optimistic view of how economic activity rates might increase in some age groups in the district, and that it assumes a 1:1 Relationship between extra jobs and resident labour. The study may have over-estimated the extra resident labour that might result from recent falls in unemployment. If this is the case, a higher OAN figure would also follow from the assessment.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 74 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01567 Laura Tilston (Gladman Market Signals Percentage Adjustment – Recently published DCLG affordability data suggests that Aylesbury Vale’s price-earnings Developments) ratio are now very close to that of Wycombe and both in excess of 10.0. Since the HEDNA recommended a 20% market signals adjustment for Wycombe, there is some justification for considering whether the 10% adjustment for Aylesbury Vale is reasonable or whether it should reflect the higher adjustment made for Wycombe. Market Signals – A further issue with the HEDNA’s conclusions on market signals is that it seems to have effectively conflated its adjustment for employment growth with its adjustment for market signals. However the purpose of an adjustment intended to address affordability pressure is quite different from the economic growth adjustment. The market signals adjustment of 10% (as currently identified in the HEDNA) should therefore be applied to the 21,154 figure leading to an OAN figure of around 23,269 (or 1,163dpa). Affordable Housing Needs Evidence – There are some aspects of the calculations in the HEDNA that describe itself as ‘stringent’ in terms of defining what constitutes affordable housing need. The Council need to be sure that the affordable need it is planning for addresses the issues faced by current and future residents of the district and whether these definitions are too stringent to reflect this. The above concerns all raise important issues which need to be clarified or resolved since they have a bearing on both planned housing provision to meet Aylesbury Vale’s needs but also planned provision in the wider area.

Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (May 2016) Gladman provided comments regarding the previous version of the HELAA within submissions to the Issues and Options consultation, many of these still stand in relation to the May 2016 version of this. A key concern, which Gladman reiterate, relates to the approach whereby any site which had been refused planning permission is deemed ‘not suitable’. Gladman object to this crude approach, the assessment should not be based on a previous planning application outcome as the reason for refusal may be capable of being overcome and the site may in actual fact be ‘suitable’ for housing. This approach may arbitrarily rule out suitable and deliverable housing sites. In contrast there have been a number of examples of sites which have always been deemed unsuitable through the HELAA, but which have subsequently been granted planning permission. An example of this situation is where AVDC planning committee resolved to approve Gladman’s application for 60 units in (15/01490/AOP) subject to S.106 legal agreement on 25th November 2015. This highlights the inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the HELAA.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 75 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01602 Mr and Mrs Lawton Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworth to be a small village are as follows: • Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. • Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. • Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages.· • There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. • Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. • Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. • Marsworth has no discernible employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 76 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01610 David Maxwell (GL Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Aviva Investors object to the site assessment for HELAA site ref. AYL078, Hearn on behalf of Aviva Land at Gatehouse Close, Aylesbury, as set out at pages 59 and 60 of the HELAA. Investors ) The HELAA assessment of site AYL078 is factually incorrect to state that the site is surrounded on three sides by employment development. Land both to the south, and also to the east of the site provides established and recent new housing respectively. The adjoining site, known as the Bearbrook House site, provides 75 dwellings as a highly sustainable development with excellent access for residents both to Aylesbury Town Centre, and the Rail Station. It is submitted that site AYL078 should be re-allocated from employment to residential development, providing effectively an extension to the existing successful residential development at the former Bearbrook House site. Furthermore, there is very limited demand for the type of industrial units on the site, and the sites location and poor access for modern commercial vehicles, means that re-use or redevelopment is not viable as a continuation of light industrial, general industrial or distribution uses. The HELAA site assessment for site AYL078 states that: “If the site becomes unoccupied and can be proven to be unviable for continued employment purpose then residential could be considered”. Paragraphs 4.95 and 4.96 of the HELAA confirms that there is a significant over-supply of employment sites within the District, and that the council will engage with landowners to determine which employment sites to determine which existing employment sites can be released for residential development. Aviva Investors submit that HELAA site ref AYL078 represents a clear example of the type of sustainable site for residential development that has historic and ongoing under occupancy issues, and the site will remain increasingly unviable for continued purposes. In conclusion, the HELAA should identify site ref AYL078 as achievable and suitable for residential development, with capacity for up to 300 dwellings within 1-5 years. HELAA site ref AYL078 should also be identified by the VALP policy map inset as a potential housing allocation.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 77 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - 1.1. Introduction Environment Ltd) These representations are submitted on behalf of FCC Environment Ltd. (FCC), one of the UK's leading waste and resource management companies. FCC wishes to make representations with regard to its landholdings at Bletchley, which falls within the local authority area covered by the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan – Consultation Draft Summer 2016 (referred to here as the ‘Draft Plan’). The site and key development constraints are identified on drawing 5245_012. These representations are intended to outline FCC’s broad intentions for development at Bletchley, and to secure these interests within the plan making process. With this in mind, these comments are being submitted under the representations section entitled ‘Other Comments’ as well as in respect of specific policies in the Draft Plan. We note that, due to the stage of development of the Draft Plan, there is not yet an overall proposals map available for comment, and that an overall map and detailed inset maps will be prepared to accompany the pre- submission consultation version of the local plan. It is also noted that the policy inset plans included in section 14 of the Draft Plan only refer to potential housing allocations. This being the case, it is clear that further detailed and focused representations will be required at the next consultation stage, when more detailed proposals are available. However, we have sought to provide specific feedback on emerging policies, designations and allocations where possible. 1.2. Context Bletchley landfill site lies 0.5km south west of Bletchley and 0.5km north east of Newton Longville near Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire. The site is bordered by arable fields, restored industrial land and some suburban housing areas, and to the east by the Blue Lagoon Local Nature Reserve. Bletchley landfill site is located within the clay pit that was part of the former Newton Longville Brickworks and has been operating as a landfill site serving Milton Keynes for more than 30 years. The site has been under the ownership of FCC since it bought the site from the Shanks Group in June 2004. The current planning permission for the site allows for the land-filling of waste until 2022. The whole of the Bletchley landfill covers an area of approximately 135ha (334 acres) and comprises areas of current active landfill, restored former landfill pits, former brickworks land and as well as other waste management facilities, recreational grounds, offices and access and road infrastructure. The Site is partially located in Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District local authority, and Milton Keynes Council, a unitary authority.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 78 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC The site is in close proximity to the village of Newton Longville and the new urban extension of Environment Ltd) Milton Keynes, Newton Leys, which is being developed up to the southern boundary of the site. To the east the site abuts a local nature reserve while to the west it wraps around a small group of houses and faces onto Bletchley Road. Main HGV access to the site is from the south east via Guernsey Road. An additional access to the west, from Bletchley Road, serves the ancillary environmental management facilities located in this area of the site and the Newton Longville FC football pitch. 1.3. Planning context The Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (Adopted 2004) Policy RA34 Newton Longville Brickworks states that proposals for the redevelopment of that part of the Newton Longville Brickworks Site will be considered against the following principles: a) that proposals form part of the comprehensive redevelopment of the site generally as described in the approved Planning Brief, including provision of the link road to the A4146, and limited to the areas defined therein; b) appropriate measures are undertaken to discourage and so minimise the impact of traffic generated by the development using rural roads and travelling through villages, in particular Newton Longville. This site is also identified for employment use in the adopted Milton Keynes Plan under Policy CS3 Employment Land Supply states that permission will be given for B1/B2/B8 uses on Bletchley (Brickfields) area, subject to criteria set out in this policy. The policy also supports further employment allocation to widen the supply of sites. FCC has been granted permission (reference 15/00235/APP) to erect a modular office building which would serve as their regional office in the south west corner of the site. At the moment FCC is not intending to implement this permission. It is also noted that O&H Properties, the landowners adjacent to the northern edge of FCC landholding, have an extant planning permission for open storage (ref 13/02051/APP) on part of the RA34 allocated land.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 79 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC 2.0 Site analysis Environment Ltd) FCC has appointed a team of consultants to undertake a review of development potential at Bletchley. Following initial high level site appraisals, further desk based studies were undertaken in order to inform a submission to the Aylesbury Vale District Council’s (AVDC) Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) call for sites to feed into the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan development process. Since the call for sites submission, further work has been undertaken to provide a more detailed assessment of development potential. The studies undertake across the two sites to date now include desk based assessments regarding: noise & vibration, air quality, ground conditions & contamination ecological constraints assessment water resources transport utilities A Masterplanning exercise s has been undertaken using the results of these studies to inform potential development options. The reports have shown that the site is sensitive in terms of potential impact on ecology and that careful design and mitigation will form the key to any successful proposal. Although no further constraints were identified, the reports highlighted the need to carry out some further studies to understand the site in greater detail. The reports also identified where opportunities existed to improve accessibility to ensure the site is well connected into the local area. Improvements could also be made to reduce surface water flooding on site and connections made to and upgrade of local utilities. There were no constraints identified in terms of air quality and contamination.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 80 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC 3.0 Development strategy at Bletchley Environment Ltd) The framework plan 5245_007 shows how the site could be developed under the currently known constraints for employment-led development, but with some residential components adjacent to the existing housing. Adjacent to the entrance to the site, two residential building clusters could be set within the existing vegetation to help consolidate the frontage to Bletchley Road and create a visual connection. The main access road within the site would then run up to the northern boundary. This arrangement would allow the route to run through the middle of the site and avoid areas of highest ecological interest while also being surrounded by Class B1 commercial development on both sides. New planted buffers would also be created to separate the development from adjacent restored landfill areas as well as the adjacent dwellings, ancillary environmental management uses and undeveloped land. The framework will allow for a future connection to O&H land. This layout would retain a significant gap to the settlement boundary of Newton Longville and would be contained within the existing boundaries of the site, limiting any direct impact on Newton Longville. This would also prevent coalescence with the urban area of Milton Keynes. Overall the approach would secure additional employment floorspace beyond the current allocation, on land that has been previously developed, and with a suitable fringe of residential development, including starter homes/ affordable homes to meet policy requirements. The precise balance of employment and residential development would be subject to review in the light of emerging Policy D9, which is considered in the next section. FCC have been in contact with the landowners to the north of the Bletchley site O&H Properties. They are supportive of adjoining development that would complement the permitted use of their land and that would help deliver comprehensive re-development of the former brickworks site; establishing better connections to existing and proposed new communities. The development may (subject to consultation and technical review) assist in the delivery of an / Milton Keynes / Cambridge strategic link.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 81 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC 4.0 Implications for Draft Local Plan review Environment Ltd) Strategic policies and sustainable development There is general support for the vision and objectives set out in the Draft Plan. Specifically, it is considered that the site at Bletchley could make a positive contribution to Policy S1, with particular regard to; b. Providing a mix of uses, especially employment, to facilitate flexible working practices so minimising the need to travel. d. Giving priority to the reuse of vacant or underused, tired brownfield land. f. Building integrated communities with existing populations. h. Providing high-quality accessibility especially for public transport, walking and cycling. i. Providing access to facilities including healthcare, education, employment, retail and community facilities. FCC is therefore in support of these broad policy objectives. Policy S8 Previously developed land Development in Aylesbury Vale will be expected to make efficient and effective use of land. We will encourage the reuse of previously developed (brownfield) land in sustainable locations, subject to site specific considerations including environmental value and the impact on local character. This policy is supported and the potential re-development of the FCC Bletchley site is compatible with it. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 places a strong emphasis on the delivery of starter homes, and in particular, the increased focus for development opportunities on brownfield land and development on land near to commuter hubs. Site adjacent to Milton Keynes FCC recognises that there are significant potential growth opportunities on sites close to the Bletchley landholding as identified in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, (HELAA) and summarised in paragraph 4.48 of the draft local plan which states that: “ Background studies and work undertaken as part of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, (HELAA), identify three suitable sites that are located on greenfield sites north west of Newton Longville and adjacent to Milton Keynes, situated south west of the city. The HELAA identifies that all three sites could together (plus an existing commitment at of 268 dwellings) provide a total potential housing capacity of 4,274.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 82 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC However, it is noted that the associated policy - D3 Delivering sites adjacent to Milton Keynes - Environment Ltd) makes no reference to existing or potential employment allocations. The provision of employment opportunities should form a central element of any sustainable development given the number of new homes potentially being delivered. As demonstrated by the site analysis above, the former Newton Longville Brickworks site is well located and accessible via sustainable transport modes. The Framework plan shows how the existing employment allocation RA34, and potential further extensions to this as proposed by FCC, should form part of the Master Plan and Delivery SPD to be prepared by the council. FCC suggests that policy D3 is reworded to consider delivery of employment land alongside housing growth. The need for new employment land Paragraph 4.95 of the HELAA identified that The Buckinghamshire HEDNA showed an oversupply of employment land in the district compared to the predicted need for employment land, with a surplus of 221,400 m2 or 51 hectares of total B use class. Paragraph 4.96 follows on by stating “The council has examined the potential for reducing the level of employment provision in the district. This has focussed on reviewing sites where it is considered that employment use does not need to be protected in the long term. A number of the sites have only recently been granted consent and it is not certain that landowners would wish to see their land converted to other employment uses or housing. Nevertheless, the council must find a way to reduce its employment land stock or else allocate a significantly larger amount of housing. Due to the controversial nature of this issue the council cannot identify the sites it will release at this stage, but will engage with landowners to determine which sites can be released. Landowners with permitted employment sites may wish to contact the council if they wish to suggest their sites for consideration.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 83 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC FCC would welcome the opportunity to engage with the local authority on this matter. However, it Environment Ltd) is FCC’s firm belief that current the employment allocation set out under Policy RA34 should be retained and expanded to the south and east, as shown on Framework plan 5245_007. This allocation would promote the effective use of previously developed land, is strategically well placed and implementable, as demonstrated by recent planning consents on adjacent land. The extension to the existing allocation will enable a more meaningful and coherent development parcels to be delivered on the site, making best us of the existing allocated land. Provision of new employment land FCC generally support the wording of D9 Provision of employment land, although it should put greater emphasis on re-using previously developed land. FCC supports the statement in paragraph 4.97“Flexible policies are required to allow employment development to come forward on other suitable sites where a specific requirement needs to be met.” And the subsequent statement in 4.98 “that Surplus sites that are not fit for purpose should be considered for release to other uses.” Other existing employment sites Paragraph 6.7 of the Draft Plan states that, in some circumstances, there may not be a need for an employment site to remain in employment use, “if there are sufficient alternatives available in the local area and it would not benefit the local economy for it to remain vacant. In some cases, the size, location and characteristics of a site may mean that more intensive, mixed use development could provide greater benefit to the community in terms of addressing local needs, rather than if the site was retained solely in employment use.” FCC supports the principle of flexibility in the delivery of employment sites as outlined in this policy, in particular the benefits that could be offered from exploring complementary mixed use solutions. Therefore, the wording of policy E2 Other employment sites is generally supported. With regard to development opportunities at Bletchley, the site assessment and Masterplanning work commissioned to date reveals that, in addition to the existing allocation, there are opportunities for further employment and mixed use development options to be progressed at the site, tying into existing uses and making effective use of the land.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 84 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01619 David Bell (FCC 5.0 Summary and Conclusions Environment Ltd) The site at Bletchley includes a combination of previously developed former industrial land and benefits from access to the Bletchley Road. FCC has appointed a team of consultants to undertake a review of development potential. Site assessment work and a masterplanning exercise has been undertaken to inform potential development options. The framework plan 5245_007 shows how the site could be developed under the currently known constraints for employment-led development, but with some residential components adjacent to the existing housing. The site could be developed in a way that retains a significant separation from the settlement boundary of Newton Longville and would be contained within the existing boundaries of the site. This would prevent coalescence with the urban area of Milton Keynes. The former Newton Longville Brickworks is well located and accessible via sustainable transport modes. The employment allocation Policy RA34 should be retained, along with a further allocation of land to the south and east, as shown on Framework plan 5245_007. The site should form part of the Master Plan and Delivery SPD to be prepared by the council under proposed policy - D3 Delivering sites adjacent to Milton Keynes. FCC generally support the wording of D9 Provision of employment land, although it should put greater emphasis on re-using previously developed land. FCC supports the principle of flexibility in the delivery of employment sites, in particular the benefits that could be offered from exploring complementary mixed use solutions. In regards to this, FCC have identified their site in Bletchley has the potential to provide employment led mixed use development and would be happy to engage with the Council discussing future development potential. VALP16-09-12-01622 Christopher Roberts Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - We submit that HELAA analysis is flawed and arbitrary, has no grounding (Turley.co.uk on behalf in the Council’s own evidence base and indeed contradicts the findings of the Aylesbury Vale: Areas of of Cala Homes Ltd) Sensitive Landscape Report (2008), on which the Draft Local Plan relies.

67 pg report includes suggestions for additional development opportunities that were ruled out in the HELAA VALP16-09-12-01632 Roger Williams Settlement Hierarchy - 4.3 Building 96 houses at Brill, I The HELAA · study could find no acceptable development sites at Brill. This is consistent with the conclusions of the Brill Fact Pack described in 3.3 above: "It is very unlikely that there is much scope for the village to be developed further ... "

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 85 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01642 James Yeoman (Savills Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The College’s ownership, identified by this correspondence, extends to on behalf of All Souls circa 3.5 ha comprising greenfield land to the east of Church Close, . The proposal site abuts existing residential College) development and is not subject to designations which might otherwise preclude development. Development in this location could be sensitively designed to respond appropriately to the nearby heritage assets, including that of St Edmund Church. It is noted that existing screening from this property is provided by mature vegetation. The site fronts the existing highway to its immediate south. A red line plan identifying the site accompanies this correspondence. It is noted that the site is well positioned to accommodate the residual housing requirements for delivery at Maids Moreton. The site is well related to existing development and the wider facilities available in the local area including the Maids Moreton Village Hall, public houses, churches, a school, and local businesses. Further facilities are available in nearby Buckingham. The site would represent a logical extension to the settlement, given its existing relationship to development. There is potential for the site to provide an enhanced village entrance at this eastern edge of the settlement. VALP16-09-12-01646 Nick Stafford (DLP Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The representation deals with promoting a larger site than considered in Planning (on behalf of the HELAA to address what it sees as a significant shortfall in housing delivery in AVDC. September Properties)) VALP16-09-12-01660 Mark Harris (DLP Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - The representation deals with issues relating to the overall development Planning on belhalf of strategy and the distribution of growth as well as promoting a site in Edlesborough (referenced EDL011 in the HELAA). For clarity, Robin Gaymer) the representation focuses on the acceptability of part of this site for development, rather than the whole of the 17.1ha originally promoted and referred to in the HELAA. In general, the HELAA makes some sweeping statements about the suitability of sites put forward without seeming to have any evidence to back up the judgments made. The result is that numerous sites are ruled out of apparent further consideration without the decision to do so being properly justified. As an example, the HELAA site EDL009, High Street Edlesborough is seen as unsuitable on heritage and landscape grounds. However, when given proper consideration through the Development Management process earlier in the year, an application for development (15/02411/APP), informed by a proper assessment of the impacts, was recommended for approval by Officers and granted consent (subject to s106) by the Strategic Development Control Committee. This calls in to question the conclusions drawn on other sites, not just in Edlesborough, but the rest of the HELAA.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 86 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll New Settlement Study - Firstly, I wish to make it clear that I sincerely believe The Vale’s new Local Plan should include a stand- alone new settlement, which will not only provide a significant contribution of new homes to the District’s requirement to 2033 but also provide for substantial further growth beyond 2033 to the end of the Century and more. That surely is what forward planning should include as indicated in the NPPF which says The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development?

To describe it as ‘shoddy’ is, in my view, being kind. The fact that AVDC Forward Plans issued this Scoping Study, knowing as they must that it was riddled with errors, is extremely disconcerting and indicates the unholy rush with which this, admitted, incomplete Report was issued. Having done so, AVDC is now defending the indefensible and appears prepared to move the new settlement project forward based upon this ‘shoddy’ scoping study, even if this means delivering only 4,500 homes to 2033 and no further homes of any significance above that figure because the site identified by GL Hearn is totally inadequate to achieve the 6,000 plus homes identified in their Report.

Below I have evidenced in some detail my justifications for the strong general criticisms made in the earlier paragraph. I have only looked in detail at those sections affecting Winslow but, in passing, I noted similar errors of fact relating to Haddenham as well.

Paragraph 1.25 of the Scoping Study stated - The Study does not undertake detailed masterplanning to consider the precise form or scale of development which could be accommodated; nor does it undertake a full assessment in the absence of this of the range of infrastructure which might be needed to support development and the viability of delivering this.

This failure to undertake the necessary work to assess the scale of the basic needs in terms of employment, schools, community facilities, retail provision, etc in terms of land requirements for a sustainable, self-contained, new settlement larger than Buckingham has very obviously resulted in erroneous estimates of the land area required to deliver a new, of necessity sustainable, settlement, of which more later.

2.40 Nonetheless it is sensible to consider in planning for a new community of a substantive scale within Aylesbury Vale, the population should have access to key everyday services. We would define these (consistent with the Council’s Settlement Audit 2012) as: a Foodstore/General Store; a Post Office; a GP Surgery; a Pub; a Village Hall; and a Primary School.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 87 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll This list is factually incorrect, as it obviously relates to a large village (the likes of Long Crendon perhaps), not a new settlement 6 times larger than Long Crendon, such as Buckingham. A new settlement, that will ultimately reach a population of 15,000 and more, will obviously require a large supermarket, a sizeable retail centre including a bank, Post Office, Pubs, restaurants, adequate parking etc, a Health Centre including a dental surgery, a Secondary School other schools, Community Centres, probably a leisure centre, place(s) of worship, a library, sports and play grounds, allotments, burial ground etc etc. The importance of this grave error in assessing what a new town (not village with an ultimate population of more than 15,000!), showing a failure to grasp the scale and scope of the needs of such a new community, speaks volumes.

2.52 There are two different pathways to achieving this. Firstly there may be opportunities to situate a new settlement close to an existing settlement(s) which would allow the new settlement to utilise infrastructure and services at the existing settlement. This could support deliverability through using (and where appropriate upgrading and supplementing) existing services, limiting high upfront costs associated with delivering new infrastructure which have a particular impact on borrowing costs and viability. This proposal is badly flawed.

This proposal has been poorly researched and, as a result, is badly flawed. In the case of Winslow, this suggested approach will not work for the simple reason that the car parking provision in the town is insufficient for today’s needs, apart from the fact that some of the existing infrastructure eg the GPs’ Surgery is at or beyond capacity. Nor can Winslow “upgrade and supplement existing services” to anything like the level required ie to accommodate a 350% increase in population by 2040 as we do not have the space, nor would it make economic sense to do so. Realistically, from a sustainability point of view, the new settlement must provide the vast majority of these “services” in-house.

5.7 A secondary free school, Sir Thomas Fremantle Secondary School, opened in Winslow in 2013. It currently accommodates c. 300 students; and plans to grow to c. 600 students. The Neighbourhood Plan includes provision for the development of purpose-built facilities for the school on Land South of Buckingham Road to the north of the rail line in the north-east of the settlement, adjoining the new station. If additional growth is planned, the potential to expand the school further in the medium/ longer-term will be important.

This is factually incorrect due to poor research again. Construction of the over-subscribed STFS on its very small, constrained site (it does not have playing fields of its own) is under way. It is a Free School and we are advised that means future expansion of the school will not happen.

5.17 Winslow’s location on main road and rail corridors, and with a range of existing services, supports its potential for strategic

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 88 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll This is also factually incorrect. Winslow currently neither sits on a main road (the A413 is not a ‘major road corridor’) nor does Winslow currently benefit from a rail service as the above statement incorrectly confirms.

The rationale for strategic development at Winslow would be in particular to: • Capitalise on the improved accessibility associated with the reopening of the rail station;

There is no certainty as to the delivery date, 2024 now appears to be the best estimate, nor is there a guarantee that it will initially have the service to London via Aylesbury – fastest service of 72 minutes.

• Capitalise on the potential for improved east-west connectivity associated with the A421 Expressway proposals.

It is factually incorrect to state in Para 5.18, final bullet point, that the A421 Expressway will provide enhanced connections and accessibility to Winslow and is well located to serve any development to the north of the town, as if its delivery and route is a done deal and about to happen. The actual route for the Cambridge to Oxford Expressway could well not come within many miles of Winslow and then might only be delivered over 20 years hence! It is factually incorrect and extremely misleading to not only include on the Winslow map in Appendix B a route for the Cambridge to Oxford Expressway but also describe it as the A421 Expressway.

5.23 This option includes the following potential development locations, focused particularly on northern expansion of the settlement (as proposed in the Neighbourhood Plan):

Another grave error of fact. Did GL Hearn in fact read the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan I wonder, let alone the made Great Horwood Neighbourhood Plan, in which Neighbourhood Area most of the site for the proposed new settlement would lie? The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan most certainly has no housing development included north of the railway line, nor does it refer anywhere to a “northern expansion of the settlement.” Other developments included in the WNP that are north of the railway line, and west of the Great Horwood road – new school, railway station and employment, are all enclosed by the Winslow Settlement Boundary which specifically ‘prevents’ northern expansion of the town. Yet another blatant example of unprofessional and inadequate research.

7.4 In contrast, Winslow has a stronger range of existing services and facilities including secondary education provision; and access to a large range of employment centres by rail within 30 minutes. It is at a greater distance from existing major growth locations (and thus less influenced in market terms by these).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 89 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll Obviously it is patently and blatantly incorrect to state, in the present tense! that Winslow has access to a large range of employment centres by rail within 30 minutes. Winslow does not have a railway or rail station!

There are various other inaccuracies in the Scoping Study that I noted but I feel the above proves my point.

HAS THE NEW SETTLEMENT SCOPING STUDY MADE A MAJOR ERROR IN ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE AREA REQUIRED TO DELIVER A SUSTAINABLE SETTLEMENT OF 6,000+ HOMES?

Referring to the Google type map of the proposed new settlement site north of Winslow in Appendix B of the New Settlement Scoping Study, in the right hand corner of that page we find the following:-

Potential Capacity (excluding HELAA Sites)

Indicative Area – 200 to 300 hectares

Indicative Developable Area* - 120 to 180 hectares (assuming approx 40% of site required for open space, drainage etc)

Assumed average housing density – 35 dwellings per hectare.

Indicative Housing Capacity – Circa 4,200 to 6,300

*NB It appears that ‘Developable Area’ only refers to land for housing – 180 hectares at 35 dph would generate 6,300 new homes.

There is no mention above of the land required to provide for employment, nursery, primary and secondary schools, a health centre with a dental surgery, community centres, a large supermarket, a shopping centre with adequate car parks, restaurants, pubs etc, sports pitches, playgrounds, a library, other community facilities etc etc I trust AVDC will concur that all these will obviously be needed for a town larger than Buckingham.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 90 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll What Hearn are suggesting is a town of 6,300 homes occupying 300 hectares, which represents an average dwellings per hectare rate of 21. This is exactly the same dph rate as Gladman’s Glebe Farm, Winslow application for 211 homes which has green space and a playground but of course there is no allowance for land for any other uses other than the new homes. This raises the obvious question of whether what is proposed by Hearn is realistic and practical?! So let us attempt to estimate land areas for the various essentials listed above for the New Settlement. 1) The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan allocates 5.7 hectares of land for the development of 2 employment sites to generate about 600 full time jobs. Based on a ratio of 0.8 jobs on employment sites per new home, this would mean the 6,300 home new settlement should generate just over 5,000 full time jobs. Then, using the WNP figure of 105 jobs per hectare, a figure of land for employment for the new settlement of 47 hectares results. 2) For schools, in its application 08/02944/AOP, Gladman allocated for Winslow Green and its 3,300 new homes - one secondary school, 3 primary and 3 nursery schools to occupy 14.2 hectares of land. For a new settlement of 6,300 homes, the proportionate figure would therefore be 27 hectares. 3) Similarly, using Gladman’s Winslow Green figures of 1.5 hectares for a supermarket and 3.4 hectares for the town centre retail etc, the new settlement would require 9 hectares for retail/services provision. 4) For Winslow Green, Gladman allocated 17.7 hectares of land for sports pitches and play areas, which is no doubt based on the official allocation figures for the provision of these related to size of population. So for the new settlement we obtain a figure of 33 hectares. 5) A figure of 5 hectares for a health centre or two, community centres, a place of worship and a library, all with required car parking should not be too wide of the mark.

Totalling 1) to 5) we obtain 121 hectares, which, when added to the 180 hectares allocated for the 6,300 homes gives us a total of 301 hectares. BUT THE SITE AREA HEARN HAS ALLOCATED AS ADEQUATE IS 300 HECTARES FOR THE ENTIRE NEW SETTLEMENT AND THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MANY TENS OF HECTARES REQUIRED FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, ROADS, ALLOTMENTS, A BURIAL GROUND, PROBABLY A SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS etc etc.

So, in spite of having detailed the area as 300 hectares for a new settlement of 6,300 homes, it appears clear that GL Hearn must have made some basic errors as their figures simply do not add up do they?!! The above would indicate that the major flaw is the failure to allocate ANY land for essential, often quite land hungry, community and commercial facilities.

Looking at the map referred to in the first sentence, consider the area currently occupied by Winslow with about 2,000 homes, compare that with the area indicated as suitable for a community more than 3 times the size of Winslow and then think of the footprint of Buckingham, which is smaller than the proposed new settlement but occupies 440 hectares and has relatively little open

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 91 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll SO HOW LARGE AN AREA SHOULD BE ALLOCATED FOR A NEW SETTLEMENT?

• From the above information, the evidence is that for a new settlement of 6,300 homes, about 300 acres of Developable Land would be needed to provide for homes and the necessary community and commercial facilities. • In addition to this figure, there would be a significant requirement for further land to provide for open green spaces, drainage, allotments, burial ground etc. The draft VALP, Policy I1 – Green Infrastructure stipulates that ‘There should be one accessible 100ha site within 5km of peoples’ homes.’ With the incidental open space and major open space totalling 3.8ha per 1,000 population, it is clear that the new settlement would need to provide that 100ha site. In fact Hearn’s suggestion is that 40% of the total area allocated for a new settlement should be allocated for these uses, drainage etc. This would mean the site would need to be about 500 hectares. • From the New Settlement Scoping Study, it appears reasonable to conclude that a new settlement of 6,300 homes could have completed those homes by about 2040. However, it would be irrational according to the NPPF to then plan for minimal growth going forward as, in future Local Plans for the Vale, what is likely to be the second or third largest strategic settlement will obviously be expected to do its bit. To accommodate this long term growth, it is therefore vital to allocate a site for this new settlement which lacks significant constraints for such further growth, which, conservatively could require 40% more land to the end of the Century ie 700 hectares in total.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

REASONS TO CHOOSE HADDENHAM AS THE SITE FOR THE NEW SETTLEMENT

• Haddenham relates more strongly to higher-value markets and the unmet housing needs in Districts to the south. (Source GL Hearn)

• Its rail connection to London, Oxford and Birmingham is very strong. (Source GL Hearn) Over 800,000 passengers used Haddenham and Thame Parkway in 2015/16.

• It is very well connected to major road corridors of the road network – A41, A418, A421 and includes relatively easy access to the M 40. (Source GL Hearn)

• It is envisaged these factors will potentially support higher delivery rates relative to Winslow. (Source GL Hearn)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 92 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll • It will also support a stronger employment offer, given its location and its significant established employment provision which will support the development of greater local employment opportunities. (Source GL Hearn)

• The Options for a 6,000 plus New Settlement at Haddenham should not significantly impact other communities.

• The right Option choice for Haddenham would ensure a location that provides for future growth in the decades ahead.

REASONS NOT TO CHOOSE WINSLOW AS THE SITE FOR THE NEW SETTLEMENT

• Winslow is relatively remote from the Districts which are generating the very significant unmet housing needs figure in the VALP total.

• Winslow does not currently have a rail connection with anywhere and is unlikely to see its new station and East West Rail services in operation until, according to the latest information, 2024 at the earliest.

• Winslow is very poorly served by the road network. It is universally recognised that the A413 is not a major road corridor, it is and will become more overburdened as very significant growth occurs in the North of the Vale and there are no proposals to improve this road between Whitchurch and Buckingham. A new settlement north of Winslow is the last thing, even with the local improvements suggested in the Scoping Study, the local road system needs. No reliance whatsoever can be placed on the future delivery of the Cambridge to Oxford Expressway benefitting Winslow as its route and anticipated delivery date are both unknown.

• The current employment base for Winslow on employment sites for a community of 5,000 residents is less than 60 full time equivalents. Little Horwood, population less than 450, has more jobs on employment sites than Winslow. This cannot be considered a satisfactory situation upon which to build the very substantial number of new quality jobs a new settlement must generate.

• The New Settlement Options for north of Winslow would inevitably significantly impact upon both Great Horwood and Little Horwood. In fact it would not be inaccurate to state that a new settlement located north of Winslow and centred on the old airfield site would swamp these two villages.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 93 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll • The old Little Horwood airfield site has been described as brownfield land. This is not correct. Just 14 hectares of the site were identified as previously developed land in the Case Officer’s Report for the Winslow Green planning application by Gladman Developments Ltd.

• There were very substantive material planning reasons for the refusal of the Gladman application for Winslow Green. The same reasons would apply and more for the refusal of an application for a new settlement based on the old airfield site.

• The proposal for this New Settlement, which would in the main be located in Great Horwood parish, would be in direct conflict with the made Great Horwood Neighbourhood Plan, a matter of considerable significance but overlooked in the Scoping Study.

• Currently in the Vale, only Aylesbury and Buckingham have populations of more than 10,000, so in the “geography of centres within an area,” it surely does not make sense for Winslow to be chosen as this would locate the centres of the second and third largest communities in the Vale within 7 miles of each other in the north of the District. Such proximity would inevitably have an adverse effect on Buckingham’s current position of servicing its own and the needs of its nearby communities and at the same time threaten the viability of the new settlement being able to establish the required retail, services and community facilities provision for its 15,000+ residents.

• If the new settlement were to be located north of Winslow, this would result in the Northern Vale (including Buckingham) being required to generate 41% of the District’s housing growth, nearly double the historic housing growth rate for the Northern Vale and not far shy of the figure for Aylesbury. This cannot be considered reasonable and realistic when there will be no guaranteed improvements to either the A421 or the A413 in the Plan period. Very significantly, if the new settlement were to be located north of Winslow, this would mean that within five mile radius of the old airfield site, over 10,100 new homes would be required to be built by 2033 (including Whaddon and Newton Longville but not Buckingham). This would represent 30.4% of the District’s housing growth total in this very small area of the North East of the Vale, a growth of more than 170%! No doubt a thorough viability and capacity study would confirm a very substantial need for new roads to accommodate for such a density of development.

• Bucks CC, in its response to the VALP I & O Consultation, made it clear that their view was that any new settlement should be located at Haddenham and stated - that the rural character of Winslow and villages in the Vale of Aylesbury should be safeguarded to avoid urban sprawl and BCC sees merit in expanding growth in Aylesbury, Buckingham and Haddenham with the possibility of new settlement expansion at Haddenham.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 94 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll •Lastly and probably the strongest argument of all, is that the proposal to locate a New Settlement of 6,000 plus homes on land north of Winslow known as the airfield site is totally impractical as the site is simply too small in area to accommodate such a significant development, as proved by the evidence above. One should also recognise that, once established, the New Settlement in future decades must have room for significant growth and the north of Winslow site is heavily constrained by Great.Horwood, Little Horwood and of course Winslow.

------

In conclusion therefore, it is fair to observe that the New Settlement Scoping Study compiled by GL Hearn is a fatally flawed document. In spite of that fact, when one corrects for the various errors, it is only logical to conclude that the site of choice for the required new settlement, if there is to be one, must be at Haddenham. Regarding the key factors required to commence delivery of a new settlement of 4,500 homes by 2033, Haddenham provides the certainty that all are in place now, whereas Winslow lacks many of these key factors and considerable uncertainty surrounds whether they can ever be in place and, of course, the proposed site is far too small to be considered viable for a new settlement of 6,000 plus homes. Haddenham simply ticks all the boxes.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 95 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01697 Jodi Stokes (Persimmon Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Development at Homes Midlands) The site is located at Calvert Green, with the closest towns being the small market town of Winslow (approx. 7 miles) and the larger service centre of Bicester (approx. 11 miles). The village itself has a community hall, bus service and shop unit. The developable area will be located to the south and will cover approximately 15.5 hectares of the 30 hectare site. The site is comprises part farmed part vacant pasture to the north and west of the existing David Wilson Homes and Persimmon Homes residential development. The southern triangular parcel of land is still actively farmed whilst the rest of the site is scrubland with ponds and significant mature woodland to the northern end. The site is currently vacant greenfield land with roads to the west and northern boundaries. The proposed route of HS2 is further to the east. Persimmon Homes and David Wilson Homes propose residential development to support the delivery of the land to the north (which is of value in terms of ecology and habitats) to be opened up for recreation to the existing community as well as providing the mitigation the County Council is seeking through development and/or financial contributions. The land to the north of the site is a Local Nature Reserve and could be enhanced by formalising the recreational open space within the site.

As mentioned previously when discussing delivery of rural housing, new developments of this type are key in providing and sustaining services and facilities as required by a specific community. The illustrative layout shows the developable area on the southern part and an undeveloped area for community park / nature reserve on the northern part. This layout has been shared with the Parish Council and local residents at a meeting on 22 February 2016. Calvert Green is included within Aylesbury Vale’s Draft HELAA (May 2016), however dismissed as not achievable or suitable for development. The reasons for this judgement as stated in the site assessment are that “to preserve the countryside location of the modern housing development” and it is a “Biological Notification Site”. The site is owned by Persimmon Homes and David Wilson Homes who are fully committed to delivering the site in a timely manner. We would envisage delivering the 250-300 dwellings within 3-4 years of gaining permission. This development would not only assist bringing forward services for the community but would also support the existing bus services and shop unit. This will improve the sustainability level of the village and prevent the village becoming stagnated (as could happen if there are no homes allocated within the village for the remainder of the plan period).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 96 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01704 Nick Freer (Hallam Land Transport Modelling - Observations on the County Wide Local Plan Modelling Report , Management) Odyssey Markides, (Appendix 2) It is clear from a review of the supporting evidence base on transport that there remains a substantial amount of work to be carried out before there is sufficient evidence available to demonstrate the soundness of the Plan. Of particular concern is the transport modelling that is being relied upon to assess the impacts of the alternative scenarios. The Forecast Modelling Report makes it clear that the Countywide Strategic Model does not comply with WebTAG standards in terms of validation. This is justified within the Report by quoting the National Planning Practice Guidance as stating that: ‘An assessment should adopt the principled of WebTAG by assessing the potential impacts of development within the framework of WebTAG objectives. For most Local Plan assessments the full methodology recommended will not be appropriate.’ Whilst the NPPG does not expect the full methodology to be appropriate, no mention is made specifically regarding model validation and we do not consider that this paragraph in the NPPG offers the opportunity to avoid meeting appropriate validation criteria for any transport models used in the Local Plan process. Furthermore, the NPPG goes on to state that ‘Assessments involving major new transport infrastructure should, however, employ the methods set out in WebTAG. As the Do Something model includes the Aylesbury South ‐East Link Road (which is not in the Do Minimum model) it is clearly including major new infrastructure and should follow WebTAG. Looking in detail at the validation of the Countywide Strategic Model, modelled flows on fewer than 60% of the roads that have been compared to observed flows meet the validation criteria. Similarly for journey times, fewer than 60% of the routes examined were within 15% of observed journey times. WebTAG requires that for a model to be considered acceptable a minimum of 85% of link flows and journey times should meet the required validation criteria. Within Stage One of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy, AECOM have the following to say about the Countywide Strategic Model: ‘Overall, the Countywide Strategic Transport Model has several key limitations that reduce the confidence in the use of the model in identifying existing and future transport issues. The use of purely synthetic demand data is not recommended and without verifying against observed data, the validity of the demand matrices cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, the modelled and observed flow comparison and journey time validation suggest that the model does not have good representation of the observed traffic flow and delay within the network. Hence, it is unlikely that the model can be used to accurately identify existing and future transport issues in its current form.’ We are therefore concerned that the model being relied upon as the evidence base for the Local Plan is not fit for purpose and will need to be addressed for the Plan to be found unsound.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 97 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01707 Richard Walker Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Pegasus Group) Having read many such documents, our analysis is that the assessment of suitability in the Aylesbury Vale HEELA is very often out of step with other LPAs documents. We see many sites rated as unsuitable which patently are suitable. Simply because the development of land might generate certain effects, does not render it unsuitable. If the HEELA is not robust, and planning judgments are made on the basis of a false prospectus, the soundness of those judgements will be challenged. The LPA is in danger of unjustifiably narrowing the field of suitable sites for which to select allocations. In such circumstances the Council will have prematurely shut down certain credible options as reasonable alternatives. To illustrate the point, HAD14 and HA22 at Haddenham are prime examples of this and we have no association with them. We do have a particular interest in Grendon Underwood and Newton Longville. We regard the assessment of NLV002 (Land Between Pond Close and West Brook End, at Newton Longville; even, if this is (wrongly) not the preferred option it does not follow that it is unsuitable. The negative view of much of the land to the west, south and east of the village is not credible. The constraints pertaining to the land and the nature of the impact do not generate an unsuitable rating. Likewise, at Grendon Underwood the accusation that the GUW014 (Land south of Shakespeare House and adjacent playing field, off Broadway) is unsuitable because it could not be designed to protect the setting of the CA and Shakespeare House is unfounded. Further, whilst the village has a linear form there is in this instance no in-principle planning reason for objecting to development that deviates from that linearity. A recent interesting appeal decisions in relation to the ‘shape’ of a village is at Minster Lovell, South Oxfordshire (PINS ref: APP/D3125/W/16/3148659). Permission here was refused but the issues at Grendon Underwood not constraining and therefore a suitable rating should not be withheld. A planning application was submitted for up to 82 dwellings on this site in the W/C August 29th 2016.

VALP16-09-13-01807 Tom Hutchinson (Land Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - WINSLOW - Support for the identification of WIN008 (Land East of Furze and Partners Ltd Lane) and WIN010 (Land at Winslow Rugby Club) as suitable for housing, which reflects the made Neighbourhood Plan allocations (Winslow & and the Outline planning consent 13/02837/AOP for which we were the applicant. This site is now nearing delivery. Haddenham)) HADDENHAM - Sites HAD014, HAD022, HAD023 and HAD24 have been identified as unsuitable for housing or economic development. The main reason given is that these sites are beyond the existing village edge defined by the railway line without other built up sites west of the railway line. We accept that in isolation, each site would be unsuitable, except perhaps HAD014, which is reasonably well enclosed by buildings and activities along Station Road. But as part of a significantly expanded settlement to accomodate major strategic growth, we believe that a high quality masterplan and landscape strategy could unlock this area for development and bring in all the aforementioned HELAA sites as well as several others.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 98 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01811 Tom Hutchinson (Land Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Support for the identification of MGB003 as suitable for housing, although and Partners Ltd (Marsh the eastern part should be omitted and a revised site capacity of 10 is suggested (final number dependent on the agreed scheme at Gibbon)) the planning stage).

Support for the identification of MGB005 as suitable for housing, with a revised site capacity of 25 is suggested (final number dependent on the agreed scheme at the planning stage).

MGB004 should be identified as suitable for housing with a much reduced site area and capacity of 10 dwellings suggested, which reflects the detailed work to date through the withdrawn application and the subsequent pre-application process.

Two new sites south of Little Marsh Road should be considered for housing development with perhaps a maximum capacity of 10 dwellings (northern field) and 30 dwellings (southern field), subject to more detailed design work. VALP16-09-13-01813 Tom Hutchinson (Land Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - Support for the identification of GHW014 as suitable for housing, as noted and Partners Ltd (Great above. However, objection to the identified capacity as 15 dwellings. This was based on the western part of the site being allocated Horwood)) in the Neighbourhood Plan for 15 dwellings and the eastern part being a reserve site for a similar number. At the time the Neighbourhood Plan was being prepared, only 45 dwellings were being sought, but now the emerging VALP figures, together with the housing land supply shortfall, have superseded that position. It, would, therefore, be appropriate to specify a capacity of 30 dwellings within Years 1-5. VALP16-09-13-01814 Tom Hutchinson (Land Housing and Econimc Land Availability Assessment - and Partners Ltd Following on from the above points, we propose that ICK004 and ICK003 are identified as suitable for housing. We will follow up with (Ickford)) more detailed work soon, including the proposed housing capacity. VALP16-09-19-01830 L P Conybeare Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworthto be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernable employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reaons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 99 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses - Evidence Documents

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-19-01831 N P Conybeare Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworthto be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernable employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reaons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

VALP16-09-19-01832 Joanna Conybeare Settlement Hierarchy - My reasons for deeming Marsworthto be a small village are as follows: Marsworth only just falls into the category of a medium village numerically (current population 741), and thus a proposed housing increase of 19% does not fit with the current size of the village. Marsworth has been allocated 6 points for amenities and yet there are extremely limited amenities within the village. Marsworth CofE Infant School is awarded 1 point and yet even the Strategy has recognised and commented that it is only a first school and has no nursery and provides education for a very limited number of 5-7 year olds. All children in the village over the age of 7 must be educated outside the village; therefore it is totally unreasonable to award a full point for our school in the same way that a point is awarded for a full primary school in other villages. There is a very limited bus service to and from the village, which has recently been subject to even further cuts. Amenities in Tring have been cut, most notably the New Surgery has closed and Tring already has to accommodate the needs of its own development and that of adjacent Hertfordshire villages. Marsworth itself has no shop in the village or within walking distance. It has in recent years also lost a pub and very recently its garage. Marsworth has no discernable employment opportunities within the village and the 31 identified in the Strategy are double-counted in that they appear in other villages' proposals too. Many of these are in fact more than the suggested 2 kilometres from the village and most do not offer employment, while those that do offer only either zero hours, minimum wage or temporary work - not proper long-term employment. Therefore for all of the above reaons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village.

VALP16-09-19-01839 Robert Skinner Gypsy and Traveller Site Assessment - 4.150 Such sites should be near major roads and have good clear access. Putting them near villages is not acceptable

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 100 of 100 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-12-00204 Kate Wright Policies Map - GT8 - Land off Worminghall Road, Worminghall

VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton Policies Map - Map The sites identified and the number of dwellings/ site do not correspond to the local Neighbourhood Plan, which will go to referendum shortly. This used a thorough assessment to identify the best sites and was supported by the local community. Particularly WGR004. To build 50 dwellings on this site is too large, particularly as this site has areas which are prone to flooding and access is particularly difficult onto Winslow Road. Either via Abbotts Way which is directly opposite the school and near the Twelve Leys junction which would create a huge amount of traffic in an already congested area. Or directly onto Winslow Road which would be on a dangerous bend. VALP16-07-22-00214 Lisa Dailey Policies Map - Milton Keynes/Bletchely Having looked at your proposals for development on the land between Kingsmead (Milton Keynes) and Whaddon I am e mailing to express my concerns regarding this. My concerns are as follows- - there is lack of road infrastructure to support this development which will lead to road congestion in Milton Keynes on main routes - the road from the V1 to Whaddon is going to be used as a shortcut increasing traffic on a country lane - there is going to be noise pollution from construction so close to bordering houses - the countryside is going to be negatively impacted - there are not enough local facilities such as healthcare and schooling and people from this development are going to use facilities that are already oversubscribed by Milton Keynes residents - it is generally going to spoil our local area. People moved and live here for fresh air and access to the green belt land and do not want out views/land to be spoiled by extra developments I hope these comments can be taken on board.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 1 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-07-29-00236 John Oldfield Policies Map - The call for site maps show developments that are within or just upstream of the IDB Drainage District. The Board (Buckingham and River requires confirmation that these are developed appropriately regarding flood risk, with strategic, integrated and maintainable SuDS. Ouzel IDB) Development will need to comply with the IDB's Byelaws and Consenting, where applicable. The sites to note are: Buckingham Eddlesborough & Eaton Bray and Stoke Hammond Great and Little Horwood Ivinghoe Aston Leckhamstead Nash & Whaddon Newton Longville North Marston Pitstone & Ivinghoe Slapton Soulbury Steeple Clayden Thornborough Twyford Wing Winslow & Addington

VALP16-08-02-00247 Clive Palmer (Leighton- Policies Map - Map on page 42-Parcel 109 & 110 West of Leighton-Linslade Linslade Town The proposal as shown here is to be strongly supported as creating a logical unification of other Green Belt tranches , providing a Councillor for the protection against urban sprawl, delineating a defensible and robust edge to the Green Belt and adding further protection to a highly Southcott Ward and valued landscape by thousands of people. Director of Southcott Management Company See also below under general comments. VALP16-08-04-00250 P M Silver Policies Map - I have in the past written about this issue. I read in our local newspaper the Leighton Buzzard Observer it has been suggested that the area (valley farm) seeks Green Belt status. Since we live close to the proposed site of the housing, can see traffic problems for Leighton Buzzard would be immense. The traffic already is almost at stand still now. If there is a vote for Green Belt I strongly support it. VALP16-08-10-00290 Angus Smith Policies Map - Draft VALP - Potential Housing Allocations - Grendon Underwood

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 2 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-11-00303 Mark Limbrick (Defence Policies Map - DIO supports and welcomes the proposed revision of the Green Belt boundary shown on the proposals map which Infrastructure removes East Camp, RAF Halton from the Green Belt. Organisation (on behalf of the MoD)) VALP16-08-12-00313 Ian Stewart Policies Map - I am a resident of , near Edlesborough, and I recently attended an open meeting at our village hall regarding the Neighborhood Plan. I noted a number of potential sites were identified for future development, and I wish to contact the appropriate person at AVDC/ HELLA, in order to discuss the potential of my own property as a future development site. I have a significant plot which is very similar to one which has already been identified in the village as being developed, but my plot has arguably better access on to the road so may also be suitable at some time in the future. Your help in signposting me to the correct person(s) would be appreciated. VALP16-08-13-00323 Guy Hawking Policies Map - Proposed New Settlement Option WINSLOW

VALP16-08-16-00339 Robert John Policies Map - Draft VALP plan - Marsworth. Site MAR003 does not match the size and nothern boundary as that shown on the HELAA plan and, most importantly, does not include the link to the main road (Lower ) which is vital to relieve congestion and dangerous school bus parking at Vicarage Road/Lower Icknield Way VALP16-08-16-00341 Elaine Standen Policies Map - Marsworth map 20, pag 242.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 3 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin Policies Map - We would refer to the "Potential Housing Allocations - Winslow" plan. We are the owners of the site to the west of Family) Furze Lane (referred to as WIN022 in the HELAA Draft Report) and directly to the West of the St Thomas Fremantle School and Winslow Rail Station site (WIN003). Our site is adjacent to the Bloor Homes site (WIN008). We deal with the inaccuracies of the HELAA later in this consultation, however, we believe that our site has been dismissed somewhat too readily as being suitable for development for the following reasons:

1. Location and Roadway Improvements:

Our site is within the parish boundary and sits directly on the border of the designated Winslow Neighbourhood Area. Given Aylesbury Vale's original Local Plan was rejected for not meeting housing need and given Winslow has been cited as an area of strategic growth, sites that sit on the boundary should be a starting point for consideration for additional housing.

Our site is adjacent to two major sites which are already under construction (WIN003 and WIN008) it also sits directly north of the East West Rail link (the railway runs along the southern boundary of our site), where considerable works will be taking place to deliver this major piece of infrastructure. At the northern boundary of our site sits a garden centre / nursery. Sites WIN003 and WIN020 mean that development to the north of the new railway line will be acceptable and indeed the draft local plan cites the north of the railway line is where potential further expansion should take place. The access (Furze Lane) we understand is being significantly improved to accommodate the residential development by Bloor Homes on Furze Lane to the south (WIN008).

2. Sustainable Transport Links

In line with paragraphs 3.42 to 3.53 of the draft plan development of this site promotes sustainable and integrated transport links: Our site is directly opposite the new school and station site, and can be accessed by crossing Furze Lane, rather than the main arterial road that is Buckingham Road, thereby promoting a safe pedestrian access to local residents using the school and the station. It is also adjacent to the Bloor Homes site (WIN008), thereby promoting connectivity to Winslow town centre for pedestrians and cyclists. As our site is adjacent to where the new station, school and commercial space will be placed - this promotes car free access.

3. Our site is not part of the green belt.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 4 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment 4. Our site is not a farm and is likely to be a compound site as part of the Network Rail works:

While our site is used for agricultural purposes it does not form part of a farm and is let to a tenant farmer. The site houses an electricity pylon and has been cited by Network Rail to be used as a major temporary compound as part of the East West rail link works. Therefore, there is likely to be significant activity on the site, negating the ability to utilise the site for farm land. The council and Network Rail thus view our site as being suitable to promote and facilitate major infrastructure yet do not see it as suitable for development. Moreover, the AV Draft Local Plan says that good quality agricultural space will be retained. The site currently being considered beyond what was cited in the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan (WIN001) is a farm - yet is being promoted as suitable development land. Our site is not a farm and is being promoted as suitable major compound space yet is not deemed suitable for development of any kind.

We believe that the additional site within the local plan (WIN001) being promoted has merits but has the following issues which our site does not have:

1. The site is good agricultural land - as cited in para 3.44.2 of the Lepus Consulting Sustainability Report.

2. The site's only vehicular access is via Great Horwood Road. Unlike Furze Lane, we understand that this is not being upgraded to accommodate further development and increased traffic movement.

3. The site's direct access to Winslow town centre is "blocked" by the railway line, making connectivity to centre limited.

4. The site has been highlighted as being a high flood risk and development here would result in the loss of habitats of local importance (paras 3.44.3 and 3.44.4 of the Lepus Consulting Sustainability Report).

5. The HELAA and the draft local plan are not aligned on this site. Firstly, it appears to show WIN001 as being significantly larger than in the draft local plan - cutting across the parish boundary line. Secondly, it abuts site GHW003, which has been cited as unsuitable for development by the HELAA. This, despite the fact that the 2016 Settlement Study and Aylesbury Vale have targeted GHW003 as an area for a potential new settlement (amongst other options). Therefore, the plans for this area are very unclear.

6. Too much development to the north will cause coalescence with Great Horwood - which goes against the Draft Local Plan Policy.

7. The site appears to have multiple interests on it and therefore vacant possession may be a risk and thus timely deliverability? The status of this is of course an unknown.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 5 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00404 peter Scott Policies Map - 14. The draft map for Winslow shows that the area of the airfield is not suitable for housing. This is contradicted by the new settlement proposals which take no account of the draft plan. This makes very confusing and misleading reading. 14. The area north of the Winslow railway line is marked as "part suitable for housing". This would (1.) spread Winslow across a natural boundary and make Winslow split by a fast electrric railway line and (2.) potentially attach Winslow directly to a new settlement should it ever be built. 14. I support the notion that Winslow should not be joined to Shipton and the exclusion of any building to the east of the Little Horwood Road.

VALP16-08-21-00407 Rosalind Scott Policies Map - Please look carefully at the map of the Winslow area for a sensitive placement of the new expressway. Do not locate it near areas where pedestrians are likely to be put at risk. VALP16-08-21-00411 Julia Robinson Policies Map - CHE001 - this site was considered and rejected for development by the Cheddington Neighbourhood plan. Reasons why this is not suitable include noise from the railway and lack of screening of the site from the railway, narrow access to the site from the High Street, maintenance of agricultural fields within the village centre and the possibility of using this site as additional school playing fields in the future. The assessment that it would be possible to build 58 houses that meet VALP build critieria is open to considerable challenge. VALP16-08-22-00417 Diane Phillips Policies Map - 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.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 6 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-23-00441 Alexander Matthews Policies Map - HEELA. ( Thornton). I've already made comments before but I note the three areas identified by the landowner here (Thornton Parish in Thornton are entirely inappropriate for development. VALP16-08-24-00448 Michael Henderson Policies Map - See previous comments relating to policy D2. (Dinton with Ford and Upton Parish Council) VALP16-08-24-00494 William Hubbick Policies Map - Suggested sites for the construction of 50 new houses in Ickford

VALP16-08-25-00529 Lucy Murfett (Chilterns Policies Map - Aylesbury Garden Town Green Infrastructure Network map fails to show National Trail which runs Conservation Board) along the Chilterns escarpment and other important Chilterns routes including the Chiltern Link and the Chilterns Cycleway. The green infrastructure network should link Aylesbury to these strategic walking and cycling routes. This comment also applies to policy C4 which could usefully refer to the public rights of way network and national trails in the Chilterns AONB. For routes please see http://www.chilternsaonb.org/explore-enjoy/walks-rides.html or contact the Chilterns Conservation Board.

Map RSA3: Halton Camp this map should show the boundary of the AONB. The AONB covers part of the northern section of the Halton Camp site.

VALP16-08-26-00535 vera Town Policies Map - Cheddington potential housing allocation. As I said previously, cheddington voted for the partridge close/ Nathan rd/ rd development and all other sites were discounted. Especially the croft meadows site as this(he village felt) should be kept for future school development. VALP16-08-27-00541 Martin Hopcroft Policies Map - Ivinghoe is designated as a larger village, which is contrary to evidence and facts. Ivinghoe is a small village.

VALP16-08-28-00546 Jeremy Pugh Policies Map - Regarding the planned building on plot WGR001 in Wingrave

In my opinion that is a doesnt make any sense, you have noted that each dwelling has to have frontage to Church st, to fit 21 house on this very small section of Church st is not possible. The gradient and topography of the site would be very challenging for any build and would completely ruin the look of the village as it is a very prominent position that can be viewed from across the vale not just within the village. The field has traditionally been used for the November 5th bonfire for as long as i can remember. VALP16-08-28-00548 Nicola Page Policies Map - When I spoke in town looking at the Aylesbury Garden Town map and the housing by the new road and HS2 link together, it was suggested that large noise barriers would be erected to shield people in new housing from the noise of new roads. Do not use unsightly noise barriers, use commerce. Use provision for the elderly strategically on busy roads, after all, they do not commute. Join up all those cycle ways in the plan, don't let the developments over-write them and more than anything, allow green space for new schools! We need several more secondary schools for these numbers and they take space, none has been left.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 7 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-08-28-00550 Patricia Tomlinson Policies Map - Cheddington Croft Meadows site should be protected as it is an essential part of the character of the village, preserving its agricultural heritage as a place for farm animals, as well as its historically important ridges and furrows. The High Street already suffers from heavy traffic and more housing increase the traffic and parking on the High Street adding to the danger to other road users, pedestrians and cyclists. VALP16-08-28-00551 Chris Tomlinson Policies Map - Policy map 10 Cheddington Croft Meadows was not part of the potential sites for building the agreed housing according to the Neighbourhood Plan. Croft Meadows which is used for grazing is an integral part of the village character just as much as the Village Green, The High Street is already very congested, any further development adjacent to the High Street would add to this congestion making it more dangerous for residents of the village and resulting in a deterioration of the environment. VALP16-08-29-00555 Mary Peacock Policies Map - Site ref. CHE001 The site east and south of Croft Meadows was dismissed from the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan because of its significant contribution to the village. Can The Neighbourhood Plan be overturned in this way with no reference to Cheddington. Where is the democracy in this? VALP16-08-30-00562 Andrew Bateson (AB Policies Map - Generally supported. Planning & Development Ltd) VALP16-08-31-00579 Christopher Pennicott Policies Map - Croft Meadows is not an appropriate site for any additional Houses in Cheddington . Views to the Chiltern Hills / Ivinghoe Beacon are enjoyed by villagers and visitors alike . We have already agreed to lose some beautiful views as part of the Neighbourhood plan . In addition , Having such a reserve site ( whatever that really means ) of more houses is unsustainable in relation to infrastructure --local primary school (already full) ; village roads ; drainage etc etc . VALP16-08-31-00607 Eleanor Dolley Policies Map - The comments I have made throughout, refer mainly to the area marked as 'WHA001'.

VALP16-09-01-00617 Richard Murdock Policies Map - Newton Longville - we support the identification of Site NLV005 as a potential housing allocation in the Draft Plan (Woods Hardwick Planning Ltd) VALP16-09-01-00621 Lachlan Robertson Policies Map - Chapter 12 Appendix A (Savills) We would suggest that the sites identified for Cheddington should include the following:-

Land east and south of Croft Meadows – 58 dwellings Site Ref CHE001

Land west of Barkham Close (the remaining land not allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan) 20 dwellings Site Reference CHE005.

Land south east of Long Marston Road (the remaining land not allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan) 56 dwellings Site Reference CHE006.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 8 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00622 Lachlan Robertson Policies Map - Appendix A Comments (Savills on behalf of Aylesbury Vale Estates) Chapter 12 Appendix A We would put forward the following sites for allocation for housing:- Gatehouse Way/Griffin Lane - replacement of current B1 land with planning permission with 0.8 ha housing. Within site AYL028 as indicated on potential housing allocations map. Housing capacity dependant on site specific assessment. Rabans Lane - replacement of current B class use with a mix of commercial (2.6 ha) and housing (4 ha). Housing capacity dependant on site specific assessment. Whitehall St Car Park – replacement with 14 flats. Moreton Road, Buckingham – 0.4 ha. Housing capacity dependant on site specific assessment. Brill – replacement with 2.5 ha of residential. Housing capacity dependant on site specific assessment. Haddenham – Land to the west of Haddenham and Thame Parkway Railway Station. Housing capacity dependant on site specific assessment. C. 10 ha but housing capacity dependant on site specific assessment and ecology/habitat assessment.

VALP16-09-01-00633 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Policies Map - It is noted that in relation to the drafted Policies Map, illustrate the location of the potential allocations on the Planning Services (on ‘settlement’ insets, and provides ‘strategic illustrations’ of Aylesbury Garden Town. behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs Church and Mr Davis of In relation to this, it is considered that the Aylesbury inset being focussed purely on the south east of the town is misleading, and Corner Farm, Gib Lane should illustrate the context of growth for the whole town on the inset. Furthermore, as discussed, it is considered that additional Bierton)) allocations should be made in relation to Aylesbury in order to address the shortfall between its residual housing requirement and potential allocations as identified in the draft plan. As highlighted, it is considered that ‘Land west of Gib Lane, Bierton’ is ideally located to accommodate such an allocation, and that its development would concord with the emerging development strategy.

VALP16-09-01-00634 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Policies Map - Planning Services (on It is noted that in relation to the drafted Policies Map, illustrate the location of the potential allocations on the ‘settlement’ insets, and behalf of Mrs Davis, Mrs provides ‘strategic illustrations’ of Aylesbury Garden Town. Church and Mr Davis of Corner Farm, Gib Lane, In relation to this, it is considered that the Aylesbury inset being focussed purely on the south east of the town is misleading, and Bierton)) should illustrate the context ofgrowth for the whole town on the inset. Furthermore, as discussed, it is considered that additional allocations should be made in relation to Aylesbury in order to address the shortfall between its residual housing requirement and potential allocations as identified in the draft plan. It is specifically considered that Land at Corner Farm, Gib Lane, Bierton, should be identified as an allocation on the policies map.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 9 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00635 M Hammock Policies Map - Comments on: “DRAFT Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.VALP

The need for new housing is unarguable and most people would accept a fair and proportionate increase in their local housing population, provided it does not destroy the character, environment and general well-being of their community. The parish of Newton Longville has a population of around 1900, approximately 1% of the total population of Aylesbury Vale, but is required to accommodate nearly 10% of the entire additional housing (excluding unmet need from other districts) required under the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. Approximately one new house for each existing resident. This of course includes the 1885 houses treated in your document as a “separate” settlement, although it lies less than a quarter of a mile from Newton Longville’s village boundary and within its Parish boundary. To view NLV001 in isolation without consideration for the monumental impact it would have on the village and residents of Newton Longville is incomprehensible. Section 3 (S3) of the Draft VALP states: “In considering applications for building in the countryside the council will have regard to maintaining the individual identity of villages and avoiding extensions to built-up areas that might lead to coalescence between settlements”

NVL001 contravenes this requirement in that it extends the built up area of West Bletchley and approaches Newton Longville’s border so closely that “coalescence” would be a real possibility in the future. Furthermore, the creation of a large development, more than twice its size and adjacent to Newton Longville cannot fail to adversely affect the “individual identity” of the village.

Many of the other sites under consideration for house building around this area were rejected under the Draft Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) for, among other reasons, that they were “exposed to views from surrounding settlements”. The southern half of the NVL001 site, below Weasel Lane, is fully visible when leaving Newton Longville on Whadden Road and is exposed to views from dozens of properties in the north western part of Newton Longville. Under the VALP all proposed sites for housing are required to be “sustainable”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 10 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Whether NVL001 is sustainable is questionable for the following reasons: • The site is currently agricultural land with minimal requirement for essential services, drainage, water gas and electricity. All of which will have to be significantly upgraded. • The main burden of providing social, health and education services would fall not to AVDC, but to MK Council. The premise of placing large developments on the boundary of neighbouring urban councils and remote from AVDC’s own stated “Strategic Settlements” is somewhat dubious. • Transport infrastructure to the east of NVL001 is good, however to the west the A421 leaves much to be desired. The only road south from NVL001 is Whadden Road, a narrow minor road, currently over-used by HGV’s, LGV’s and private cars using it as a rat- run between the A421 and recently opened A4146 by-pass. Newton Longville is an increasingly hazardous place for pedestrians, many of whom are elderly. Indeed it has no form of pedestrian crossing or traffic calming anywhere within the village and yet vehicle throughput consistently runs in excess of 50,000 vehicles a month and speeding into and out of the village is an ongoing problem. Any improvement to Whadden Road, outside the village, would be pointless as the main bottleneck is within Newton Longville itself. Some form of by-pass or relief road is the only practical solution, other than to restrict through-traffic. Whilst perhaps not directly a planning consideration the loss of 144 hectares of arable farmland to housing is an ecological own goal. Hardly a sensible deal for anyone other than the developer. The inclusion of NVL001 in the Draft VALP, which is already the subject of a planning application by South West Milton Keynes Consortium raises the prospect of a rubber-stamp approval of this very inappropriate development. Given that NVL001 is one of the largest developments outside of the Aylesbury area it seems ill-considered that Newton Longville village is also expected to accommodate the highest level of housing development of all the so-called “Medium” size villages (154) Surely placing two of the largest developments in the Draft VALP (NVL001 & WHA001) on the boundary of MK Council provides housing provision more appropriate to Milton Keynes itself rather than Aylesbury Vale. Milton Keynes has plenty of development land within its own boundaries without neighbouring districts providing additional housing on its own doorstep.

In conclusion I believe the inclusion of NVL001 in the Draft VALP is inappropriate for the following reasons: 1.Extension of urban area of West Bletchley, contrary to S3. 2.Danger of coalescence with Newton Longville village, contrary to S3. 3.Serious adverse affect on the “individual identity” of Newton Longville, contrary to S3. 4.NVL001 south of Weasel Lane is exposed to views by many properties within Newton Longville. 5.Provision of social, health and education services largely provided by neighbouring district council. 6.Location is more appropriate for Milton Keynes housing than Aylesbury Vale. 7.One of the largest developments located remotely from AVDCs stated Strategic Settlements. 8.Seriously deficient infrastructure, particularly transport links to the south of the development. 9.Existing hazardous traffic environment within Newton Longville, increased significantly as a result of greater traffic volume and poor road infrastructure.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 11 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00638 Andrew Middleton Policies Map - Cheddington Potential Housing Allocation map; Croft Meadows.

I accept that Cheddington must accept its fair share of housing development Aylesbury Vale. This principle was accepted in our Neighbourhood Plan that was approved by an overwhelming majority in our village referendum last year. In that plan, which was drawn up after extensive local discussion, we identified several sites which were preferred by local residents for any future housing development. As a corollary, Cheddington residents rejected other sites for development; one such rejected site was 'Croft Meadows'.

Our plan was drawn up in response to the Localism Act, which encouraged and empowered local communities to influence development in their neighbourhood. I am very concerned that the VALP Cheddington Potential Housing Allocation map includes 'Croft Meadows' as a site for possible housing development, even though the preferred sites that were identified in the Cheddington Plan (2i, 2ii and 2iii) could accommodate the number of dwellings being proposed.

'Croft Meadows' is an asset to Cheddington, contributing in no small way to maintaining its essentially rural character, bringing local farming activity to the High Street. Croft Meadows affords an open view to the Chiltern Hills and preserves historical ridge and furrow cultivation. Furthermore, the site affords poor vehicular access to/from any development. Under the terms of the Localism Act, I think the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan should prevail and would urge the Council to withdraw 'Croft 'Meadows' from consideration as a site for possible housing development in the VALP. VALP16-09-02-00640 Mark Dolling Policies Map - My comments are in relation to proposed site BUC046 in Buckingham. In my view this is a very poor selection for residential development of the proposed scale (420 dwellings). The site is not sustainable, it has poor connectivity to existing housing, shops, safe walking and cycling routes and development of this size would put unacceptable pressure on the already busy ring road and the unsuitable Gawcott Road. The site sits between an industrial estate and open agricultural land (all bar 14 or so dwellings on Gawcott Fields, mostly constructed in the 1930's (inc my own home) It would be unacceptable to destroy our views and amenity in such a way. Other sites in Buckingham, located immediately adjacent to existing larger scale and new development are much more suitable to address demand.

VALP16-09-02-00654 Tom Hutchinson (Land Policies Map - We will be submitting separate emailed comments for our promoted sites. and Partners Ltd) VALP16-09-02-00655 Frances Durkin Policies Map - Map on page 10 of proposed site in Cheddington Site CHE001 must be protected as a site of Local Green Space for the reasons I have set out in my comments on Chapters 8 and 9. Not only does this site offer extraordinary views from which the entire village benefits but it must also be designates a LGS in order for the VALP to comply with government's National Planning Policy Framework. The site has historical significance to the area, is used for agricultural purposes and deserves to be protected from housing development. The Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan as researched by the Parish Council is a very thorough and practical document which admits the need to build new properties in the village and makes thorough provision for doing so. It reviewed numerous sites in the village and provided sufficient allocation for the need. It has also highlighted some sights (such as disused and neglected orchard sites) which may be appropriate in the future for additional building. It is also very clear in setting out the need to protect the Croft Meadows site as a Local Green Space.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 12 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons An objection is raised to the Policies Map accompanying the Draft Plan. Further details are provided below in response to the Developments Ltd) Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment V.3 May 2016. The HELAA concludes that a potential capacity for 25,882 dwellings on 239 sites can be delivered during the plan period to 2033. In addition to this, there is also planning permission for 22 dwellings on sites outside of HELAA settlements, permission for 353 dwellings (already reduced by 10% for non-delivery) on sites below 5 and evidence that 876 dwellings could be delivered on windfall sites. Including this on top of the HELAA capacity, a total potential capacity of 27,133 dwellings is identified. The HELAA further states that of the total potential capacity, approximately 10,315 dwellings could be delivered within the next five years and 16,818 dwellings from specific sites that are considered developable in the longer term have been identified for years 6-15 years. Aylesbury Vale District Council published their Five Year Housing Land Supply Interim Position Statement in August 2016. The Statement identifies the Council’s housing completions for the past five years to be 1,103 dwellings for 2011/12, 934 dwellings for 2012/13, 990 dwellings for 2013/14, 1,419 dwellings for 2014/15 and 1,191 dwellings for 2015/16. This equates to a total figure of 5,637 dwellings that were delivered over the past five years. Furthermore, the Statement identifies the Council's deliverable supply from 2016–2021 to be 6,177 dwellings and deliverable supply from 2017–2022 to be 5,531 dwellings. Based on the above information in terms of the Council's past five-year delivery rate and expected future five-year delivery rate, it is unrealistic to suggest that 10,563 dwellings could be delivered over the forthcoming five-year period as identified in the HELAA and this is very unlikely to happen without a step change in the identification and delivery of housing.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 13 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons The HEDNA identifies the full objectively assessed need for housing (2013–2033) for Aylesbury Vale to be Developments Ltd) 21,289 dwellings. The Draft Plan estimates a figure of 12,000 to meet unmet needs from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks. Policy S2 identifies provision for 33,300 dwellings over the plan period to 2033. This figure does not account for additional need that may arise from Milton Keynes and therefore, in excess of 33,300 dwellings should be considered. Paragraph: 026, Reference ID: 3-026-20140306 of the Government's Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it may be concluded that insufficient sites/broad locations are identified against objectively assessed needs. Plan makers will therefore need to revisit the assessment, for example changing the assumptions on the development potential on particular sites (including physical and policy constraints) including sites for possible new settlements. If following this review there are still insufficient sites, then it will be necessary to investigate how this shortfall should best be planned for. If there is clear evidence that the needs cannot be met locally, it will be necessary to consider how needs might be met in adjoining areas in accordance with the duty to cooperate. It is clear from above that the housing requirement for Aylesbury Vale District (including unmet need) far exceeds the total potential capacity identified in the HELAA. It can therefore be deduced that insufficient capacity has been identified in the HELAA to meet the full objectively assessed housing need. However, there is no clear evidence provided by the Council to suggest the housing need for Aylesbury Vale can be met and there are limited constraints/designations under footnote 9 of the NPPF. Furthermore, the Council have not considered how unmet need might be met from adjoining local authorities such as Milton Keynes, therefore resulting in a failure in the duty to cooperate. VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons It is therefore clear that additional land will need to be identified as suitable for development over and Developments Ltd) above that in the HELAA in order to meet the housing requirement for the District. Larger. medium and smaller villages will need to contribute towards meeting this housing requirement through allocations. This is especially important as sites in villages (larger, medium and smaller) rather than just large, strategic sites will be required for housing development in the short term to meet the District's insufficient 5 year housing land supply. Settlements such as Bierton are well-placed to identify suitable and deliverable sites for housing growth over the plan period. The HELAA identifies my client’s site (reference: BIE011) on Land between Barnett House and Barnett Way, Bierton. For accuracy, my client’s land interest only includes a site area of 4.07ha as shown in the site location plan (reference: A46702). This does not include the north eastern part of the HELAA site BIE011. For reference, I enclose a copy of a letter dated 7 June 2016 clarifying this position. The remainder of the site has not been put forward for consideration/assessment. The assessment of the site contained in the HELAA considers the site to be unsuitable for development. Reasons for this includes: a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area; loss of landscape views of and from the northern part of the site; development would break the linear form of the village and would be likely to have a poor relationship to the character of the village as a result. The assessment concludes that housing and/or economic development of the site is not achievable or suitable.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 14 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons The SHLAA identifies Bierton as a medium village. This is contrary to the Issues and Options Consultation Developments Ltd) published in October 2015 which identified Bierton as a larger village. We object to the re-categorisation of Bierton from a larger village to a medium village. Notwithstanding, it is considered that, for Bierton to be identified as either a larger or medium village, housing growth is required over the plan period at the village of Bierton (and not Aylesbury). The above site represents a deliverable and suitable (for reasons explained below) site to support the necessary housing growth for Bierton and Aylesbury Vale District. Indeed, part of the site is subject to a submitted outline planning application for residential development. The site is currently subject to a submitted outline planning application (reference: 15/03374/AOP) for residential development of up to 70 dwellings and associated development. Supporting evidence has been undertaken to inform the emerging Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan including Landscape Evidence in the form of a Landscape Character Assessment and Sensitivity Advice to Aylesbury Vale DC (March 2015) and Areas of Attractive Landscape and Local Landscape Areas Advice to Aylesbury Vale DC – Final Draft Report (October 2015). The March 2015 report considers whether any update is required to specific parts of the 2008 Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Area Assessment (produced by Jacobs) as a result of change since the on site assessment fieldwork on 2007-08. The Jacobs report identifies the site to form part of Bierton Ridge (9.11) in the context of Landscape Character Types and Areas. The report identifies the character of landscape associated with the site and its immediate setting is considered to be of medium value. Likewise, the landscape character of Bierton Ridge is also considered to be of medium value, taking into consideration the presence of individual elements that may be highly valued in their own right. It is with consideration that the landscape of the site and its local setting cannot be described as particularly rare in overall terms, and its features are both common and widespread in the locality. The October 2015 report seeks to define and recommend the special qualities of local landscape designation in Aylesbury Vale District, including Areas of Attractive Landscapes (AALs) and Local Landscape Areas (LLAs). The report does not recommend the site or surrounding area of Bierton Ridge be considered as an AAL or LLA.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 15 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons Part of the site is currently subject to a submitted outline planning application (reference: 15/03374/AOP) Developments Ltd) for residential development of up to 70 dwellings and associated development. The planning application is accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence. The proposed Concept Masterplan has been informed by landscape and heritage constraints. Supporting documents include a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and Heritage Statement, which have both identified the suitability of the site for the proposed development in landscape and visual terms and in the context of the CA and surrounding heritage assets respectively. The LVA submitted in support of the outline planning application states that, whilst the development of the site will result in material loss of pasture land adjoining the settlement, this loss is restricted to a site level and not considered to be of significance to the decision making process. The consideration of local landscape features and landscape character has assisted in limiting any adverse effects to both individual features and the overall character of the immediate landscape setting and wider setting of the Bierton Ridge. The assessment found the visual appraisal identified short-term effects of some significance that are limited to the receptors at the immediate boundaries of the site and the sections of public rights of way crossing the site. These effects are not considered to be uncommon or unexpected and are on the whole generated by virtue of the proximity of the receptor to the proposed change. The loss or change of these views will not affect visibility to or from particularly valued features within the local landscape setting. There is no sufficient supporting evidence to suggest the site is of significant valued landscape and is not recommended to be designated as either an AAL or LLA. In terms of landscape designation, the site is not covered by any specific landscape designation that would suggest an increased value. As such, the assessment of the site provided in the HELAA is misleading and the identified loss of landscape views of and from the northern part of the site cannot be reasonably justified to find the site unsuitable for development in the context of supporting evidence.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 16 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00661 Robert Love (Davidsons The site lies at the northern edge of Bierton to the rear of houses along Aylesbury Road and directly north Developments Ltd) of modern residential development. The site lies adjacent but not within the Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA partly reflects the development of settlement along the main artery of Aylesbury Road. This has already been somewhat altered by residential developments along roads leading off the main road to the north and south. The suggestion therefore that development would break the linear form of the village is incorrect and again misleading. Development of the site would represent another example of the outward growth of the settlement. However, as the development is set back from the main road and not within any important lines of sight or viewpoints, the potential impact on the CA would be slight. The suggestion therefore that development would have a harmful impact to the setting of the conservation area sufficient enough to find the site unsuitable for development has not reasonably been justified and potential mitigation measures have not been accounted for. It is also relevant to note that Bierton Clay Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is located in close proximity to the site. A letter dated 9 November 2015 from Natural England in response to the above planning application confirmed development of the site, carried out in strict accordance with details of the application, would not damage or destroy the interest features for which the SSSI has been notified. I enclose a copy of this letter. At present, the Council are unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore the housing policies of the adopted Local Plan are not up to date. For the purposes of determining the planning application, paragraph 14 of the NPPF is applicable, whereby planning permission for proposals which are demonstrably sustainable should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies in the NPPF indicate development should be restricted. The technical reports which accompany the planning application confirm that there are no adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The benefits resulting from the development including provision of market and affordable housing are considered to be sufficient to justify the granting of the proposals in the planning balance. In view of the above, the site represents a suitable and deliverable site for housing development that should be strongly considered for allocation in the VALP Draft Plan. VALP16-09-02-00675 Mr and Mrs Hudson Policies Map - ICK003

VALP16-09-02-00676 martin thomas Policies Map - I have commented earlier on the transport needs for Aylesbury and on the associated map on page 50

VALP16-09-02-00677 Steven Mitchell Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations - Milton Keynes/Bletchley Object to development at WHA001, NLV001 and NLV023 in accordance with my comments on S2g.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 17 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00712 Frank Donlon Policies Map - A key element of the local plan is the map which is referred to as a ‘policies map’. This map identifies the areas to be allocated for development and designations which need to be taken into account in applying policies. At this stage the council is not producing an overall policies map, but is instead concentrating on area maps which show the places where the council is allocating development in this draft local plan, or other important changes such as changes to the Green Belt.

So there is no policies map for comment!

VALP16-09-03-00717 Chris Hall Policies Map - RE Ickford (SHLICK005 & SHLICK006) Adding 50 houses to the Ickford is just not sensible because 1)Surface Drainage will not cope. Worminghall Rd has flooded several times in the last 5 years. The bottom of the gardens adjacent to the proposed sites flood every year. 2)Sewage system will not cope. We have tankers in the village every winter taking away the excess once the water table rises 3)School – is full with kids from surrounding villages. The answer to build new schools in other villages to stop the daily commute to Ickford 4)Roads – When flooding occurs two or three of the roads out of the village are not passable. Given the effect of global warming it would not surprise me to see Ickford completely cut off a some point in the future. The access from the A418 is a weight limited single carriageway with blind crossing over a bridge. Access from other directions is also poor and prone to flooding. 5)The village shop is only viable because of investment by the local villagers. Simply saying if we have a school , a pub and a shop makes us a medium sized village is ridiculous. 6)I don’t understand why other plots have not been considered around the village for say 10 to 15 houses which is a more proportionate increase given the Ickford population.

VALP16-09-03-00726 Richard Dorrance Policies Map - I have no comments.

VALP16-09-04-00737 Kelly Rossiter Policies Map - The Croft Meadows site proposed for building in Cheddington should not be used for additional development. This site was not selected by the villagers. Further, developing this site will detract from the rural character of the village. The field often has sheep and cows in it which the villagers and their children enjoy. The field adds character to the village. It is an example of historic hill and furrow cultivation which should be preserved for future generations. VALP16-09-04-00744 Cllr David Finch Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations - Cheddington

VALP16-09-04-00745 Marianne Faux Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations - Cheddington

VALP16-09-04-00750 Colin Read (Aston Policies Map - Linear park green infrastructure map. Not detailed enough. Clinton parish planning) VALP16-09-04-00755 Joyce Docherty Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations - Cheddington

VALP16-09-04-00756 Andrew Docherty Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations - Cheddington

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 18 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00758 Peter Banham Policies Map - Cheddington Croft Meadow - if a site for potential housing allocation has to be specified at this stage, why not choose one identified in the Neighbourhood Plan rather than a meadow with good ridge and furrow? VALP16-09-04-00784 Paul Tattam Policies Map - Looking at the plan for Aylesbury, why is the north and north east not being consider, a large area of land, no other developments and good links with new roads and Aylesbury vale parkway train station VALP16-09-05-00803 Jason Cunningham Policies Map - Potential housing developments Grendon Underwood/ Call policy map insets

VALP16-09-05-00806 Jeff_ Deacon Policies Map - No map in the pdf

VALP16-09-05-00812 Simon Russell (Amethyst Policies Map - Buckingham Planning) The commitments for the Tesco site identified as BUC 062 & BUC 019 should be clarified as relating to non B class development. The housing assessment aspect of the associated appraisals should be revisited prior to the allocation of greenfield sites in settlements lower in the hierarchy than Buckingham. VALP16-09-05-00818 Sara Jones (Delta Policies Map - Housing Allocations Gawcott Planning on behalf of Support is given to the identification of GAW002 as a proposed housing allocation The University of Buckingham) VALP16-09-05-00826 Richard Murdock Policies Map - Milton Keynes/Bletchley - We submit that sites NLV020, MUR001 and MUR002 should be included as allocations (Woods Hardwick within the Draft Plan. Planning Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 19 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00828 Mark Mathews (Savills Policies Map - Proposed Chinnor UTR Site Safeguarding (on behalf of Thames Policies Map Water)) The Policies Map should safeguard the proposed Chinnor UTR site as identified on the attached plan. Proposed New Policy and Supporting Text in Line with Policy 14 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan “Policy ??: Upper Thames Reservoir – Chinnor Site Land is safeguarded for a reservoir and ancillary works to the north of Chinnor unless subsequent publication of Thames Water’s Water Resources Management Plan 2019 indicates that the location is not necessary for future reservoir provision. Development that might prejudice the implementation of the Chinnor Upper Thames Reservoir will be refused. The safeguarded area for the proposed reservoir is shown on the Adopted Policies Map. The proposed reservoir, if included as a preferred option in an adopted Water Resources Management Plan, must be brought forward through a Masterplan, Development Brief and Design Statement following consultation on these documents by Thames Water with the community, the local authority, the local highway authority and the statutory environmental bodies and utility providers.

Any proposal for a reservoir must: i. mitigate the impact of construction on local people, the environment and roads ii. minimise the effects on the landscape of an embankment reservoir through its design, general configuration and the use of hard and soft landscaping iii. maximise the creation of wildlife habitats and biodiversity iv. promote the recreational uses of the reservoir consistent with the landscaping and biodiversity values of the proposal and having regard to the traffic impacts of such uses, and v. include measures to avoid or mitigate any other significant adverse effects identified through the environmental impact assessment of the proposal, including on the local and wider highway networks and on surface water and fluvial flooding

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 20 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Supporting Text

The following text should be included to support the above proposed policy: “The Upper Thames Reservoir Thames Water is examining the means by which sufficient water can be provided to meet future needs of the region. Shortlisted options under consideration include new strategic water storage capacity in the Upper Thames catchment. Thames Water has identified the possible need for a major new reservoir in the district to the north of the village of Chinnor (located within South Oxfordshire, Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale Districts) to help manage water supply and ensure current and future needs can be met. The Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) 2014, published by Thames Water, identifies three potential options to address its long term water resource management in the south east, including the development of a large storage reservoir, wastewater reuse and water transfer option. Thames Water has confirmed that the Upper Thames Reservoir (UTR), proposed to be located within the Vale of White Horse District at Abingdon, remains their preferred option if a large storage reservoir solution were to be selected. If a smaller reservoir is selected as the preferred option or required in association with a water transfer option, the reservoir site at Chinnor is an alternative option. A decision is expected on the preferred long term water resource option by 2019, when Thames Water’s Resources Management Plan 2019 is expected to be approved for publication by the Secretary of State. As [South Oxfordshire’s/Wycombe District’s/Aylesbury Vale District’s] Local Plan will be adopted ahead of the WRMP 2019, land will need to continue to be safeguarded for new reservoir capacity in accordance with Policy ??. The site will continue to be safeguarded until such time as it is no longer considered necessary, as set out in the approved WRMP 2019, or in light of subsequent decisions made by Thames Water or the Secretary of State.

The Upper Thames Reservoir proposal, if progressed, is likely to constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act 2008, for which a Development Consent Order would be sought from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”

VALP16-09-05-00840 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - See additional Comment Below Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 21 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00843 Neil Arbon (Development Policies Map - These representations to the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) are prepared by DPDS Consulting Group on Planning and Design behalf of Paul Newman New Homes (PNNH). Services Ltd on behalf of Paul Newman New 1.2. Established in 1985, DPDS Consulting Group is an independent professional practice providing expert advice in the fields of Homes) town and country planning, architecture, masterplanning and urban design, environmental impact assessment, landscape architecture and development. 1.3. The practice has a multidisciplinary team operating out of offices in Swindon and Derby. 1.4. PNNH control approximately 42.4 hectares of agricultural land to the west of Leighton Linslade in the east of the District. The site is located within the parish of Soulbury immediately adjacent to the built up edge of Leighton Linslade between the existing town and the Stoke Hammond and Leighton Linslade bypass (A4146). The site is located approximately 2km from the village of Soulbury and 2.4km from the centre of Leighton Buzzard. 1.5. The B4032 Soulbury/Leighton Road runs through the northern part of the site, with the land to the north being open pasture land rising to the north. The site extends southwards alongside, and as far as, the extent of existing residential development in the Derwent Road / Bideford Green area of Leighton Linslade. To the south of the B4032 is pasture land characterised by enclosed fields with hedgerows and trees. 1.6. Valley Farm, at the northern end of this area comprises two bungalows and farm buildings along with an access leading southwards to other farm buildings. The land decreases in height generally from east to west toward the bypass. 1.7. The site abuts the boundary with the Central Bedfordshire Council administrative area to the east with the Derwent Road estate backing onto part of the site. 1.8. The site has recently been subject to an outline planning application with means of access to be determined and all other matters reserved for “Mixed use development including residential use (C3) – some 300 dwellings, Employment use (B1), Commercial (A1 – A5 inclusive), Leisure and Community (D2) and Ambulance Waiting Facility (Sui Generis) Land uses and associated roads, drainage, car parking, servicing, footpaths, cycleways and public open space / informal open space and landscaping” (AVDC Ref: 14/03724/AOP). 1.9. The application plans comprised some 300 dwellings comprising a mixture of 1-2 storey development and the construction of a mixture of single and two storey buildings for employment uses (B1) comprising a footprint of approximately 1,116m2. The scheme also proposed the construction of a community building (use class D1/D2) with a footprint of approximately 145m2 (two storey) and an ambulance waiting facility with a footprint of approximately 50m2 (two storey).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 22 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment 1.10. Ancillary development proposed includes: Landscape and Green Infrastructure include some 27 hectares of parkland, public open space, new recreational linkages and new and improved footpath/bridleway connections; Construction of ancillary development, points of pedestrian and vehicular access (including points of access to B4032 Leighton Road), internal roads, car parking, cycleways, footpaths, footbridges, ponds for nature conservation purposes, balancing ponds, associated drainage systems, lighting and sewers; Laying out of areas for strategic landscaping; The enhancement of footpaths and public rights of way; and Change of use from agricultural use to form playing fields, open spaces and incidental public open spaces. 1.11. The application was subsequently refused by AVDC’s Strategic Development Management Committee on 17 February 2016 and is now subject to an appeal with the Inquiry due to open on 29th November 2016. 1.12. These representations are submitted without prejudice to my client’s position as part of that Appeal. VALP16-09-05-00847 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Support for the allocation of Site HAD007, of which this submission form part. Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 23 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00863 David Peck Policies Map - 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. VALP16-09-05-00865 Jo Tiddy Policies Map - ICKFORD ICK001/002/003/004/005

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 24 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00866 Graham Neill Policies Map - Edlesborough p12 Assuming the infrastructure issues can be properly resolved, the proposed housing development sites illustrated would have the least negative impact on the rural nature of the village in its entirety. It is important to protect the feel of 'village' by retaining elements on the periphery that give a soft rural edge. VALP16-09-05-00867 Susan Peck Policies Map - 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.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 25 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00868 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Support for the allocation of Site HAD007, of which this submission forms part. Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00869 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Support for the allocation of Site HAD007, of which this submission forms part. Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00873 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Objection to the exclusion of the attached site- Waterford Triangle (BM343908) Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00874 Philip Morley Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations - South East of Aylesbury. Clear that proposed development merges Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville with Aylesbury. Fundamental change in character of Weston Turville.

Gypsy and Traveller Sites - are these all proposed? What is the proposed capacity of the site at Swan Edge, Wendover?

Green Belt Sites:

RSA2: North of Wendover. Site overlaps school playing fields. RSA3: Halton Camp. Appears to result in a loss of woodland at each end of the site.

Aylesbury Garden Town - transport network map (p.50). Infill of the areas between Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville will put more pressure on the Aylesbury-Amersham-Marylebone railway line, whereas the new capacity is being provided at Aylesbury Vale Parkway and Aylesbury. VALP16-09-05-00879 Jon Hobbs (Vale of Policies Map - All of Aylesbury Vale Aylesbury Housing Trust) VALP16-09-05-00892 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Objection to the exclusion of the attached site from an allocation for either residential or commercial purposes Collinge Planning (BM225808) Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 26 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00901 Elizabeth Law Policies Map - I'm e-mailing to voice my concern over the proposed 210 starter homes on agricultural land next to end house on Churchway in Haddenham and the proposal to make Haddenham a new settlement.

I choose to live in a large village which has a heart but is big enough to provide shops, library and doctors surgery. The proposed new developments mean that Haddenham will no longer be a village but a small town. However it will become a small town without the inferstructure that a town requires including shops a junior school big enough to cope with new families, good roads etc etc. Haddenham is a village with a rich historical heritage which would be lost if it became a new settlement.

There are already huge parking and travel issues surrounding the Thame and Haddenham Parkway and, as I understand it, Princes Risborough and South Oxfordshire are also proposing new housing based on this travel link. I can find no evidence of consultation with these other districts and their expssion plans in order to create a reasoned and linked together overall housing plan for the area as a whole. Why should Haddenham have to bare the cost of the 'un-met' housing needs of High Wycombe? High Wycombe seem to be keeping a high proportion of green areas and developing less densly at the expense of Aylesbury Vale residents and in particular Haddenham residents.

Please consider the inpact that mass house building will have on the village community and refuse planning permission for these new developments.

Please vote to keep Haddenham a village. VALP16-09-05-00904 Christopher Wayman Policies Map - POTENTIAL SITES TO BE ALLOCATED (Buckingham Town P206/207VALP Page 206 identifies five potential sites to be allocated for residential development in Buckingham, totalling 1212 Council) dwellings. These are at: BUC003 Roxwell Morton Road (14 dwellings) BUC025 Land south of the A421 (360 dwellings) BUC043 Land west of Maids Moreton Road (Phase 3 – 130 dwellings) BUC046 Land off Osier Way (420 dwellings) BUC051 Land west of Buckingham, bound by Tingewick Rd, A421, Radclive Road and Brackley Road (288 dwellings). (Although listed as ‘potential’ on Page 207, this three-block site is shown on the AVDC map (Page 9) as ‘committed’.) Buckingham prepared its NDP over a four-year period and at a cost of £80,000 for the following reason (1.11): “The Plan is the first opportunity for the Town Council with the people of Buckingham to decide where new development should take place and how they would like to see the town grow and develop. Previous plans have been compiled by AVDC, and without the Plan AVDC would continue to allocate where development should take place.” The Town Council reserves the right to review the BNDP and make subsequent allocations based on and evidenced Sustainability Appraisal. VALP16-09-05-00906 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Support the allocation of GUW010 subject to the comments below Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd)

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 27 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00910 Nick Shute (Nick Shute Policies Map - RSA2 - North of Wendover - see comments under S4 Green Belt above Associates) VALP16-09-05-00913 Jake Collinge (Jake Policies Map - Allocations for Steeple Claydon should be amended to include the attached site (25 North End Road, Buckingham) Collinge Planning Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00915 Russell Long Policies Map - I hope this e-mail finds you well. I am writing in protest against the latest planning application submitted for the Hampden Fields site. My wife and I moved to 33 Tamarisk Way, Weston Turville on 4th December 2015 and have since been informed of a revised planning application for the aforementioned site in response to the rejected bid (by the Secretary of State no less) last year. I feel duty bound to inform you of my concerns for this planning application and the potential impact it will have on my family and I. Our property backs directly onto the proposed development site and I fear that should planning be granted, the scale of the building works and the extensive period of time it would take to complete, to include, but not limited to, the compromised air quality as a direct result (a serious concern as a long-term sufferer of Asthma), the noise, and general extensive disruption to the living conditions of my family and I, I fear, would constitute a breach of our fundamental right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. I am also concerned about the extensive wildlife that exists on the proposed development site. Whilst I am not a member of any wildlife charities or organisations, you need not spend longer than 10 minutes in the back gardens of the homes on Tamarisk Way before encountering a variety of wildlife and animals. Has the new planning application considered the environmental impact, not in the context of sustainable and responsible building supplies, but in the context of where and how does the wildlife get re-homed?

Further concerns include the highly likely devaluing of our property; this could have severe repercussions to our affordability to reside in our current home. In any case, a vast development to the South of Aylesbury cannot be supported through the existing infrastructure of transport links and the revised traffic proposals use flawed calculations and assumptions with AVDC's own traffic consultants acknowledging it is "unlikely the model can be used accurately to identify future and existing transport issues". In the absence of any true transport strategy, merely a few outputs from poorly constructed county wide traffic models, the additional road congestion would simply make my commute intolerable and potentially pose negative implications to local business.

I am surprised at the scale and location of the proposed development as it appears that AVDC is accommodating an over spill of other locations such as High Wycombe and other areas in South Buckinghamshire. Further, the revised plans seem to conflict with the objectives set out by AVDC in that the proposals join up the villages of Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville and , the air quality will be poorer (not just during the build as I alluded to above, but also post completion of the works) and there will be major impacts to public footpaths. These highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection and any future development plans would represent a breach of such.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 28 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Overall the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan is meaningless. It places the 'cart before the horse' in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.

Please note that the point and questions I raise within this e-mail are not directed at you. Instead, I am writing to you in seek of help and clarification on the points I raise above and also in the hope that you will share my views and articulate these in response to this planning application. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on both the above and the planning application itself.

VALP16-09-05-00927 James Yeoman (Savills Policies Map - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan – Draft Plan Representations on behalf of Lands Land at Haddenham Airfield Improvement Holdings Lands Improvement Holdings August 2016 9 (LIH)) For reasons set out later within this representation (and accompanying landscape evidence), LIH consider the northern parcel of the Airfield site represents a sustainable and deliverable development option for accommodating further growth at Haddenham. The settlement of Haddenham, in particular the Airfield site, has a greater capacity for growth than the 50% target, subject to landscape and infrastructure considerations. This potential should be assessed in the context of AVDC’s reported need to identify more sites to accommodate 3,268 new homes, as set out in Table 1 of the Draft Plan. Policy NE3 Policy NE3 relates to Areas of Attractive Landscape (AAL) and Local Landscape Areas (LLA). The Airfield Site lies wholly outside of the Brill-Winchendon Hills AAL which extends across the landscape to the north of the A418. It is accepted that there is no proposal to change the extent of this AAL, however, it is noted that Paragraph 9.17 of the Draft Plan states that: “Neither of these designations are seeking to resist development in principle, unless regard has not been given to distinctive features and key characters of the AALs and LLA’s.” Deliverability of Proposed Allocations Subject to the intentions of the local community in respect of updating the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan, the Draft Plan reports the allocation of part of HELAA Site HAD007, along with HAD001, HAD015 and HAD016. A total capacity of circa 266 dwellings is reported. Based on the Council’s current approach, future housing delivery in Haddenham (excluding commitments) is almost entirely reliant on one site, HAD007. LIH understands this site is being promoted by Cala Homes and Persimmon Homes but it is unclear if these promoters control the land, particularly the eastern portion which borders Church Way and may be required for vehicular access. LIH questions the deliverability of this site and suggests that the housebuilder promoters be required to demonstrate that the landowners are on board and supportive of development before this site is allocated to ensure this is a deliverable housing site.

VALP16-09-05-00928 Tim Northey (Rectory Policies Map - More detailed strategic plans will be required at the submission stage to provide a clearer visual perspective of where Homes Limited) growth is being proposed in the district.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 29 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00945 Robin Douglas Policies Map - • I am concerned about the resultant impact of massively increased traffic on local roads. In particular I worry that the development of 70 houses in NLV008 will greatly increase the traffic on Bletchley and Stoke Roads and that the NLV001 development would similarly produce a huge rise in the number of vehicles using Whaddon Road. These are essentially country lanes which are already heavily over used by through traffic – especially by heavy goods vehicles – which due to the narrowness of the roads cannot turn safely from Bletchley Road onto Stoke Road. These roads are poorly maintained with large pot holes and have whole areas where the road surface is sinking and breaking up • I believe a large gas mains pipe runs through the site designated as NLV008. The prohibitive cost of relocating this mains or other factors linked to this piping has prevented earlier developments form going ahead • The proposed developments would have an unacceptable visual impact on the Village • The Plan swallows up productive farmland VALP16-09-05-00951 Charles Robinson (DLP Policies Map - VALP Policy Map Insets - Grendon Underwood Planning Limited) VALP16-09-05-00966 Michelle Kidd (Area Policies Map - Any sites allocated with a main river running through them or alongside the boundary should have a 10 metre Sustainable Places undeveloped ecological buffer running alongside them form the top of bank to provide green infrastructure for wildlife and people, Team The Environment along with ecological enhancements. The ecological buffer zone should incorporate ecological enhancement of the watercourse and Agency) its riparian corridor. Ecological enhancements to the watercourse and its riparian corridor should be incorporated into this buffer zone. VALP16-09-05-00977 John Brady Policies Map - The draft VALP and the material presented at meetings during the consultation refer to Haddenham Airfield as “a former airfield” when it is actually an active airfield providing training in gliding to mainly young people. It has been an active airfield since 1936 and has been in use for gliding by the Upward Bound Trust since 1963. The Upward Bound Trust is a charity that provides access to the sport at astonishingly low prices that brings gliding within reach of every family. It is a unique facility and as such has been a national as well as a local asset on this site for 53 years. Were if forced to move to some other commercial airfield site its operation would be untenable because of cost and its benefit would be lost. In the consultation material, the extent of the proposed development in Haddenham is unclear. In the VALP Consultation Policy Map Inserts section for Haddenham, area HAD005 is shown as a commitment for housing for the southern part of the airfield. Although the runway would need to be moved north to provide a safety margin from the housing development, that would allow gliding to continue and be entirely reasonable and practicable. However, material presented during the consultation events contained drawings that showed the whole curtilage of the airfield to be included for housing development and statements were made to the effect that if the owner of the land proposed it all for housing development the VALP had to accept that.

VALP16-09-05-00988 Sue Barber Policies Map - removal of green belt Halton and Wendover - not acceptable

VALP16-09-05-00992 Helen Hyre Policies Map - Aylesbury garden town - transport network map

The proposed highway network improvements are inadequate because the town urgently needs a complete ring road. VALP16-09-05-00998 Charlotte Beadle Policies Map - All maps: I do not support this draft plan for 33000 new homes in Aylesbury Vale.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 30 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01005 Andrew Phillips Policies Map - 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.

VALP16-09-05-01009 John Chapman Policies Map - ALL maps I am appalled that the maps provided show the watercourses but show neither local roads nor the names / sites of the settlements affected by these plans so it is very difficult for the layman tio relate the plan to local geography. How was this decision / omission made ? Where is user friendly ?? VALP16-09-05-01022 Craig Harrison Policies Map - Wendover S4 green belt boundary proposed changes - Major concern about removal of existing greenspace, especially high amenity value land to west of canal. Suggestion it is of low value is wrong and doesn't recognize its multi functionality for biodiversity and recreation, connection with GU triangle network proposal. VALP16-09-05-01030 Derek Town Policies Map - Appendix A Page 10 - Cheddington, I see no reason why the Croft Meadow site - CHE001 needs to be identified/offered as a reserve site. The 3 Sites identified in the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan has more than adequate to accommodate further development when the it is agreed as necessary. I fear this sends out the wrong message to developers that Cheddington is 'ripe' for development. VALP16-09-05-01045 Richard Boother (RPS Policies Map - See accompanying statement Planning and Development) VALP16-09-06-01069 Mr Pritchard Policies Map - The Witchent wall surrounding my property which separated it from the country field in which you propose building 210 houses has a conservation on it for which I am responsible. For this reason, it is imperative I have access to both sides for inspection and adequate space for repair work. If gardens, any form of public access or damage by the builders occurs, I would be liable. This I am not prepared to be. Only a few years ago we were told houses were to be built on the air field and recently that it would include popular store and a school, with a road out to the A418. Please explain an acceptable reason for your options for a valuable cornfield instead, if you have one. Your excuse that it is used for the pleasure of a glider pilot and the occasional light plane is not sufficient reason, nor is it acceptable. The air field is a very short walk to the station, whilst a cell would be required from the cornfield, adding to the parking problem already experienced. I await your reply with interest.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 31 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01080 Arthur and Janet Frost Policies Map - We are much encouraged by the AVDC proposals for residential development site in Wingrave, several of which are writing to the proposed Neighbourhood Plan, which we oppose. In particular we are pleased to see the proposed allocation of 50 houses on site WGR004 which as an architect and plumber I think are most suitable, reinforcing the centre of the village. VALP16-09-07-01094 F.A. Hayword Policies Map - I am writing to you with regards to the plan to build 2,000 homes on the green fields between Whaddon and the boundary with Milton Keynes (WHA001). My concerns one it will cause traffic hour to increase. Drainage problems, at present problems arise in the area. It will cause pollution, spoil the countryside, the A421 which is very busy now would be even more with the new build and could increase in volume. At present, I am told there is no mention of infrastructure for the new build. So until this plan being spoken of it is very concerning to me. Plans also I am told for a lot of homes to be built in the Horwoods and Winslow area. The rail link through Winslow has still not been taken care of so more traffic will happen that way. I am told that Haddenham has good road/rail links perhaps that could be looked at more. VALP16-09-07-01138 Janet and Vince Bartram Policies Map - I am extremely concerned that you have included the above site in your draft proposals for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. I would like to object most strongly to this site being included in the local plan; my reasons are as follows:

VALP16-09-07-01143 Giles Monks Policies Map - 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. In Marsworth there are brown-field sites which the draft plan elsewhere states should be developed in preference to green-field sites. To put forward farmland for development is therefore illogical and inconsistent. •There are several brown-field sites to develop; one being the White Lion site and there is currently a proposal to build 6 houses here and planning consent to develop the former pub into 2 dwellings. The second site is that of the former Lower End garage, now closed. •The Bulbourne Yard development, a brown-field development, is also within Marsworth Parish and therefore should correctly be included in Marsworth’s building allocation. •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 character and keeping with the rural surroundings.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 32 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01154 Laura Dudley-Smith Policies Map - 6.0 Land north of Lower End, Wingrave (Strutt and Parker (on 6.1 The site is at Lower End is bound to the north and south by Moat Land and Lower End respectively, adjacent to the existing behalf of Mr Talbot development boundary of Wingrave. The site covers approximately 0.8ha and is currently overgrown and underutilised. The site is WGR009)) located in close proximity to the centre of the village with all of the main facilities within a 15 minute walk of the site. The location of the site is considered to be a sustainable location for a housing development of this size. 6.2 The established Mentmore Golf and Country Club is 2 miles from the site, and Wing, 3 miles away provides an increased range of local services and facilities that include a further primary school, a secondary school, 3 pubs, a social club, restaurants and a police station. 6.3 The village is served by Bus No. 165 which runs 5 times a day between Leighton Buzzard and Aylesbury. Leighton Buzzard station is 6 miles from the site and provides London Midland and Southern National Rail services between Milton Keynes, London, , Birmingham and Crewe. 6.4 The site is not situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt, it is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk) and it is not situated within Wingrave Conservation Area. 6.5 A sensitive scheme could be developed that would minimise any potential impacts on the amenity of existing nearby residents. Although the site has residential plots bordering the site, the existing dwellings are on large plots, which helps to ensure that there would be a sufficient amount of private amenity space between any existing and new dwellings. 6.6 It is noted that a four other sites in Wingrave have been considered suitable or part suitable for housing in the Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment. The majority of these sites are substantial in size, albeit the HELAA identifies the portions that are considered suitable for development by the Council. It is only a previously developed site on Mill Lane which is considered suitable in its entirety. These assessments correctly recognise that the sites should be developed with consideration for existing building lines and to minimise encroachment on the countryside surrounding the village. In the case of sites WGR011 and WGR001 however these new limits would need to be defined and are not currently represented by existing physical boundaries. This could leave the edge of the settlement ambiguous and encourage the development of the rest of these sites in the future. 6.7 To further support the deliverability of the site, some additional surveys of the site have been undertaken and confirm that the site is not subject to any significant constraints. Both of these reports accompany this statement. 6.8 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey has concluded that further surveys would be required to determine if reptiles or roosting bats may use the site but that if any mitigation or compensation recommended following these surveys is carried out then development could proceed with minimal impact. The report also considered that a sensitive landscape scheme could enhance the local wildlife post development.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 33 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment 6.9 A Transport Statement has also demonstrated that the indicative proposals would not have a significant impact on the efficiency or safety of the local transport network. 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 As part of the preparation of the Draft Local Plan, our client wishes the Vale of Aylesbury District to consider the allocation of this land to comprise housing that would support local needs. It is not considered that the site’s rejection at this stage is fully justified, or that there is clear reason for alternative sites in Wingrave to be allocated in favour. In addition to market housing, the site could additionally provide affordable housing to meet local needs. We are aware that there is market interest within the local area; therefore the site is deliverable early in the Plan period. There are no technical constraints associated with the site. 7.2 We looking forward to receiving the Council’s response to this DLP consultation submission in due course. Should the Council require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

VALP16-09-07-01157 David Godfrey Policies Map - Land to the West of Church St site reference WGR001. 21 houses. This land appears unsuitable for development as several planning applications on Church St have been rejected for reasons which are common to this site i.e. egress onto Church St is not practical as the road has very narrow stretches, as little as 9 feet, and Church St/lower End has a dangerous access to the road to Long Marston, and building on this land would have a serious impact on views to and from the Wingrave Conservation Area. Bucks Highways have commented negatively on all of the applications for the first two reasons above. The need for easy emergency vehicle access is very important, and this does not currently exist as the lane is currently effectively single track for much of its length, because of either the road width itself or the lack of garages to many of the houses necessitating on street parking. Land North of Winslow Rd site reference WGR004. 50 houses. This land is unsuitable for development as access is via Abbotts Way which is effectively single track, as the old people`s bungalows on the north side of the road have no garages. Additionally the area is prone to surface flooding, which is already an issue in Abbotts Way. Additionally the sewage would need to be pumped from this area, and blockages are already common in Abbotts Way. Access via Winslow Rd is unachievable as insufficient line of sight is available at the only possible point of exit on the bend. Mill Lane site reference WGR 010 This land is not suitable for development as access is very poor as Mill Lane is single track for a large part. Farm buildings forming part Floyd`s Farm site reference WGR011 Same objection as Mill Lane as on Mill Lane. The other 3 sites listed in Wingrave, WGR003, WGR 011, WGR014 need the numbers uplifting to correspond to those in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 34 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great Policies Map - A.1 Great Horwood Parish Council wish to propose that the “Horwode Pece” recreation ground be designated a Local Horwood Parish Council) Green Space, in accordance with paragraph 76 of the NPPF and section 37 of the Planning Practice Guidance. This Appendix contains details of the proposal. A.2 The Great Horwood Parish Plan 2006 contained the following: A piece of land off Spring Lane has been gifted to the Parish with a view to its becoming a new recreation area, although planning issues are not yet resolved. A significant proportion of the parish would be prepared to support facilities in this new area by paying a higher local precept. • We will continue to work to provide appropriate recreation facilities for the parish, focusing this effort through the former Parish Plan Work Group which will operate as a sub-committee of the Parish Council • We will endeavour to secure planning permission from AVDC for the new Spring Lane recreation area • We will plan and procure necessary installations for any new recreation area A.3 Planning permission for change of use as a new recreation ground (application reference 07/03248/APP) was granted by AVDC on 1 May 2008. The location plan for this application, showing the land in question, is included at the end of this Appendix. A.4 The land is owned by the Great Horwood and Recreation Trust (registered charity 1119620). The objects of the Trust are To promote for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Great Horwood and Singleborough and the surrounding area the provisions of facilities for recreation or other leisure time occupation of individuals who have need of such facilities by reason of their youth, age, infirmity or disablement, financial hardship or social and economic circumstances or for the public at large in the interests of social welfare and with the object of improving the condition of life of the said inhabitants. The recreation ground is managed by the Horwode Pece Management Committee on behalf of the Recreation Committee of Great Horwood Parish Council. A.5 Significant sums have been received by way of grants for play equipment to be installed on the recreation ground. A.6 Designation of the recreation ground as Local Green Space would be consistent with the conditions specified in paragraph 77 of the NPPF: • where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; (the recreation ground is about 700m from the centre of Great Horwood) • where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife;(Horwode Pece, with its distinctive name, has particular local significance as the only equipped public recreation space for children within walking distance of Great Horwood) • where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land (the recreation ground has an area of about 1ha).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 35 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01170 Helen Prangley Policies Map - We consider that the Council should consider allocating higher numbers to Westbury, particularly given its recent (PRANGLEY PLANNING improvement in facilities and in view of the need to reap the social benefits of additional housing in supporting and maintaining LTD) facilities and services in the village. The site known as WES001 is ideally placed to fulfil this role and should be considered for allocation.

The site is located in a sustainable location for additional residential development, being located within the settlement of Westbury, which comprises a variety of shops, services, community facilities and eating/drinking places, especially with the creation of the new village facility adjacent the site. Limited additional residential development in the form of this site will support existing services and facilities within the village, fulfilling the social dimension requirement of sustainable development. However, arguably, to make a contribution which will make a sufficient impact in this respect will require more than the 9 dwellings stated in the policy and we would suggest that further land than that already identified should be released for housing.

The rounding off of the settlement by developing this site would result in substantial environmental benefits. The existing buildings on the site are redundant. They are unable to accommodate modern farm machinery, no longer have a farm to serve and are no longer fit for purpose or to meet the requirements of modern agriculture in any event. Furthermore, given the recent construction of residential properties surrounding the barns, it would not be appropriate to use them for livestock or any use which would generate odours or noise. They are also not suitable for the storage of grain/arable produce as they are not secure from the elements or pests. They are beyond repair both in economic and practical terms and in the long term the buildings will only fall further into disrepair unless replaced with a viable alternative. Their replacement with residential development would be the most appropriate use for the site particularly given their context which is largely residential. The site is surrounded to both the east and south by residential development and to the north by a new community building and land associated with that use. A road serving two new dwellings lies to the west, which would serve the site, which also alters this edge of the settlement. The buildings’ removal will have a positive impact on the adjoining conservation area and also the setting of the adjacent listed building.

The proposal will use land efficiently, though at a density which is appropriate to its edge of village location. Furthermore, it will, as the appeal Inspector on the adjacent pool house site concluded, reinforce the association of the site with the residential part of the village and create a well-defined boundary between the settlement and the countryside.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 36 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01184 Michael Edmonds Policies Map - Allocation of proposed new sites. Numerous sites of varying sizes are put forward in the Draft Plan which appear to unfairly distributed making roughly the bottom third of the district densely overdeveloped. I would suggest we need to look more closely at the Northern part of the District and spread the load more fairly. There is more than one railway line in the district and most have scope for expansion. The Haddenham line does not, it is vastly oversubscribed.

Call for Sites. This is an ongoing process so I would suggest there will be an ideal opportunity to look again at the proposed allocation of sites. You will be aware that we are still receiving fresh submissions in the call for sites. We have also received numerous planning applications for quite large developments, 14 in July, and at the last count 12 in August, we will need to look at all these when we are looking at our final suggested allocations. I would question also the omission from the Draft of the site, I am aware of all the arguments, but things have moved on in the last 2/3 years and this site could provide 3000 dwellings plus. Sustainable, has it’s own railway and sits on the A41 with easy access to Aylesbury and Bicester and onto the M40.

VALP16-09-08-01201 Ruth Monks Policies Map - 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. In Marsworth there are brown-field sites which the draft plan elsewhere states should be developed in preference to green-field sites. To put forward farmland for development is therefore illogical and inconsistent. •There are several brown-field sites to develop; one being the White Lion site and there is currently a proposal to build 6 houses here and planning consent to develop the former pub into 2 dwellings. The second site is that of the former Lower End garage, now closed. •The Bulbourne Yard development, a brown-field development, is also within Marsworth Parish and therefore should correctly be included in Marsworth’s building allocation. •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 character and keeping with the rural surroundings.

VALP16-09-08-01207 Michael Knott (Barton Policies Map - MGHL represent a consortium who control the land on the northern edge of Wendover located to the west of the Willmore (on behalf of Wendover Arm (disused) and south of Halton Lane herein referred to as 'the Site'. The Site extends to an area of Manlet Group Holdings approximately 22.58 ha and is currently in use as three agricultural fields. A Site Location Plan is provided as Appendix 1. In Limited)) 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 37 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01209 Tim Coleby (Peter Brett Policies Map - Transport Associates LLP on In this section we consider: behalf of The latest position with regards to the Aylesbury Woodlands development in terms of transport modelling and mitigation Buckinghamshire The transport and infrastructure benefits from Aylesbury Woodlands and how these meet the broad objectives of the draft VALP Advantage) How Aylesbury Woodlands can deliver key infrastructure and thereby meet the objectives of the forthcoming Aylesbury Transport Strategy. Latest position on transport modelling and mitigation 3.4.13 A Transport Assessment was prepared by Peter Brett Associates on behalf of Buckinghamshire Advantage and submitted as part of the outline planning application to support the development proposals. This included the design of the proposed new access to College Road North, an on-and off-site transport strategy including the assessment of off-site junctions, and identifying mitigation where appropriate. The strategic transport modelling, preliminary design of the ELR (S) and the assessment and detailing of the A41 / Aston Clinton Road Roundabout access which also supported the application was undertaken by Jacobs on behalf of Buckinghamshire Advantage. 3.4.14 Post-submission discussions are currently underway with Buckinghamshire County Council Highways and minor refinements to the strategic transport modelling and baseline junction models will be undertaken to develop and finalise the mitigation strategy in this context, prior to the determination of the outline planning application. 3.4.15 The outcomes and impacts of the delivery of Aylesbury Woodlands and the ELR(S) was assessed in the Transport Assessment supporting the outline planning application. In broad terms the assessment work indicated that once the additional travel demand from the Proposed Development is taken into account, there were a number of beneficial impacts on the road network including:

VALP16-09-08-01225 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Policies Map - It is noted that the drafted Policies Map, illustrates the location of the potential allocations on the ‘settlement’ insets, Planning Services and provides ‘strategic illustrations’ of Aylesbury Garden Town. Limited) In relation to this, it is considered that the Aylesbury inset being focussed purely on the south east of the town is misleading, and should illustrate the context of growth for the whole town on the inset. Furthermore, as discussed, it is considered that additional allocations should be made in relation to Aylesbury in order to address the shortfall between its residual housing requirement and potential allocations as identified in the draft plan. As highlighted, it is considered that ‘Land at Brook Farm, Broughton’ is ideally located to accommodate such an allocation, and that its development would accord with the emerging development strategy.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 38 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01226 Mike Mullally Policies Map - 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, whichagain 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 ofprolonged rainfall. The Stepnells development would cause further traffic congestion in Vicarage Road and at the junction with the 8489, 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.If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

VALP16-09-08-01232 Ruth Millard Policies Map - Preferred sites. Residents recognise the need to increase housing stock but strongly feel that consideration of the above points must be uppermost. There is thus an overwhelming preference for sites GUW008, GUW009 a & b although it was pointed out that a suitable site for extra homes could be considered adjacent to GUW008. An extremely small minority suggested that all identified sites should be developed.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 39 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01267 Chris Green (Kirkby Policies Map - Site SHM008 'Land off Leighton Road, Stoke Hammond' Diamond (on behalf of The land under the control of the Trustees of FJ Wallis extends to some 1.5 hectares, and is referred to in the Council's 'Housing and Trustees of FJ Wallis)) Economic Land Availability Assessment' as SHM008. The site comprises land off Leighton Road and is positioned to the south of the existing settlement boundary of Stoke Hammond. Site SHM008 currently largely comprises open grassland. Leighton Road forms the site's eastern boundary, while a brook defines the northern boundary. The site is generally open to the south, and the arable land beyond is also under the control of the Trustees of FJ Wallis. A pair of detached residential properties adjoins the site's southeast boundary. A small brook defines the northern boundary of Site SHM008. This is flanked by field margin and a mature tree belt. The railway line runs along the site's western boundary. At this point, the railway is positioned on a raised embankment that extends along the full length of the site's boundary. An existing vehicular access serves Site SHM008 off Leighton Road. This bisects the site and serves a small number of properties and a farm further to the west. The existing access road is private, but serves as a public bridleway. At this point, the speed limit along Leighton Road is 30mph.

Site SHM013 'Little Acres, Stoke Hammond' As noted above, it is suggested that the site could be developed alongside the land to the north, known as Little Acres. This covers an area of 1.54 hectares and currently comprises an existing bungalow together with associated land to the southwest. This includes a large garden together with an area of open land extending towards the railway. Little Acres shares a separate private vehicular access off Leighton Road.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 40 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01267 Chris Green (Kirkby reductions in overall delays per vehicle across Aylesbury as a whole; Diamond (on behalf of traffic shifting away from other orbital routes in the town such as Broughton Lane, Burcott Lane and the A4157 Oakfield Road to Trustees of FJ Wallis)) use the ELR(S) and ELR(N) as well as the Stocklake Link Road; reductions in traffic volumes across key routes in Aylesbury Town Centre, including the Walton Gyratory; improvements in operating conditions at the following junctions A41 / Aston Clinton Road Roundabout – through the provision of an enlarged signalised roundabout; A41 / Bedgrove / Broughton Lane Signalised Junction; A41 / King Edward Avenue / Oakfield Road Junction; A41 / Vale Park Drive / Exchange Street Roundabout; and A41 / A413 / Exchange Street Roundabout. 3.4.16 Where off-site junctions experienced a worsening in conditions, mitigation measures were identified to address these. These are set out in more detail in the following section. Key transport and infrastructure benefits and impacts 3.4.17 One of the main benefits of the Aylesbury Woodlands development is that it delivers the Eastern Link Road South (ELR(S)), thereby meeting one of the objectives of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy (as also explained below in paragraphs 3.4.28 – 3.4.32) . The ELR(S) is a key piece of local infrastructure required to complete an orbital connection around the east of Aylesbury. The completed ELR will link the A418 Bierton Road to the north with the A41 Aston Clinton Road to the south. More widely the provision of the ELR(S) also forms a key part of BTVLEP’s wider economic objective to improve north-south connectivity between major settlements in the county, and particularly to improve connectivity between the M40 to the south and the M1 to the north. 3.4.18 The provision of the completed ELR and Stocklake Links will be paramount in assisting the delivery and growth of development to the east of Aylesbury. 3.4.19 The ELR and Stocklake Links also form part of a wider strategy for Aylesbury to provide more orbital links to help improve traffic conditions on radial routes into Aylesbury. The ELR(S) within Aylesbury Woodlands is therefore a key component of the wider strategy to deliver orbital connections around the east of Aylesbury, consistent with the strategic objectives of the VALP.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 41 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01267 Chris Green (Kirkby 3.4.20 As the Aylesbury Woodlands site is being promoted by Buckinghamshire Advantage on behalf of the BTVLEP, it also provides Diamond (on behalf of a unique opportunity to deliver a mix of uses which are focused towards meeting identified unmet needs in Aylesbury in the Trustees of FJ Wallis)) employment market as well as looking to providing for the future growth of the town. 3.4.21 The transport strategy defined for the development reflects the overarching strategic objectives of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy as set out in the VALP as well as Strategic Objective 3.2 and Policy S1, especially part c. 3.4.22 The pedestrian and cycle strategy for the site focuses towards the integration of the site within the east of Aylesbury through enhancing orbital and radial movements for pedestrians and cyclists. The ELR(S) includes a shared footway / cycleway in the western verge which connects the A41 to the south with the ELR(N) to the north, allowing onward connections via the ELR(N) to the A418, and via the Stocklake Link Rural to the town centre, via the upgraded Stocklake Link Urban. 3.4.23 Financial contributions are also proposed towards the provision of a 3m shared footway / cycleway in the southern verge on the A41 into the town centre, consistent with a previous scheme identified for Hampden Fields. Financial contributions are also proposed towards improvements on the canal towpath between Bridge 13 and Bridge 15 to enhance connectivity into the town centre. Furthermore, opportunities are also being explored to improve pedestrian and cycle provision between the site and Aston Clinton. The focus on improving orbital and radial pedestrian and cycle connections, linking the site with the town and neighbouring development, reflects the overarching strategic objectives of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy as set out in the VALP. 3.4.24 In terms of public transport, a new standalone bus service is proposed between the site and the bus station in Aylesbury Town Centre. A thirty minute frequency is proposed at the development and these services will be financially supported during the early stages of the development. Eight bus shelters will be provided within the development and a financial contribution is proposed to BCC towards improvements to the Aylesbury bus station, including the implementation of real time systems to manage bays at the bus station.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 42 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01267 Chris Green (Kirkby 3.4.25 Furthermore, the Aylesbury Woodlands Development is supported by a Framework Travel Plan which incorporates Diamond (on behalf of commitments to a wide range of measures in addition to those already identified above which are aimed at reducing the need to Trustees of FJ Wallis)) travel and shifting to more sustainable modes of travel. 3.4.26 The focus on improving accessibility to sustainable modes and maximising opportunities to reduce the need to travel supports Strategic Objective 3.3 and Policy S1 of the VALP. 3.4.27 In addition to measures to enhance accessibility to sustainable modes, a number of off-site highways infrastructure mitigation measures are also proposed to address residual traffic impacts, including: Provision of financial contributions towards the implementation of further traffic calming measures in Aston Clinton and Weston Turville to reduce the attractiveness of New Road and Aylesbury Road for through traffic; Provision of financial contributions towards capacity improvements to the following junctions: College Road North / A41 Westbound Overbridge Junction A41 / B4009 / B4635 / B488 Interchange near Tring A41 / Bedgrove / Broughton Lane Junction A41 / Aston Clinton MDA Accesses / New Road Signalised Junctions A4157 / Stocklake Signalised Junction Tringford Road / Bulbourne Road / Wingrave Road / Icknield Way Roundabout to the north of Tring. Provision of financial contributions towards a widening scheme for a 500m stretch of the A41 Aston Clinton Road to the west of the A41 / Aston Clinton Road Roundabout. Strategic Delivery: Aylesbury Transport Strategy 3.4.28 A review of the supporting transport evidence relating to the VALP has been undertaken (i.e. “Aylesbury Transport Strategy” and “Countywide Transport Modelling”). It is understood that a review of existing and potential future committed developments was undertaken in March 2016 to inform this process. As the Aylesbury Woodlands Development outline planning application was submitted in March 2016, the site is currently excluded from any of the current VALP assessment work in a transport/highways context.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 43 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01267 Chris Green (Kirkby 3.4.29 The Aylesbury Woodlands development will deliver the ELR(S) and complete a strategic orbital connection around the east Diamond (on behalf of side of Aylesbury between the A41 and A418. This new piece of infrastructure in combination with the supporting sustainable Trustees of FJ Wallis)) transport strategy, supports the objectives set out in the current Aylesbury Transport Strategy which include: “to complete a series of outer link roads that will take traffic away from the town centre” “implement an overarching strategy to connect new developments, with each other, to key destinations and to the town centre by active travel and public transport”; and “complete gaps in cycling/walking network, particularly connections between the radial gemstone cycle network”. 3.4.30 BA supports the approach set out in the Aylesbury Transport Strategy to undertake further assessment work to identify key transport interventions that will help achieve these objectives. Whilst the current objectives set out in the Aylesbury Transport Strategy are based on a qualitative understanding of transport issues in Aylesbury, the Transport Assessment work undertaken for the Aylesbury Woodlands development highlights the importance of these objectives in facilitating growth across Aylesbury and broadly reflects the findings of the Transport Assessment. 13 J:32113 - Aylesbury EastPlanningVale of Aylesbury Local Plan consultation final.docx Transport Summary 3.4.31 The Aylesbury Woodlands Development makes an important contribution to a number of key transport objectives and should be included in future strategic transport modelling to support the VALP and development of the Aylesbury Transport Strategy, so that these benefits can be recognised. 3.4.32 The Aylesbury Woodlands proposals support the objectives set out in part “e” of Policy D1 of the VALP, i.e. that all development in Aylesbury should contribute towards meeting the Aylesbury Transport Strategy. They also comply with the VALP spatial vision and policies S2 and S5 of the Plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 44 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01273 Adam Ross (Nexus Policies Map - Potential Housing Allocations (Site References STO016 and SMP009) Planning Ltd (on behalf As identified previously in our representations, whilst we take issue with the overall housing requirement for the district and, to an of Gleeson extent, the proposed housing distribution, we support the focus of development on the strategic settlements and, specifically, Developments Limited, Aylesbury town. the Ernest Cook Trust, More specifically, we fully support the Council’s proposed allocation of Site References STO016 and SMD009, as referenced in the the Trustees of Lord table at Appendix A and identified on the ‘South East of Aylesbury’ plan included within this Appendix. These are highly sustainable Carington’s 1963 greenfield sites immediately adjacent to the most sustainable settlement in the district i.e. Aylesbury town. These sites are, therefore, Settlement and the an essential part of the VALP strategy to sustainably meet the development requirements for the district, and the Housing Market Pearce Family)) Area, in the period to 2033. However, with reference to the Council’s HELAA which assesses these sites (and others) in more detail, we make the following more detailed comments to inform the VALP as it progresses (a process with which we hope to engage closely with the Council). Most notably we consider that these sites, particularly Site Reference STO016, can accommodate a significantly higher level of housing than currently identified.

Site Capacity Appendix A of the VALP, and the Council’s HELAA, identify a site capacity for Site Reference STO016 of 808 dwellings which is based on the assumption that there is a developable area of 23.1 hectares at an assumed density of 35 dph. Whilst the basis for this calculation is not clarified in the HELAA, the ‘green infrastructure’ and ‘transport network’ plans on pages 49 and 50 of Appendix A to the VALP indicate that it assumes that development takes place only on the land east of the proposed HS2 route, and excludes any development on land in flood zones 2 or 3a (an area located in the north eastern part of the site). It also assumes that no development takes place in the north western part of the site (which is adjacent to the floodplain and closest to Oxford Road). We agree that: i.the most sustainable part of Site Ref: STO016 is that part east of the proposed HS2 line, and adjacent to the existing urban area;

ii.if better and more sustainable opportunities exist, that it is not preferable for residential development to take place in flood zones 2 or 3a;

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 45 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01286 Oliver Bell (Nexus Policies Map - The VALP Policy Map identifies WTV017 as a potential housing allocation. While this is welcomed, the full extent of Planning Ltd (on behalf the site is not included. As identified in the masterplan submitted as part of these representations, land is also available to the north of Westonmead Farm of the brook which could accommodate housing as well. Ltd)) Change Sought: Amend the potential housing allocation plan to include the whole site as identified on the submitted masterplan. WTV017 ‘Westonmead Farm’ - Site Specific Comments Accessibility and Sustainability This section of the representations provides evidence on how site WTV017 is considered to be ‘deliverable’ (having regard to footnote 11 of the NPPF), and is located within a highly accessible and sustainable location, as supported by the Council. The aim of the draft VALP is to establish areas where development will take place, identify those areas which need to be protected and outline policies that will be used in order to determine planning applications. The overall strategy identified by the Council in order to meets its housing need is to direct sustainable levels of development to its existing settlements, through the implementation of a settlement hierarchy. The emerging VALP identifies at Policy S1 that those developments which contribute positively to meeting the vision and strategic objectives for the District will be approved without delay. Land at Westonmead Farm would clearly contribute positively to meeting the vision and strategic objectives of the VALP. Table 3 of the emerging VALP outlines that Aylesbury is one of five strategic settlements, which are the most sustainable towns and villages in the District and the focus of the majority of development. Weston Turville is included in the overarching heading of Aylesbury, which reinforces the sustainable nature of the site. Site WTV017 is identified within the (HELAA), which informs the draft VALP, as being available to deliver 120 dwellings within the first five years of the Plan period. The site assessment states that only part of the site is suitable for housing or employment use provided it comes forward as part of a comprehensive scheme linked to WTV016. The evidence behind the site assessment and capacity of the site is not however clarified within the HELAA. It is noted that the Council consider that the site should be linked to the development to the west (WTV016) and whilst Westonmead Farm Ltd agree that opportunities should be explored, for example for a pedestrian / cycle link, the submitted masterplan demonstrates that the site is not reliant upon such a link for delivery. Furthermore, we consider that a wholly appropriate and successful development can be achieved without this link. In order to prove the deliverability of the site and its capacity, a number of technical reports have been undertaken and are summarised below. Overall, these demonstrate that at least 230 dwellings can be accommodated on the site without significant adverse impact.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 46 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01300 Layla Vidal-Martin Policies Map - STW005 (Nathaniel Lichfield & The Site and Context Partners (on behalf of The site is situated south of Soulbury Road, as identified on the enclosed site location plan, and benefits from both vehicular and non- Denison Investments vehicular access in addition to several facilities situated within short walking distance. It measures approximately 4.13 ha and lies Ltd)) within Flood Zone 1 (as identified on the Environment Agency Flood Risk Map). The site is enclosed by residential development on two sides, bounded by a private access road and the rear of residential dwellings on Dove Street to the north and lies adjacent to dwellings on Orkney Close, Walducks Close and Griffin Field to the west. Agricultural fields extend beyond theeastern site boundary. The Soul bury Road (84032) runs along the north eastern boundary of the site, with Stewkley recreation grounds beyond to the north, including the cricket club and football pitches. Saint Michael and All Angels is approximately 275m from the northern site boundary, and the St Michael's C of E combined school is less than 500m from the same boundary. At present, the site comprises largely semi- improved grassland, used for grazing livestock. There are several hedgerows along the boundaries of the site which separate it from the neighbouring properties.

New Homes The accompanying indicative layout plan (which forms part of the outline application submission) shows how 85 dwellings could be delivered on the site in an appropriate form. In order to complement the pattern of existing development at Orkney Close; Walducks Close and Griffin Field, the illustrative layout has been predicated on the basis of two storey dwellings, and would be a mix of detached, semi- detached and terraced houses. Whilst details of the exact layout would be considered at a later stage, the indicative scheme layout reflects the existing character of the surrounding housing and the wider village as a whole. Access to the site would be taken from a new access onto Soulbury Road. Bucks County Council Highways have responded on the outline planning application (letter dated 1th August 2016) and have raised no objection to the application or the proposed means of access (which are a matter for determination as part of the application). Denison Investments are acting on behalf of the current landowners and can confirm the site (including access) is readily available for development now, with no landowner constraints which would delay or prevent development within the first five years of the Plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 47 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Sustainability The site is situated in a sustainable location within short walking distance of a number of local services and amenities. The Ashcroft Surgery and The Surgery (Stewkley) Doctors surgeries are both located approximately 2.6 miles respectively from the site. St. Michael's Church of England School is located within easy walking distance, approximately 0.34 miles from the site. Drayton Parslow Village Primary School is a short distance away, approximately 1.97 miles from the site. The site is accessible by public transport, with bus stops on both the Soulbury Road (150m to the north) and High Street South (175m to the west). The Soulbury Road bus stop is served by bus route 162, which provides services towards Bletchley and Leighton Buzzard, with a 20-minute connection to the nearest railway station at Leighton Buzzard. Pedestrian and cycle access will also be taken from the proposed new access onto Soulbury Road. In addition to this, the indicative layout plan proposes a footpath, which would run in a westerly direction from the site access, along the southern side of Soulbury Road, and connect into the existing footpath where it currently terminates at Dove Street. The site does not currently have any public rights of access and is accessed by agricultural and pedestrian (farm related) traffic towards the north east boundary.

Landscape The indicative layout proposes generous areas of landscaping and open space along the eastern and southern boundaries. These areas include the provision of a Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) to the south; a surface water balancing pond in the south eastern corner; and leisure routes/paths through these areas. The layout also shows street tree planting and open areas adjacent to the boundaries with Walducks Close and Orkney Close. The site would have regard for the existing character of the surrounding area and safeguarding the amenities of neighbouring dwellings. The outline application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which considers that the application would not result in undue harm to the character and appearance of the landscape or surrounding area.

Concluding Comments As set out above, the proposed distribution of 141 new homes for Stewkley, including the potential allocation of the land at Soulbury Road, Stewkley (ref STW005) is supported by Denison Investments. However, they consider that the allocation should be increased from 80 dwellings to 85 dwellings which would assist Stewkley in meeting its housing need. The current outline planning application and accompanying material demonstrates that the site is suitable and capable accommodating 85 dwellings. The site is available immediately and could be delivered in its entirety in the first five years of the Plan Period where it would make a contribution to the District's five year housing land supply.

VALP16-09-09-01310 Mr and Mrs Nurden Policies Map - After attending a meeting to discuss the proposed developments in Marsworth. We felt we must write and express our concerns for the use of land behind Stepnells. We are well aware the need for more houses, but why do they all need built in the centre of the village. The extra traffic that will obviously come with such a plan will all emerge onto an already very busy road, fed by Norvic Road, Lukes Lea ,Vicarage Gardens, Watery lane, Lower End and through traffic . Also the disruption of heavy building lorries travelling through a residential area are a very big concern. As somebody who has grown up in the village to consider using prime farm land that is used all year round amazes us, when there brown field areas in other parts of the village that could do with much needed improvement, and will probably be developed in the near future.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 48 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01313 Robert Coles Jill Servat Policies Map - The School: We only have a school because the surrounding villages had theirs close through lack of support. The staff of our school work very hard to maintain a very high standard. Not only do the children from Ickford attend, but children from Worminghall, Tiddington and also attend this school. It is therefore grossly unfair to claim our village is Medium and the surrounding villages Small. The Villages: In terms of size Ickford has about 230 Dwellings. Shabbington has about 174 Dwellings, Worminghall has about 198 Dwellings. So our village is comparable to those surrounding us. Why should we be singled out to have 39 more houses. When both villages have more land a opportunity around them. The Pub: All the surrounding villages have a pub. Our pub "THE RISING SUN" is not a viable business and is currently up for sale. So therefore we may not have a pub in the future. The Village Hall: If this building is a criteria for building of houses, Then that would be very unfair. Our Village Hall was built by the villagers with funds provided by the villagers on land that was donated by a villager. It is wholly maintained by the good works of the village and its residents. All the surrounding village have a village hall, so again you are using a criteria that has nothing to do with the AVDC. The Village Shop: Our Village shop is only open because of the villagers. Worminghall had a shop and post office but it closed because it was not a viable business. Likewise, Worminghall had a shop, but closed for the same reason. Our shop is totally owned by the village, and supported by the village. If the residents had not clubbed together to buy the shop and post office, we would no longer have a shop. So for AVDC to claim our shop as a criteria for more houses is quite frankly an insult to our village. The Church: Every Village has a Church. So to be penalised for maintaining a Christian church in our parish would be very unfair.

VALP16-09-09-01317 James Yeoman (Savills Policies Map - Our client’s land interest east of Clements Lane, was identified to the Council through a site on behalf of Mr D and submission in July 2015 (HELAA reference MGB009), and representations have been previously made in respect of the Issues and Mrs G Hearn) Options Consultation paper. The site lies to the east of Clements Lane to the southern extent of the village. The site adjoins existing residential uses to the north, and lies opposite the Marsh Gibbon village hall to the west. Vacant greenfield land lies beyond the site to its east and south boundaries. The site fronts Clements Lane, from which adequate access could be provided. The site falls outside of, but adjacent to, the designated Marsh Gibbon Conservation Area. The site is not subject to further such designations. A red line plan identifying the site accompanies this correspondence.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 49 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01335 Sandra Costello Policies Map - The number of houses is out of all proportion to what is warranted in a village of this size and does not take account of recent and proposed developments. 13 homes have been recently built in the development at the Wharf, and 25 homes are to be built within the parish at Bulbourne. The land in question is active farmland, which should not be destroyed for housing when there are other viable alternatives. There are a number of other potential sites within Marsworth which would be more suitable, some of which are brownfield sites. Such a development would impose unacceptable pressure on Vicarage Road, the main exit from the village onto the main road and which is already heavily congested with traffic and parked cars.

VALP16-09-09-01376 Derek Bromley Policies Map - Pitstone is identified within the plan as a large village with a provision of 275 housing units on the basis this is one of the more sustainable villages with reasonable access to facilities and services and public transport. If the council is to achieve a commitment to delivering the overall housing numbers within the district the provision of a reasonable amount of development in larger villages will be necessary and desirable. The charity would wish to see part of the land identified for a doctor's surgery and education use. As to the remainder, if the council decide to allocate it for residential development then the charity will ensure it is available and deliverable for that purpose. It is possible that in addition to the provision of the Affordable Housing in accordance with the policy, the charity may also seek to retain housing units on a development within their own control for rental and occupation by parishioners.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 50 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01376 Derek Bromley iii. the potential for development in the north western part of the site must have regard to any potential impacts on the listed Hartwell House which is located north of Oxford Road. However, in terms of the land which is within flood zones 2 and 3a (a total of approximately 13ha) it should be noted, in accordance with guidance in the NPPF and PPG (ID 7-067), that whilst it is preferable to allocate sites in flood zone 1 where suitable and sustainable land is available, the allocation of housing in flood zone 2 is considered to be appropriate. Furthermore, development in flood zone 3a is also appropriate subject to satisfying the exception test. As such the Council should not close its mind to the potential for housing development on the land within flood zone 2 (and possibly 3a) given the highly sustainable location of this site and the need for housing in the district and the Housing Market Area as a whole. As a guide, there is approximately 11.5 hectares of land in flood zone 2, and 2.5 hectares in flood zone 3a. At an assumed gross density of 20 dwellings per hectare on the land within flood zone 2 land only, it could accommodate an additional 250 homes (approx.). Turning to the north western part of the site, we consider that residential development can take place much closer to Oxford Road than identified by the Council and, therefore, that the residential capacity of this site could increase further. We are not aware of the evidence upon which the Council is relying to justify its assumptions in this regard but we have significant evidence in this regard, which was produced when this site was part of the Council’s favoured Southern Growth Arc, which demonstrates the potential for further development without harm to Hartwell House. Based upon our calculations and technical work there is, in terms of land outside of the floodplain and east of HS2, approximately 65 hectares of land suitable for residential development. At an assumed gross density of 20dph, this land would have the capacity for approximately 1,300 homes. If the land within flood zone 2 was also to be developed for housing, this could deliver an additional 250 homes at an assumed 20 dph gross. As such we consider that the site has the potential to accommodate between approximately 1,300 and 1,500 homes without developing any land in flood zone 3a or any land west of HS2. This is in addition to the capacity of Site Reference SMD009. For these reasons we consider that it is essential that the capacity for this site is identified as a minimum for the time being, and that we have the opportunity to work with the Council to discuss and agree the extent of the constraints and opportunities and, therefore, the genuine capacity of this highly sustainable site.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 51 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01376 Derek Bromley Employment Provision As referenced above, we accept that if sustainable alternatives exist, it is preferable not to develop land in either flood zones 2 or 3a for housing. However, national planning policy confirms that housing is appropriate in flood zone 2 (and flood zone 3a subject to the exception test) and accordingly, the capacity of Site Ref: STO016 could be significantly higher than currently assumed by the Council (808 dwellings). However, if it was determined by the Council that land within flood zones 2 and 3a should not be developed for housing, we agree with the suggestion in the HELAA that this part of the site ‘may be suitable for a quantum of employment development’. Employment development is identified in the PPG as a ‘less vulnerable’ use and accordingly, as confirmed at ID 7-067 of the PPG, it is an appropriate use in both flood zones 2 and 3a. Policy D9 of the VALP supports employment development in sustainable locations and proposes to secure it, inter alia, through emerging allocations in the VALP. In this instance we consider that if the Council determines that land within flood zones 2 and 3a is not required for housing, that it is wholly appropriate for it to be allocated for employment development. This would contribute to economic growth in the town / District and deliver a mixed-use strategic allocation in this highly sustainable location.

Green Infrastructure The HELAA refers to the provision of ‘significant quantities of potential green infrastructure’ as part of the development of this site. Having regard to the Aylesbury ‘Garden Town’ concept, we do not object to the provision of new green infrastructure as part of a significant new sustainable urban extension. We also agree that this should be principally in the form of a linear green space adjacent to the HS2 route, that would continue the ‘green ring’ around the town, as shown on the ‘green infrastructure network’ plan in the VALP. However, given the need for housing in the district and the Housing Market Area, and the sustainability of this site, which is immediately adjacent to the most sustainable settlement in the District, the extent of this green infrastructure must be pragmatic, and the provision of new green infrastructure must be balanced with the ability to maximise the provision of housing in this highly sustainable location. Again we would welcome dialogue with the Council in this regard as part of a masterplanning process as the VALP progresses.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 52 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01376 Derek Bromley Land West of HS2 As identified on the plan in the Council’s HELAA that confirms the suitability of Site STO016 for development, this site in fact extends quite considerably to the west of the HS2 route. Whilst less preferable for development than the land east of HS2 (which directly abuts the existing urban area), in relative terms the land west of the HS2 route is still highly sustainable given its proximity to the District’s most sustainable settlement – Aylesbury town. It could be used for residential development accessed from Oxford Road or, alternatively, for the provision of strategic open space provision / green infrastructure which might allow the more efficient use of land west of HS2 for residential development. In progressing the VALP the Council should ensure that the development potential of this additional land, to the west of HS2, is not ignored given its inherent sustainability due to its proximity to the most sustainable settlement in the district. We would again welcome the opportunity to discuss this fully with the Council as part of a masterplanning process for this site.

Changes Sought We support the proposed allocation of Site References STO016 and SMD009. However, the capacity and form of development on Site Reference STO016 in particular should be considered in further detail with a view to ensuring that maximum use is made of this highly sustainable site in terms of its ability to deliver housing, and we would welcome the opportunity to carry out a masterplanning exercise with the Council to achieve this.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 53 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01414 Nigel Johnston (Boyer) Policies Map - 4. LAND OFF OSIER WAY, BUCKINGHAM 4.1 This section provides additional information to support the allocation of land off Osier Way (south of the A421 and east of Gawcott Road, Buckingham) for housing. 4.2 A number of technical studies in respect to flooding, drainage, highway, landscape and ecology and odour matters have been undertaken to assess the suitability of the site to accommodate development. The findings of these studies have been used to inform a Vision Document prepared by Omega Partnership Ltd that includes a Concept Plan which demonstrates how the site could be developed. The Site 4.3 The entire site extends to an area of approximately 42.2 hectares. 4.4 The land is undeveloped agricultural land comprising eight arable fields and ancillary land to the south-west of Buckingham. 4.5 The fields are delineated by hedgerows and ditches with established groups of trees and woodland to the centre, east and south-east areas of the site. 4.6 A small watercourse bisects along a north-east to south-west axis from its southern boundary to its north-eastern boundary. A pond lies within the site towards its north-eastern boundary with a second pond (off-site) to the south. An established hedgerow interspersed with trees has grown along the alignment of the watercourse. 4.7 The site is delineated by the A421 to the north, Osier Way to the north-east and Gawcott Road to the west. 4.8 The main built up area of Buckingham lies to the north and north-east of the A421. To the west of the site is a traditional row of detached and semi-detached residential properties fronting Gawcott Road. To the east is the Swan Business Park, which comprises trade counter/light industrial units. Beyond this lies a small area of retail units. The land to the south comprises open countryside in agricultural use.

VALP16-09-09-01422 Jennifer and Gerald Policies Map - Our Immediate Concern References – VALP Potential Housing Allocations Groom WHA001 – 2000 houses, north of A421 NLV001- 1900 houses, south of A421, between Bottle Dump roundabout and Newton Longville Maintaining Whaddon as a separate and identifiable community and the requirement for Whaddon to provide 11 houses Surely if the mass of houses at WHA001, within Whaddon Parish is taken forward into the plan Whaddon could be relieved of this requirement by revisiting the type and density of housing on this site. The plan does not indicate how WHA001 and NLV001 will perform in relation to the Policy S1 – Sustainable development. This relates to employment, delivering strategic infrastructure and minimising impact on local communities. Why not?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 54 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01474 Christine and Dennis Policies Map - As my husband and I live on Bedgrove we are primarily concerned by the proposed development of Hampden Fields. Clarke The size of this housing estate is our main issue as currently the plan is for 3,000 homes located between the 2 main southern routes in and out of Aylesbury town. These roads are already close to gridlock at peak times. The people that are going to live on this estate will need to use our already overstretched facilities:- i.e.secondary schools, hospitals, GP surgeries and train services.

We have been told that one person in every household would have the opportunity of a job in the Aylesbury, but the council could not confirm that any companies have signed up to come to the area. It is our contention that many of the inhabitants of this new estate will be driving to work and schools and/or using the train station at Stoke Mandeville.

VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum Policies Map - Land at Wendover (Daniel Watney LLP) The VALP indicates that, whilst the HELAA did not identify a single site suitable for development, one site to the north of Wendover may be able to deliver circa 800 homes. This site is not clearly identified nor defined within the VALP, and as such this is assumed to be based upon those red lines identified in Figure 1 and 2 of this representation, however the Authority must identify this site for a formal assessment to be made.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 55 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment This site has not previously been assessed. It has, in part, been assessed as part of the HELAA. We reproduce the HELAA plan below for reference, with the red line from Figure 1 and 2 drawn for reference.

The sites falling the red line were assessed as part of the HELAA as follows: WEN005- Unsuitable. Land is located within Green Belt; WEN016- Unsuitable. Land is located within Green Belt and small part of site on western boundary within Flood Zones 2 and 3; WEN17- Unsuitable. Land is located within Green Belt; WEN18- Unsuitable. Land is located within Green Belt and unsuitable as independent piece of land; WEN009- Unsuitable. Entire site falls within the Green Belt and partly AONB. Currently the site is woodland with public right of way running through. We have undertaken our own assessment of the sites and would summarise the constraints as follows.

Site RSA2- North of Wendover Issues: • The site is located in the Green Belt,development of which would compromise the openness of the countryside and directly contradicts Chapter 9 of the NPPF. • Location of the site at the edge of the town forms part of the gap between the the non- Green Belt settlements of Wendover and Weston Turville and Tring as well as between Wendover and the Green belt settlement of Halton. Development on this land would significantly physically reduce the actual distance between these developments and go against chapter 9 of the NPPF and draft Policy D4 in the VALP by encouraging urban sprawl and facilitating merging of Wendover and Halton; • There is a lack of infrastructure in place for an 800-dwelling development, with particular reference to the full to capacity schools in the area and the regular congestion on the road which would be used for access; • The site falls within multiple ownerships, not all of which have previously indicated any interest in development; • The southern and southwestern parts of the site are at high risk of surface water flooding, meaning that any development at the site may be at risk. Development may also exacerbate flood risk by reducing the drainage ability of the land; • An area of Woodland and two public footpaths, one of which is an allocated Biological Notification Site, are located within the site. Development of the area may compromise these areas, undermining policy NE2 of the VALP through potentially negatively impacting biodiversity via disturbance to wildlife and increases in erosion and littering.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 56 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Site RSA3: Halton Camp Green Belt settlements of Tring and between the Green Belt settlement of Halton. The site plays an important role in preventing further coalescence of Wendover and the ribbon development along the B4009. Development of the site would negate policy S4 in the VALP; • Half of the site is presently occupied by the RAF (Halton Camp) who have not indicated any intention to vacate the site; • The RAF site is of significant importance to the economy of Wendover and its neighbouring towns and villages (Chapter 1.47 of the VALP); • The HELAA Report indicates that the site is partially within the AONB and development may therefore affect the setting and appreciation of the landscape. This would be contrary to draft Policy NE4 of the VALP and paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF. This also contributes to a portion of the site being deemed unsuitable for development within the HELAA . • Part of the site is currently woodland with a public right of way running through. Development may compromise these and undermine draft Policy NE2 of the VALP and paragraph 75 of the NPPF.

It is therefore considered that each site is subject to significant constraints in addition to the restriction arising from the Green Belt designation. Should Green Belt release be achieved, significant hurdles to delivery would remain. It is wholly unjustified and ineffective, and thus not sound, for AVDC to identify these sites as the sole residential development opportunities when they are untested. Alternatives must therefore be considered.

Green Belt Release Having reviewed Green Belt Assessment Part 2 Report July 2016 however, we consider that the release of this land from the Green Belt also requires further consideration.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 57 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Para. 79 of the NPPF states that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Para. 80 moves on to state that the Green Belt serves five purposes: - To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; - To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; - To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and, - To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Para. 83 requires Green Belt boundaries to only be altered in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan. At that time, Local Planning Authorities should consider Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. Strategic Policy S4 of the emerging Local Plan relates to the protection of the Green Belt, suggesting that the Council will apply the above national policy to prevent development of the Green Belt. Policy D4 then goes on to state that the housing requirement of Wendover “will potentially be met by a site for 800 homes subject to it being found suitable for release from the green belt”. National policy and guidance places the most significant importance on the Green Belt, with its release being considered acceptable only in exceptional circumstances and as a result of robust assessment and justification for its release. The proposal to release a significant amount of Green Belt land north of Wendover to facilitate residential development was borne out of a two part Green Belt review undertaken by Aylesbury Vale and surrounding Authorities. In the first instance, whilst the Green Belt review has been undertaken to present suitable sites for the release of Green Belt land, we do not feel that all non-Green Belt sites have been sufficiently considered for development, which would minimise the quantum of land required for release. These representations latterly consider the deliverability and developability of land adjacent to Cold Comfort Farm in greater detail, but this represents one of a number of deliverable sites which, although have their own constraints which need to be overcome, do not require the release of such a large area of Green Belt land. Notwithstanding that there should be more of a focus on developing sites outside of the Green Belt, we do not feel that the assessment into the land north of Wendover justifies its proposed release from the Green Belt, having regard to the requirements set through Paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 58 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment and RSA-3 from the Green Belt would significantly alter the built up area of both Wendover and its surrounding villages. The development of RSA-3 in particular as high density residential development would significantly alter the built up area of Wendover, practically merging thesettlement with Halton to the north-east. Development parcel RSA-2 contains no brownfield land and its redevelopment would significantly encroach into the countryside to the north of Wendover. The Green Belt to the north of Wendover only extends up to Halton and therefore should this land be released for development, there would be no buffer in the future for development north of Wendover. Removing this buffer would reduce any protection which can be afforded to the countryside north of Wendover and remove the open countryside between Wendover and Halton. This would be contrary to para. 80 of the NPPF which describes that the purpose of the Green Belt is to check unrestricted sprawl, prevent neighbouring towns from merging and assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Whilst it is recognised that there are strategic development policies which need to be satisfied to ensure that sufficient housing is delivered across the District, we contend that this should result in Green Belt land being redeveloped, prior to the development of alternative, more appropriate sites.

We consider the delivery of this site to be in doubt. As the only identified site, those scenarios we have already set out whereby not only is delivery of other residential opportunities prejudiced by draft Policy D4 by the allocation of this site, should this site not come forward to development, a strategy settlement which was supposed to grow in size by 25% and contribute circa 800 units towards district-wide supply would fail in its objective. This would inevitably put greater pressure on less sustainable locations and or sites that are subject to national landscape designations. The plan must plan for housing delivery in order to be sound. The proposed allocation of only one site risks comprehensive failure. This is an unjustified and ineffective strategy and thus the plan is not sound.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 59 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.9 Further to the east lies the Buckingham Industrial Estate (but also includes an element of (Daniel Watney LLP) retail (large Tesco supermarket), retail warehousing and tourism/leisure use (Best Western hotel). Constraints The site does not comprise Green Belt. The site is not the subject of any national landscape designations including Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The entire site lies within Flood Zone 1 in respect of fluvial flood risk, an area of lowest flood risk.A small area of land which mirrors the alignment of the watercourse is classified as Flood Zone 2 in terms of surface water flood risk, but the site is predominately considered to comprise Flood Zone 1. As noted above there are several established hedgerows and groups of trees and woodland across the site. These are located along field margins and boundaries across the site. The land broadly rises approximately 5 metres from north-west to south-east across the site. However, the size of the site ensures that there is a modest gradient across the land. The site is classified as Grade 2 and 3a within the Agricultural Land Classification. The site does not lie within, or adjacent to a Conservation Area and is some distance from the nearest Listed Building or Scheduled Ancient Monument. There are no designated archaeological assets on or near to the site. There are no Public Rights of Way routed across the site. There are however, several

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 60 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum Public Rights of Way aligned close to the site, including a bridleway aligned along the (Daniel Watney LLP) south-east boundary of the site and footpaths routing west from Gawcott Road and south from Gawcott Road to the village of Gawcott. The site is not subject to any major environmental designations. There are no legal or access issues that would prevent development from coming forward. Planning Background 4.10 In May 2014, two parcels of the site were submitted to the Council as part of its ‘Call for Sites’ process. 4.11 The submissions were published by the Council in October 2015 with the following details: 4.12 LPA Site ref. SHLBUC046 - Land off Osier Way (south of A421 and east of Gawcott Road), Buckingham (promoted by Harper Developments). A 40 hectare site to provide residentialled (c.14.5 ha = 500 units) sustainable urban extension with supporting uses including primary school (1.25 ha), leisure/recreation use (18 ha) and retail use; and 4.13 LPA Site ref. SHLBUC053 - Land south of the A421, Buckingham (promoted by Mr and Mrs C Garratt). A site of 5.56 hectares suitable to provide 165 homes at 30 dwellings per hectare. 4.14 The combined site has since been assessed in the Council’s Housing Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) as part suitable for housing and/or employment use (HELAA Ref: BUC046). It concluded that if a purely residential scheme is progressed then the site is considered suitable for 490 houses or 420 houses and 1ha of employment land if mixed-use. 4.15 The site has subsequently been identified as a potential housing allocation (420 houses) in the draft Local Plan. Land off Osier Way (south of A421 and east of Gawcott Road), Buckingham

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 61 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 13 (Daniel Watney LLP) 4.16 Part of the site was also proposed to be allocated for employment uses in the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan, although at examination, the Examiner recommended that the site should be deleted. This was due to the fact that the Neighbourhood Plan stated that a total of 27.32ha of new employment land is required, whereas the Plan proposed to allocate 47.55ha in total. As such, the Examiner found that proposed Policy EE1 failed to meet the basic conditions. 4.17 The above demonstrate that the site has been considered suitable for development by the Neighbourhood Plan (albeit for an employment use) and more recently has been identified as suitable for residential in the Council’s HELAA with the result that it is now being identified as a potential housing site in the Local Plan. Development Potential 4.18 To inform an assessment on the development potential of the site, a number of technical studies have been undertaken and a summary of the conclusions is made below. Landscape and Visual 4.19 Supporting these representations is a Landscape Character and Visual Appraisal 2016 prepared by Allen Pyke Associates (Appendix three). The report makes an assessment of the landscape and visual sensitivity of the development site which has been used to inform the preparation of the Concept Plan and extent of developable area on the site. 4.20 The assessment is based on best practice as set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Third Edition, 2013 (GLVIA3) published by Landscape Institute and IEMA. 4.21 The Appraisal identifies that there are limited visual receptors likely to be adversely affected by the site. The most sensitive visual receptors likely to be affected by development include: Residents at Gawcott Road, Gawcott Fields Farm and Little Oaks; Walkers using public footpaths (GAW/4/1, GAW/22/1 and GAW/5/1; Workers and visitors to Buckingham Industrial Estate; and Motorists using Gawcott Road.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 62 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.22 These receptors currently have views towards the existing urban edge which is (Daniel Watney LLP) characterised by large scale warehouses and sheds at the Industrial Estate. 4.23 From the wider landscape, there are limited view to the site due to the nature of the intervening topography and vegetation and the limited public rights of way within the rural landscape. 4.24 The appraisal considers constraints and opportunities that have been used in the preparation for the Concept Plan which are described in the Vision Document. 4.25 The appraisal concludes that there are limited landscape and visual constraints to development of the site and that development of the site will provide an opportunity to improve the sense of arrival to Buckingham from the south by improved green infrastructure connectivity between the rural landscape and the urban area of Buckingham and enhancing the biodiversity, amenity value and local distinctiveness. Transport 4.26 A Technical Note has been prepared by i-Transport which provides a detailed assessment of the following issues: Site Access – potential site access opportunities Accessibility –the site’s proximity to local facilities and access to sustainable transport modes Traffic Impacts –whether there are any issues that would result in a ‘severe’ impact arising from the development 4.27 A summary of the conclusions in respect to these matters is provided below with full details provided in the Technical Note that has been submitted as a separate document. Site Access Opportunities 4.28 The site benefits from direct frontage access to the A421, Gawcott Road and Osier Way, which together provide the opportunity to deliver a development that is well connected, permeable and fully integrated with the local area.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 63 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.29 Initial appraisal of access opportunities to the site has identified the following potential site (Daniel Watney LLP) access strategy (which would be subject to further detailed discussion with Buckinghamshire Country Council): Primary vehicular access to Osier Way delivered through a new roundabout junction which would provide a gateway into the development; Secondary vehicular access to Gawcott Road and Osier Way; Pedestrian and cycle access to Gawcott Road at the proposed site access and to the south - west of the site; Pedestrian and cycle access to Osier Way at the site access and roundabout and at the secondary access to connect to existing facilities; and Potential delivery of a pedestrian access to the A421 at the north-western corner of the site to connect towards Mount Pleasant (including crossing facilities at the A421). 4.30 The Technical Note identifies that vehicular access to both Osier Way and Gawcott Road can be delivered in line with relevant design standards and with sufficient capacity to accommodate future traffic. Accessibility 4.31 An assessment has been carried out to consider the accessibility of the site to local facilities and to sustainable transport opportunities. This concludes that the site is well located to local services and facilities and benefits from good existing sustainable transport connections. These would be improved through the delivery of Sustainable Transport Strategy to ensure that opportunities for sustainable travel are taken up and promoted at the site. Traffic Impacts

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 64 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.32 An assessment of the traffic impact of the proposed development for 500 dwellings on the (Daniel Watney LLP) local highway network indicates that the development would have generally less than 5% impact on the A421 and local roads. Detailed junction assessment demonstrates that with deliverable mitigation (initial options are provided in the Technical Note), the increase in vehicle movements would not result in a material or adverse impact on the operation of the local highway network. Conclusion 4.33 The assessments are described in detail within the Outline Transport Strategy which concludes that: “Development of the site can be accommodated on the local highway network, subject to delivery of targeting network improvements, and as such there are no overall highway constraints that prevent development of the site.” 4.34 The development proposals offer the opportunity to bring forward improvements on the wider transport network, including particularly to the Osier Way and Gawcott Road junctions with the A421. Any development would ensure that proposals to deliver the A421 Expressway are not affected. Flooding 4.35 JNP Group has undertaken an initial assessment which identifies that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 therefore not at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea, however a tributary of the does run south-to-north through the centre of the site. The catchment for this watercourse originates within the locality of the site to the south and therefore presents a relatively small contributing catchment at the site. The watercourse is culverted at the northern boundary of the site, flowing northwards under Osier Way, re-opening to the north of Osier Way and flowing north-east to a confluence with the River Great Ouse.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 65 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.36 Watercourse flood risk will be assessed in more detail in due course within a Flood Risk (Daniel Watney LLP) Assessment, however given the relatively small catchment area contributing to the watercourse at the site and the topography of the site, which falls relatively steeply down towards the watercourse, the risk of flooding is judged to be low. 4.37 The assessment confirms that any future site layout would be developed to integrate the watercourse within the layout, incorporating a landscaped margin alongside the watercourse banks, providing a flood risk buffer, enabling access for maintenance and creating a wildlife conservation area. 4.38 It further identifies that there is a minor existing surface water flood risk in the form of a shallow valley in the east of the site, with surface water currently likely to flow northwards across the eastern fields before reaching the bund which runs along the site’s northern boundary. The bund will contain surface runoff within the site, routing flows eastwards along the southern side of the bund towards the watercourse just south of the junction between Osier Way and the Swan Business Park access road. 4.39 A site layout and levels can be developed to work with the local topography, maintaining these overland flow routes and utilising new swales to route surface runoff around developed areas, following the same approximate direction of existing runoff into the watercourse just south of Osier Way. 4.40 In terms of other potential sources of flood risk, the Aylesbury Vale Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment August 2012 shows no historic records of flooding from groundwater or sewers.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 66 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum Drainage (Daniel Watney LLP) 4.41 JNP Group has also considered potential drainage to and from the site. The site drainage would be developed in line with the principles within the National Planning Policy Framework and best practice sustainable drainage (SuDS) guidance including the CIRIA SuDS manual. 4.42 All runoff from the development could be caught and contained with a SuDS which would utilise a variety of techniques to ensure that rates of runoff from the site will controlled to match runoff from the site in its existing greenfield state into the watercourse, with SuDS features and attenuation storage designed to accommodate the 1in100 year storm event with an allowance for climate change, in line with EA guidelines. The SuDS network would ensure that water quality is managed, catching and removing pollutants, preventing them from passing into the watercourse. These SuDS features will be integrated within the site layout and landscaping, making use of natural, biodiverse SuDS which offer significant habitat opportunities, potential features include swales, detention basins and wetland areas. Some ‘hard’ SuDS features will also be utilise to catch, route and store runoff, potential features include manholes, sewers, permeable paving and attenuation tanks. Ecology 4.43 A Phase 1 Ecological Study was undertaken by BSG Ecology in June 2016. The report confirms that the site is dominated by arable/sprayed set-aside fields, likely to be of limited inherent ecological value. 4.44 Extensive hedgerows are present, almost all of which are species-rich and likely to be Important under the Hedgerow Regulations. All of the agricultural hedgerows at the site are Habitats of Principal Importance in England under section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. 4.45 A large pond is present in the centre east of the site, and at least two further ponds are present outside the site but within 250m. The pond is potentially a Habitat of Principal Importance.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 67 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.46 Semi-natural broad-leaved woodland is present around the pond and along the outflowing (Daniel Watney LLP) stream east of Osier Way. This is a Habitat of Principal Importance. Several blocks of plantation woodland (mainly broad-leaved) are present, likely to be of relatively low ecological value. A number of mature trees (ash, with occasional oak and willows) are present outside woodland, mainly in hedgerows. These are of inherent ecological value. 4.47 There are small areas of semi-improved neutral grassland at the east of the site, apparently of recent origin, and of moderate ecological value. 4.48 Road green lane provides a green corridor and supports some mature trees. 4.49 The most valuable habitat features at the site are considered to be the hedgerows, mature trees, semi-natural woodland and pond, and Lenborough Road green lane. Retaining these would retain much of the ecological value of the site. 4.50 The Phase 1 Study indicates that the site has the potential to support protected species including: bats, badger, dormouse, otter, water vole, breeding birds (including skylark), great crested newt and reptiles. The pond, stream, semi-improved neutral grassland and hedgerows could also support invertebrate species or species assemblages of conservation value. 4.51 Further technical studies and surveys are being undertaken and an appropriate mitigation strategy would be implemented to ensure that any impact is appropriately mitigated and compensated. The Study identifies that development on the site has potential to avoid impacts on these species through careful design and construction, and to provide additional biodiversity enhancements such as through the provision of nesting and roosting sites for bats and birds, and grassland or wetland habitats suitable for amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and foraging bats.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 68 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum 4.52 Whilst the surveys are on-going, the results are therefore considered unlikely to affect the (Daniel Watney LLP) quantum and deliverability of the site. Vision Document 4.53 A Vision Document has been prepared by Omega Partnership Ltd which provides further detail on the site’s development potential. It considers the findings of the technical studies and puts forward a Concept Plan (Appendix 3) that shown how the site could be development for housing and associated community uses. 4.54 Having regard to the findings of the technical studies and an assessment of the site’s constraints and opportunities, the Concept Plan identifies that the site could provide approximately 500 houses with new public open space, enhanced landscaping and a potential main access off Osier Way. Summary 4.55 In summary, the Vision Document and technical studies identify that the site is capable of delivering a high quality residential development with open space and enhanced landscaping. It has been demonstrated that there are no technical constraints to development. The delivery of the site would provide flexibility in terms of housing supply and would provide a range of housing types and sizes to help meet the objectively assessed housing need. The Vision Document demonstrates how the proposed development could positively contribute to the character of the area and enhance public access and ecological diversity.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 69 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01487 Carole Hawkins Policies Map - The only land shown in the plan for development is the ;and 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 business of a town is business but the business of a village is farming. The local plan recognises the importance of farmland and says that it should not be used if there are alternatives which there are in Marsworth, particularly brownfield sites for which the plan states a preference. There are several brownfield sites to develop, one being the White Lion site where historically there were 6 houses in 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. This fits well with the definition of a brownfield site in the plan. The second site is 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 id rough pasture land. These sites are not the farmland site were originally identified in the previous draft plan and are more suitable for development of small groups of houses which are more in character with a small village. The Bulbourne Yard development, a brownfield development, is also part of Marsworth and should be included in Marsworth’s building allocation. It is incorrect to say that Bulbourne is not part of Marsworth – it always has been and i9s part of Marsworth’s electoral role and within the parish. It is easily accessible directly via footpaths in Vicarage Road and Lukes Lea. 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 children to transport out of the village to schools. This is a safety issue for the children. The Stepnells development will cause high density housing which is out of keeping with the surroundings. The plan states that development should “be of a scale and in a location that is in keeping with the existing form of settlement” and that it “should not have any adverse impact on environmental assets”. Marsworth is a village of small developments spread over a fairly wide area which is an essential part of its character. People in Marsworth have a highly developed sense of community and most people know most others in the village. To be swamped by the proposed large high density build would change this irredeemably. The planners have identified the centre of the village as between Stepnells and Lukes Lea but this is meaningless. The centre of the village should be regarded as where most people will congregate and that is the Church, the Red Lion or for those with young children, the school. 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.

Marsworth is not a wealthy village and so did not produce its own plan. This means the first opportunity for the villagers to respond to a proposed plan is now and so their opinions should be carefully regarded and analysed. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 70 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01491 W.G. Hawkins Policies Map - The only land shown in the plan for development is the ;and 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 business of a town is business but the business of a village is farming. The local plan recognises the importance of farmland and says that it should not be used if there are alternatives which there are in Marsworth, particularly brownfield sites for which the plan states a preference. 2. There are several brownfield sites to develop, one being the White Lion site where historically there were 6 houses in the site of the carpark and there is currently a proposal to build 6 houses here and develop the former pub into 2 dwellings. This fits well with the definition of a brownfield site in the plan. The second site is 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 id rough pasture land. These sites are not the farmland site were originally identified in the previous draft plan and are more suitable for development of small groups of houses which are more in character with a small village. The Bulbourne Yard development, a brownfield development, is also part of Marsworth and should be included in Marsworth’s building allocation. It is incorrect to say that Bulbourne is not part of Marsworth – it always has been and i9s part of Marsworth’s electoral role and within the parish. It is easily accessible directly via footpaths in Vicarage Road and Lukes Lea. 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 children to transport out of the village to schools. This is a safety issue for the children. The Stepnells development will cause high density housing which is out of keeping with the surroundings. The plan states that development should “be of a scale and in a location that is in keeping with the existing form of settlement” and that it “should not have any adverse impact on environmental assets”. Marsworth is a village of small developments spread over a fairly wide area which is an essential part of its character. People in Marsworth have a highly developed sense of community and most people know most others in the village. To be swamped by the proposed large high density build would change this irredeemably. The planners have identified the centre of the village as between Stepnells and Lukes Lea but this is meaningless. The centre of the village should be regarded as where most people will congregate and that is the Church, the Red Lion or for those with young children, the school. 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. Marsworth is not a wealthy village and so did not produce its own plan. This means the first opportunity for the villagers to respond to a proposed plan is now and so their opinions should be carefully regarded and analysed. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 71 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01495 Peter Jeffries Policies Map - I wish to object to the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan(VALP), in so far as it relates to Haddenham as set out on page 207 of VALP ,namely HAD001, HAD004, HAD007, HAD009, HAD010, HAD015 and HAD 016 on the following grounds:- The categorisation of Haddenham as a "strategic development" alongside Aylesbury , Buckingham, Wendover and Winslow is incomprehensible, unfair and linjustifiable in view of the fact that 2 of the others in the same category are large market towns whereas Haddenham is an historic village .It is inconceivable that Haddenham should have been placed on a par with these towns. It should have been categorised as a larger village. No valid arguments are put forward as to why Haddenham has been categorised in this way, other than the fact that it has shops, a railway station and is near the M40. These argument are not sustainable, when Haddenham as a whole and its position close to 3 neighbouring towns are taken into account. Furthermore, a strategic settlement should not be close to another similar area, since otherwise this could result in continuous development between one strategic development and the next one. This factor does not appear to have been taken into account by A VDC in categorising Haddenham as a strategic settlement in the draft V ALP. Haddenham is situated only 3 miles from Thame , only 5 miles from Princes Risborough and 6 miles from Aylesbury. Although the towns of Thame and Princes Risborough are in different local authority areas , large housing developments are planned for both towns, which have not been taken into account in placing Haddenham in the category of a strategic settlement . This could of course lead to continuous development between these 2 neighbouring towns and Haddenham. Haddenham has an important conservation area including 120 listed buildings. The centre of the village around The Green and St. Mary's Church is of great architectural, historical and aesthetic importance , while the High Street is narrow and winding, more of a lane than a street. The village is clearly not suitable for the huge and widespread increase in the number of houses proposed in your Plan. The sites listed at page 207 of V ALP for the proposed construction of houses, are all in the top "best and most versatile" category of agricultural land under continuous cultivation. It is neither advisable nor prudent to build on land of this category, instead of on lower grades of land elsewhere. The preservation of agricultural land for agricultural use is even more important now that our future will be outside the EU. The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the historic Church End of Haddenham and destroy its character, as well as on the character and appearance of the whole Haddenham Conservation Area.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 72 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment It is not equitable to compel Haddenham , a village of great historic and architectural merit to provide huge numbers of additional houses to compensate for the refusal and/ or failure of Wycombe District Council's Local Plan to make adequate provision for housing in its area sufficient to meet its needs. Their Local Plan includes sites of very low density housing of 10 to 15 dph whereas the draft VALP for Haddenham provides for densities of35 dph. This is completely biased and inequitable. It appears that Haddenham is being unjustifiably penalised to protect other areas, including Wycombe District Council. The proposed development of 210 houses on land north of Rosemary Lane/west of Church Way cannot be justified. It is on good agricultural land and outside the village boundary. It is not in the Neighbourhood Plan. Haddenham does not have the jobs, infrastructure-roads, shops, primary and secondary schools , sports and leisure facilities etc., to support such huge housing development. The population ofHaddenham voted by a huge majority that AVDC should take into account the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan in relation to the development of Land at Haddenham Glebe (HAD004) after A VDC chose to ignore it in reaching its initial decision to grant Planning Permission for 280 houses on the site. Furthermore A VDC entered into a compromised settlement with Lightwood Strategic in the High Court Judicial Review proceedings to quash the Housing and Development Policies in Chapter 6 of the Neighbourhood Plan. It seems that in this draft VALP, AVDC is again treating Haddenham unfairly by forcing Haddenham to compensate for the failure and/or refusal of Wycombe District Council to make adequate provision in its local plan. In addition it is inappropriate and unfair that AVDC should categorise Haddenham as a "strategic settlement" when there is no valid evidence to justify inclusion in this category and it is close to 3 towns - Thame , Princes Risborough and Aylesbury. In view of the objections I have raised, I would ask AVDC to reconsider the above issues and take them into account in order to review and amend the draft V ALP in respect of development in Haddenham. In particular I would ask that they reconsider the categorisation of Haddenham as a "strategic settlement".

VALP16-09-12-01513 Judith Knight Policies Map - Parcel 109 &110 West of Leighton Linslade

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 73 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01519 Lisa Cooper Policies Map - 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 problem 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

VALP16-09-12-01521 Sean Carolan (Winslow Policies Map - 59) Page (294) (Maps). What is the rationale for adding parcels 109 & 110 west of Leighton Linslade to the green Town Council) belt? This is a much contested development site is it not?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 74 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01527 James Tree-Booker Policies Map - 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 75 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01532 Gill Mabey Policies Map - Therefore for all of the above reasons, Marsworth should not be designated a medium village but returned to being, as it always has been, a small village. 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 8489, 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 RedLion, the Church and the School. The Geographic centre of the village has no amenities. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 76 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01536 Gareth Owens Policies Map - 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 2dwellings. 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

VALP16-09-12-01537 Jacqueline Burnett Policies Map - VALP Policy Map Insets RSA2 North of Wendover

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 77 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01539 Anita O'Keefe Policies Map - 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 78 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01540 Caron Owens Policies Map - 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 sitewhere 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 79 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01541 Sarah Copley (Stoke Policies Map - Chapter 12 – Appendix A Mandeville Parish Strategic settlements (Aylesbury) Council) The Parish Council queries the site address for SMD006 – identified as land between Oxford Road and Wendover Road – and for SMD009 – also identified as land between Oxford Road and Wendover Road. It believes that both descriptions are incorrect and must be rectified. Policy Map Insets Draft VALP – Potential Housing Allocations – South East Aylesbury Following recent recommendations made by the District Council’s Planning Committee, this plan / map is now out of date and is likely to give Stoke Mandeville residents a misleading impression of potential future growth. This must be updated as a priority to not only identify potential allocations – some of which are clearly disputed by the Parish Council – but also to identify sites where consent has been granted or where applications are under consideration. Proposals map Stoke Mandeville Parish Council has a number of comments to make about the proposals map included in the draft Local Plan (Draft VALP – Potential Housing Allocations – South East Aylesbury). This shows that key ‘greenfield’ allocations are in Bierton, Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville and Stone Parishes. The allocation in Bierton appears to be a latter phase of the Kingsbrook development, whilst the live Hampden Fields planning application accounts for the Weston Turville allocations. Of the nine other ‘greenfield’ allocations eight are in Stoke Mandeville Parish. About half of the site SMD012 and a further significant site directly south of SMD006 have recently been recommended for approval for up to 190 homes and 117 homes respectively. Based on these decisions the Parish Council expects that both SMD006 and SMD008 are withdrawn as allocations to avoid the risk of coalescence between the growth of Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville village. The proposals map fails to identify the planned HS2 route although both the SMD009 and STO016 allocations appear to follow the line of route. The Parish Council assumes that Aylesbury Vale has discussed these plans with HS2 Ltd. Stoke Mandeville Parish Council is very concerned that the proposals map combined with statements in the draft Local Plan may lead local residents to believe that all efforts will be made to avoid coalescence between the village and Aylesbury growth. This does not appear to be the case after recent Planning Committee decisions (July 2016), so additional assurances must be secured to protect the identity of both Stoke Mandeville Parish and village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 80 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Responses to planning applications The Parish Council works hard to provide a considered response to all planning applications as a statutory consultee, and makes particular efforts to consider proposals that are deemed ‘strategic’. It now has a three-weekly meeting schedule to meet consultation deadlines for standard applications and organises extraordinary meetings, involving the public to consider ‘strategic’ applications. The Council takes a proactive approach to all applications received and considers each on the basis of material planning considerations, looking where possible to approve or raise no objections to the proposals, suggesting improvements where relevant. Where the Council has an objection/s, they are based on the National Planning Policy Framework and material considerations. Stoke Mandeville Parish Council has supported the objections by making representations to the relevant Planning Committee. It is very disappointed that its valid concerns and objections have been considered and then subsequently overlooked following advice from the Planning Manager. At the most recent meeting in July the Council’s concerns about sustainability were dismissed by the District Council. The Council hopes that work on the emerging Local Plan will ensure the Parish and District Councils will collaborate on new and emerging planning applications to avoid conflict. The Parish Council encourages the District to discuss new developments as and when they emerge to avoid surprises.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 81 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01544 Nancy Wardle Policies Map - 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 developedare 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 82 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01546 Mr and Mrs Bonham Policies Map - 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 83 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01548 Richard Cooper Policies Map - 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

VALP16-09-12-01571 Oliver Bell Policies Map - Extend Housing Allocation WTV017-Aylesbury to include Westonmead Farm

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 84 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01602 Mr and Mrs Lawton Policies Map - 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 8489, 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. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, It needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There Is no need to develop farmland. I would like to add that our house backs onto the proposed site. We have a young family and a very small garden. The open field/farming land makes up for a small garden. If the plans went ahead we would feel totally blocked in. It would also have a negative effect on the market value of our house. My children spend hours watching the farmer and tractors at work on the land and I feel this is important for them to understand modern day farming and to see it in practice. We love our village and really hope we can continue to enjoy it without more houses, cars and noise this will bring. These plans will directly effect me and my family particularly being behind our rear fence.

VALP16-09-12-01610 David Maxwell (GL Policies Map - Policy Map Insets Hearn on behalf of Aviva Potential Housing Allocations – Aylesbury Investors ) Comments: Aviva Investors object to the Potential Housing Allocations VALP Policy Map Inset for Aylesbury, as the Map fails to identify HELAA site ref. AYL078, land at Gatehouse Close as a potential housing allocation. HELAA site ref. AYL078 is located immediately adjacent to, and shares its eastern boundary with committed site ref. AYL037. HELAA site ref. AYL078 also shares the same credentials as a highly sustainable location for residential development, being within walking distance of Aylesbury town centre and railway station, as well as the range and mix of community facilities and services within and around the town centre. Further details are set out below in response to the specific assessment by the HELAA of site ref. AYL078

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 85 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01611 Ross Middleton (CC Policies Map - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (Draft) Consultation – Summer 2016. Town Planning on behalf Land at Benthill Farm, London Road, Buckingham. of Mr C Morris & Mr P CC Town Planning have been appointed by our clients Mr. C Morris and Mr. P Cowley to submit the following representations to Cowley) Aylesbury Vale District (‘AVDC’) in response to the (draft) Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan consultation document and in respect of their land at Buckingham. The Site: To provide some contextual information our clients are the landowners of the above and have 100% control of the site to which this submission relates. The site is currently in agricultural use and extends to cover an area of circa 18 ha. The site has a significant frontage on to London Road from which it is also directly accessible. Immediately to the north of the site lies the significant Buckingham Industrial Estate and its remaining boundaries are delineated by London Road to the east, and mature hedgerows and tree lines, which screen the site, on all other boundaries. Buckingham town centre lies approx. 1.3km to the north. The site is in a sustainable location and lies close to many public transport routes, with bus routes 18 and 60 directly serving the site from London Road, providing a sustainable link to Aylesbury, Bicester and beyond.

For the purposes of clarity an aerial photograph of the site is shown below and a site location plan is included for your records. In terms of recent planning history, the landowners have informally engaged with AVDC during the plan making process and have highlighted the attributes of their site to Council Officers on many occasions. This letter represents the first time that our clients have sought to formally engage with the Borough Council in relation to the site and its longer term potential to meet the strategic development targets for the district. Therefore, it is requested that our details be added to the Council’s consultation database when considering matters in respect of the site further. A significant point of note in relation to the site is its allocation, through Policy EE1 within the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan (Site Ref: Site Q). In summary Policy EE1 allocates Site Q for 10 hectares of employment land whilst reserving the remainder of the site for future economic development uses as they arise over the longer term. Having considered the Council’s recently published evidence base documents, it is clear that the development potential of the site has been assessed through the Aylesbury Vale Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (‘HELAA’) (May 2016). The site (Ref: BUC020) is identified within the report as land adjacent to Windsor Park and Buckingham Industrial Estate and is considered to be suitable for economic development uses. To this end we can confirm that the site is both immediately available and suitable to meet the economic objectives of Aylesbury Vale District Council. However, we would also like to stress to Officers that we feel the site would be better brought forward for a range of uses to ensure its longer term sustainability and to ensure it is flexible to changing macro-economic conditions.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 86 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment From the outset it is urged that the Council take a flexible approach to sites such as our clients. The identification of Benthill Farm as a suitable employment site within the Council’s emerging DPD and evidence base is welcomed and we can confirm that the site is immediately available to meet the economic objectives of the Council. However, it is considered that additional land should be brought forward at the site (over and above the 10 hectares earmarked in the Neighbourhood Plan) to allow for a truly sustainable development to be delivered which is responsive to changing economic, social and environmental trends and patterns. The Aylesbury Vale (Draft) Local Plan and Evidence Base Documents. At the outset our clients commend the efforts of AVDC Officers to progress a development plan for the area which will help to provide certainty for the community and developers alike and it is considered that the work which has been undertaken to this point in the preparation of the DPD is both positive and proactive. To inform this response CC Town Planning have undertaken a review of the consultation document and its accompanying evidence base and have the following comments to make on behalf of the client and in respect of their aforementioned land holding. Our clients acknowledge the Council’s approach to understanding employment land requirements for Aylesbury Vale in line with those of neighbouring authorities through the joint assessment as referred to within the draft DPD. It is however urged that Officer’s remain mindful that whilst the client’s site is immediately available to meet the economic development targets of Aylesbury Vale, the implications are far reaching as the site has the potential to make a positive contribution to the wider regional economy not just the micro-economy of Buckingham. Allied to the above point the clients consider that reference should be made to economic development within the Strategic Objectives contained within the draft DPD. Whilst we are aware of the Council’s aspirations for sustainable economic growth the DPD currently appears to focus heavily on housing delivery. With this in mind it is considered important that the document include reference to the significant role that new sites will play in contributing towards sustained economic growth of the district.

Whilst the site has not been formally promoted through the plan making process for residential purposes, it is hoped that the development plan will contain enough flexibility to enable, amongst other uses, small scale residential development at the site. Clearly, it is the intention of the client to ensure that the site meets its prescribed contribution to the local economy, through the delivery of 10 Ha of employment land as allocated through the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan. However, it is clear that there is a significant level of unmet housing need within the district and it is considered that the clients site presents a real opportunity to deliver a sustainable employment led mixed use development. The approach which the Council has set out for assisting in the revision of those Neighbourhood Plans within the district, which has already been ‘made’, after the Local Plan’s adoption is both positive and pragmatic. In the case of the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan it is hoped that the Council instill yet further flexibility within that document to reflect a flexibly worded Local Plan, once adopted. Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan currently allocates our clients site for purely economic development uses, it is hoped that through instilling flexibility in the Local Plan, this would then require suitable revisions to the aforementioned Policy EE1 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 87 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01612 Jane Rogers Policies Map - Haddenham site 6 between Aston Sandford, Owlswick and Longwick

I am extremely concerned that you have included the above site in your draft proposals for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. I would like to object most strongly to this site being included in the local plan; my reasons are as follows: VALP16-09-12-01622 Christopher Roberts Policies Map - Land North East of Haddenham (aka Land North of Rosemary Lane) (Turley.co.uk on behalf 4.8 As noted, the Draft Local Plan identifies the southern area of the land interest, as being partially suitable for development. It is of Cala Homes Ltd) evident that the basis for including the southern extent of the site derives from the initial evaluation set out in the HELAA Version 3 (May 2016), as well as previous iterations of that report. 4.9 The assessment in that document notes that; “The southern part (around 6 hectares) of the site is considered suitable for housing at a density of up to 35 dph subject to appropriate access being provided. However the northern part should be excluded from development because of landscape/visual impact and intrusion into the open countryside.” 4.10 We also note that whilst the Call for Sites Summary Report (July 2016) identifies the full extent of the site (as expanding northward to the Aylesbury Road [A418]), the ‘VALP Policy Map Insets’ (as appendices to the Draft Local Plan) identifies only the southern section of the site North of Rosemary Lane, with the blue hatching indicating that this as partly suitable for development. This leads to some confusion as to what has actually been assessed in the HELAA, with rather calls into question the robustness of the document. 4.11 As such, we have reassessed the site in accordance with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 methodologies used in the preparation of the HELAA14. Our analysis is set out overleaf. VALP16-09-12-01629 Kenneth David Shaw Policies Map - As a long term resident of Weston Turville I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of local planning authority empathy with the views of a significantly large number of people with regard to the Hamden Field development proposals. Start listening and acting in accord with the wishes of the people.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 88 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Policies Map - Part 2 - Site Allocations (Policies D1-D14) Bucks & Oxon Wildlife It is not entirely clear what level of ecological assessment has so far been carried out with respect to the proposed site allocations. Trust) Prior to adoption of any site a full initial assessment of the ecological value should be undertaken to inform the allocation of the sites in the Local Plan, to determine whether allocation of the site is appropriate in terms of biodiversity impacts. This is in line with the requirements of the NPPF: “Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this framework” “Planning policies and decisions should be based on up-to-date information about the natural environment and other characteristics of the area including drawing, for example from River Basin management Plans. Working with Local Nature Partnerships where appropriate, this should include an assessment of existing and potential components of ecological networks.” If the ecological value of the strategic sites is not identified until later in the planning process, the deliverability of these policies may be affected through discovery of ecological constraints later in the planning process. We have looked at the Sustainability Appraisal document and whilst we recognise that some level of biodiversity assessment has been carried out it is not at all clear that this has included on-the-ground ecological surveys. The soundness of the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan can only be ensured if it is known that the sites are deliverable. Without survey that is not known. Therefore prior to moving to the next stage of the local plan and the assessment of the Tests of Soundness it is essential that initial ecology surveys are carried out on any proposed sites and the results included within the Local Plan. In the current situation without the provision of detailed ecological assessment it is extremely hard to make an assessment of the suitability of any of the sites for development in terms of biodiversity. Our comments are largely based upon an assessment against wildlife designations and habitats as viewed by aerial photography. We reserve the right to amend our views in subsequent responses once ecological assessment has been carried out. In addition, we would expect any planning applications which come forward for sites within the District to be judged robustly against the policies of the Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, with reference in particular to the protection of:

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 89 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, SSSIs Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Local Wildlife Sites and Biological Notification Sites Trust) Ancient woodland and other irreplaceable habitats Priority habitat (under Section 41 of the NERC Act) Legally protected and notable species Priority species (under Section 41 of the NERC Act) Wild bird habitat (as covered under paragraph 9A “Duties in relation to wild bird habitat” of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012). The impact on protected species, designated sites and any Species and Habitats of Principal Importance for Conservation in England (as listed under Section 41 of NERC Act (2006)) that may be affected will need to be assessed in relation to any planning applications on these sites. This will require a full suite of surveys and assessment to be submitted with any actual development planning applications. CIEEM document http://www.cieem.net/data/files/Publications/EcIA_Guidelines_Terrestrial_Freshwater_and_Coastal_Jan_2016.pdf states: “B8. Baseline ecological conditions B8.3 Species and species groups It will be appropriate to include the following species/species groups as a minimum for all sites: Plants, Invertebrates, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Bats, Badgers, Other mammals” Note that on some sites wintering bird surveys will be needed in addition to breeding bird surveys. The most recent ecological records should be sought from BMERC (Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre) in addition to ecological surveys being carried out in the right survey season.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 90 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Priority habitats Bucks & Oxon Wildlife The majority of the sites proposed for allocation include priority habitats (habitats of principal importance under the NERC Act 2006). Trust) In most cases the priority habitat is hedgerows which we deal with in more detail below. Some sites contain other priority habitats or have priority habitat adjacent or close by. For all other priority habitats (which includes most woodlands) including irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodlands, veteran trees, ancient hedgerows, fens and traditional unimproved meadows/ancient grasslands then where the site can be taken forward the priority habitats must be retained in full and managed in perpetuity for their wildlife. They should also be buffered with semi-natural habitat and we would suggest (see section on buffers above) a minimum buffer of 30m for irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, rising to 50m where the habitat is within a designated site such as SAC, SSSI, LWS and BNS. Other priority habitats except for hedgerows (see below) should have a minimum buffer of 15m. Hedgerows A large proportion of the proposed allocated sites include hedgerows. The vast majority of these will be priority habitats (or habitats of principal importance under the NERC Act 2006). We have already covered hedgerows in the section above relating to Policy NE8. We briefly summarise this here for all the below site allocations, rather than highlighting hedgerows each time as is relevant for most of the sites. Hedgerows should be retained and developments placed between hedgerows rather than removing hedgerows. A 10m buffer of semi- natural habitat should be provided for hedgerows and the hedgerows should be managed for wildlife, trimming only every three years at the most, on a rotational basis, leaving some areas untrimmed for longer, and allowing the hedgerow to grow slowly outwards by not trimming back to the previous trim point, and then rejuvenating as necessary. The hedgerows and buffers should be maintained within a “dark corridor” with no lighting. Where hedgerow loss is unavoidable (for example due to the provision of entrances) then the loss should be compensated by the creation of native species-rich hedgerow at least three times the length that is to be lost.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 91 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Achieving a net gain in biodiversity on any allocated sites that are taken forward Bucks & Oxon Wildlife We are concerned that a considerable proportion of the proposed allocated sites contain habitat that whilst it may not be priority Trust) habitat (see above re sites that do contain priority habitat - assessment will be required to establish this) nevertheless appear from aerial photography to contain habitat that is of considerable value to wildlife such as semi-improved rough grassland and scrub. We highlight again that paragraphs 7, 9 and 152 of the NPPF clearly indicate that delivery of the Local Plan must result in a net gain in biodiversity e.g. “Paragraph 7 - There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: …….an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy. Paragraph 9 - Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people’s quality of life, including (but not limited to):……● moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;6…….. Paragraph 152 - Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three. Significant adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, measures to mitigate the impact should be considered. Where adequate mitigation measures are not possible, compensatory measures may be appropriate.”

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 92 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, A net gain in biodiversity across the delivery of the Local Plan is in practice only possible if the majority of approved applications Bucks & Oxon Wildlife individually provide a net gain in biodiversity. The NPPF recognises this in paragraph 109 which requires developments, where Trust) possible, to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. In practise it is almost always possible, however it is not always easy. Put simply, a net gain in biodiversity requires more wildlife after the development than before the development. If development is located on sites such as semi-improved grassland and scrub with significant wildlife value, then either: a) large areas of the site, potentially about 50% or more will need to i) remain undeveloped and ii) be managed so as to maximise its wildlife value, with the creation of priority habitat, and management in perpetuity for wildlife, or b) significant off-site compensation must be provided by funding the creation of priority habitat on other land and its management for wildlife in perpetuity. Where this occurs then ideally it would take place within BOAs or failing that in some other location where it makes the most contribution to ecological networks. In the case of a) we would point out that this would on some sites make the currently aspired to housing numbers either non- deliverable or only deliverable with high housing densities. With respect to b) the local authority may choose to facilitate it with the strategic development of a substantial biodiversity provision of some sort, funded by developer payments for off-site compensation. In the case of developments on arable and improved grassland whilst these are of lower value then nevertheless they are of value for wildlife and considerable areas will need to be set aside and managed as priority habitat for wildlife if a net gain in biodiversity is to be achieved. The inevitable conclusion is that for the Plan to be sound and to deliver the net gain required by the NPPF either: the above mentioned delivery of a developer funded strategic biodiversity area will be needed; or individual developments will be required to compensate for their development impact through substantial on-site provision of habitat or negotiate their own off-site compensation with in both cases the biodiversity accounting metric used to demonstrate a net gain.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 93 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Individual site allocation comments Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Subject to the provisos above we make some comments on individual strategic options below. These comments are in no way Trust) complete and not meant to reflect the entirety of wildlife impact relevant to the strategic options as this is outside the scope of this response, especially bearing in mind that detailed ecological information has not been supplied. They are limited to comments in relation to designated sites and ecological networks (the BOAs), and with some comments on habitats visible by aerial photography. Most of our comments relate to some of the sites in blue on the maps marked as “Potential housing allocations”. Some of them, marked *, relate to those marked as “Commitments”. Whilst we recognise that these are marked as Commitments we are aware that a number of these commitments result from neighbourhood plans. Regrettably we do not have the resources to have been able to assess and comment individually on the many neighbourhood plans that have been taken forward across the District in recent years. Some of the allocations marked as Commitments are of concern regarding biodiversity and we felt that it was important that we point these out as well.

SE of Aylesbury STO016 This site is already proposed for grassland habitat creation by HS2 (in the Environmental Statement that forms part of the HS2 Hybrid Bill) as compensation for losses of wildlife habitat caused by HS2. Full compensation to replicate the HS2 biodiversity habitat proposals will be necessary for parliamentary commitments to No Net Loss of biodiversity for the HS2 proposals to be met. SMD013* We have significant concerns about development on this site. This site is indicated as already committed but includes an area of woodland that is listed on the Natural England priority habitat inventory as deciduous woodland priority habitat. Development must not be permitted on this priority habitat, the habitat must be well buffered from any development, and measures must be taken to ensure no negative impacts on the habitat from changes in hydrology, air quality, light or noise pollution, recreation or any other reason. A management plan will be needed to ensure long-term management for wildlife of the priority habitats.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 94 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, There is a hedgerow on the site. This should be retained by any development and managed to enhance it for wildlife conservation. Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Aerial photography observation suggests the remaining area of the site is semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better) and Trust) scrub. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the botanical quality of the grassland habitats. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of these grasslands. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. We would also point out that as with STO016 above, this site is already proposed for grassland habitat creation by HS2 (in the Environmental Statement that forms part of the HS2 Hybrid Bill) as compensation for losses of wildlife habitat caused by HS2. Full compensation to replicate the HS2 biodiversity habitat proposals will be necessary for parliamentary commitments to No Net Loss of biodiversity for the HS2 proposals to be met. SMD009 A small part of this site is already proposed for grassland habitat creation by HS2 (in the Environmental Statement that forms part of the HS2 Hybrid Bill) as compensation for losses of wildlife habitat caused by HS2. Full compensation to replicate the HS2 biodiversity habitat proposals will be necessary for parliamentary commitments to No Net Loss of biodiversity for the HS2 proposals to be met. WTV002 We have already responded in great detail regarding this allocation in our responses to 16/00424/AOP. Rather than clutter up this response by pasting large amounts of text from our previous response please refer to that response above with respect to this site allocation. We can send our response again on request. Aylesbury: AYL054 The site includes scrub or woodland and is adjacent to a canal.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 95 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, There are areas of scrub or woodland which may include mature trees and may not be developable. A full site ecological survey Bucks & Oxon Wildlife should be carried out. Without this survey we cannot say whether any of the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, Trust) potentially contrary to the NPPF. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. In addition the site is adjacent to a canal. Development should not take place within 10m of the canal and semi-natural habitat should be created within this 10m buffer. AYL051 The site is adjacent to a canal. Development should not take place within 10m of the canal and semi-natural habitat should be created within this 10m buffer. AYL073 We have significant concerns about development on this site. Aerial photography observation suggests the site is semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better) with patches of scrub. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland/scrub and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland/scrub. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. Buckingham BUC003

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 96 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, We have significant concerns about development on this site. Aerial photography observation suggests substantial areas of the site Bucks & Oxon Wildlife are semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better) and scrub/woodland. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to Trust) determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as woodland or species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out conserving the best areas of grassland/scrub and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland/scrub. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. As well as potentially being of high value for wildlife we would also point out that this is a green space within a densely settled area and is likely to be much valued by the local people as such, as well as making an important contribution to their wellbeing in terms of the natural benefits provided (e.g. reducing urban heat island effect and reducing air pollution – see Biodiversity in built development section above). BUC046 The site is in Tingewick Meadows and Woods BOA so any development should contribute to the targets for this BOA (see http://www.buckinghamshirepartnership.gov.uk/media/1022738/Tingewick%20Meadows%20and%20Woods.pdf ). There are hedgerows on the site. These should be retained by any development and managed to enhance them for wildlife conservation. BUC059* We would have serious concern regarding any development being taken forward at this site. A large part of this site is a LWS: Buckingham Railway Walk (North) which should not be developed as to do so would be contrary to:

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 97 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, i) AVDC planning policy Bucks & Oxon Wildlife ii) the NPPF Trust) iii) the duties of the local authority in relation to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as amended in paragraph 9a of the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) 2012 Regulations). Guidance on this legislation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/providing-and-protecting-habitat-for-wild-birds iv) the duties of the local authority in relation to the NERC Act (2006) – duty to have due regard to biodiversity. Outside of the LWS there is an area of deciduous woodland as well which should also be retained. A buffer of at least 50m should be provided to protect the LWS. In practice this leaves little or no area on the site that can be developed without detrimental impact on wildlife. Cheddington CHE001 We have significant concerns about development on this site. The field appears by aerial photography to be ridge and furrow grassland and therefore likely to be ancient grassland. We cannot say categorically if this is ridge and furrow as only based on aerial photograph examination. If it is then whilst the presence of ridge and furrow grassland is no guarantee of species richness there is a correlation between the two as ancient grasslands have had longer to develop a rich flora and fauna. The sites will need a thorough assessment and if species-rich should be precluded from development. Even if of semi-improved rather than unimproved quality the loss of such ancient grassland would be regrettable and considerable compensation would be required for example by allowing only a small development with the majority of the grassland retained and managed to become species-rich grassland. There is precedent for development to avoid ridge and furrow grassland for example the development S of Aylesbury (Land between Wendover Road and Aston Clinton Road) has excluded the vast majority of the ridge and furrow from the developed area). If not ridge and furrow then aerial photography observation suggests the site is semi-improved grassland or maybe even better. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the botanical quality of the grassland habitats. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of these grasslands. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 98 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Cuddington Bucks & Oxon Wildlife CDN001 Trust) We have significant concerns about development on this site. Aerial photography observation suggests the site is semi-improved grassland or maybe even better. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the botanical quality of the grassland habitats. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of these grasslands. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. Edlesborough EDL003* We have very serious concerns about development on this site. From aerial photography the entire site appears to include a large area of scrub/woodland that is listed on the Natural England priority habitat inventory and the remainder appears to be semi-improved grassland (or better) and hedgerow priority habitat. We have significant concerns about development on this site. Aerial photography observation suggests substantial areas of the site are semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better) and scrub/woodland. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as woodland or species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out conserving the best areas of grassland/scrub and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland/scrub. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. There are hedgerows on the site. These should be retained by any development and managed to enhance them for wildlife conservation.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 99 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Gawcott Bucks & Oxon Wildlife GAW001 Trust) The site is in Tingewick Meadows and Woods BOA so any development should contribute to the targets for this BOA (see http://www.buckinghamshirepartnership.gov.uk/media/1022738/Tingewick%20Meadows%20and%20Woods.pdf ). GAW002 We have significant concerns about development at this site. Up to half the site appears to be made up of a mature hedgerow/line of trees. This feature should be retained by any development and managed to enhance it for wildlife conservation. The remainder of the site appears to semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better). A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as hedgerow/woodland/species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out conserving the best areas of grassland/scrub and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland/scrub. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. The site is in the Tingewick Meadows and Woods BOA so any development should contribute to the targets for this BOA (see http://www.buckinghamshirepartnership.gov.uk/media/1022738/Tingewick%20Meadows%20and%20Woods.pdf ).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 100 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Great Horwood Bucks & Oxon Wildlife GHW013 Trust) We have significant concerns about development at this site. The field appears by aerial photography that it maybe ridge and furrow grassland and, if so, is therefore likely to be ancient grassland. We cannot say categorically if this is ridge and furrow as only based on aerial photograph examination. If it is then whilst the presence of ridge and furrow grassland is no guarantee of species richness there is a correlation between the two as ancient grasslands have had longer to develop a rich flora and fauna. The sites will need a thorough assessment and if species-rich should be precluded from development. Even if of semi-improved rather than unimproved quality the loss of such ancient grassland, if it is, would be regrettable and considerable compensation would be required for example by allowing only a small development with the majority of the grassland retained and managed to become species-rich grassland. There is precedent for development to avoid ridge and furrow grassland for example the development S of Aylesbury (Land between Wendover Road and Aston Clinton Road) has excluded the vast majority of the ridge and furrow from the developed area). If not ridge and furrow then aerial photography observation suggests the site is semi-improved grassland or maybe even better. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the botanical quality of the grassland habitats. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of these grasslands. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. The site is in the North Bucks Fens BOA so any development should contribute to the targets for this BOA (see http://www.buckinghamshirepartnership.gov.uk/media/1022668/North%20Bucks%20Fens.pdf ).

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 101 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Grendon Underwood Bucks & Oxon Wildlife GUW008 and GUW010 Trust) We have significant concerns about development on these sites. Aerial photography observation suggests substantial areas of the site are semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better). A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. Haddenham HAD007 We have significant concerns about development on the small “promontory” towards the SE end of this site. Aerial photography observation suggests this area is semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better). A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 102 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, HAD001 and HAD016 Bucks & Oxon Wildlife We have significant concerns about development on these sites. Aerial photography observation suggests substantial areas of the Trust) sites are semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better) and scrub/woodland. A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as woodland or species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out conserving the best areas of grassland/scrub and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland/scrub. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. Maids Moreton MMO004 We have significant concerns about development on this site. Aerial photography observation suggests this area is semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better). A full site ecological survey should be carried out to determine the quality of the habitats, including botanical quality. Without this survey we cannot say whether the site is developable without significant impact on wildlife, potentially contrary to the NPPF. Any priority habitat such as species-rich grassland should be retained. If any of the site is found to be developable it is likely that significant levels of on-site compensation would be needed to compensate for impacts on wildlife. This should be carried out by conserving the best areas of grassland and implementing a management plan in perpetuity to maintain and, depending on the existing quality, enhance the species-richness of the grassland. Any development proposals should be assessed using a biodiversity accounting metric as described earlier in the response. Marsh Gibbon MGB003 We have significant concerns about development on this site. Aerial photography observation suggests this area is semi-improved grassland (or maybe even better). A full site ecologic

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 103 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01636 Oliver Taylor (Gleeson Policies Map - The opportunity presented by the land controlled by Gleeson/Linden Strategic Land on behalf The land controlled by Gleeson/Linden comprises two principal fields (Fields 1 of Linden Homes) and 2 on the enclosed plan prepared by Define). These fields are described below. For comparison purposes, the land subject to the Gladman applications/appeals is also described. This comparison is necessary to conclude that there are distinguish landscape characteristic. Field 1 is a pastoral field of medium to large scale (being approximately 9.68Ha in size) and is open in character. It highest point lies in its south western corner and it generally falls to the north, by around 10 metres over the full length of the field, with a localised central depression acting as a valley before rising again to its eastern boundary. The field is enclosed on its boundary with Little Horwood Road by a native hedgerow of around 3-5 metres height, with a mature tree belt located between Little Horwood Road and the built form of Winslow to the west, visually separating this land from the urban form of Winslow (see enclosed Viewpoint 3). Its eastern boundary is a post and wire fence, with a stile crossing to the public footpath, and distinctive row of Poplar trees beyond this boundary, which provides some visual containment of Redhall Farm. To the north east, a mature well managed hedgerow separates the site from the public footpath, where it meets the B4032 (see enclosed Viewpoints 7/8). Public footpath users are visually screened from the site in this location, however the footpath continues northwards to the west of Redhill Farm, and in doing so benefits from a wide panorama of this land, being on raised land (see Viewpoints 9/10). This view shows the well vegetated boundary to the land, and little or no urban presence (aside from housing to the west of Field 2). The field pattern is regular, and has some telegraph poles aligned north-south. Overall, its value and susceptibility to change is considered to be medium-high. This is largely due to the footpath experience and views, the lack of visible urban elements, and the experience of this land as ‘countryside’.

VALP16-09-12-01645 Sonia Geary Policies Map - I am very concerned about the proposed plans for the Hampden Fields area [See comments under S2 Spatial Strategy and S5 Infrastructure].

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 104 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01645 Sonia Geary Field 2 is a pastoral field is also medium to large scale (being approximately 6.36Ha in size), but is less regular in shape when compared with Field 1, and is separated by a post and wire fence. The land consistently falls to the north and east, and a stream/ditch lies to its northern boundary with Field 1 (see enclosed Viewpoint 4). The field is bounded by a relatively low hedge to the west, and the urban edge of Winslow is locally prominent (see enclosed Viewpoints 5/6). The field’s boundary to the north and east is almost continually enclosed by mature woodland, with only a narrow gap on the eastern boundary allowing a glimpsed view from the public footpath (see enclosed Viewpoint 11). A large scale (but not high voltage) power line crosses the southern part of the site, which appears to be a 32KV line. Overall, its value and susceptibility to change is considered to be medium. This assessment is less than Field 1 largely due to the greater presence of urban form (housing and to a lesser degree power lines), the reduced vegetation to the west creating a reduced sense of separation from the existing town, and the reduced visibility of this land from a public footpath. The landscape is, however, pleasant and rolling, and portrays positive elements of the Winslow Ridge character. The land controlled by Gladman, and the subject of three historic applications and unsuccessful appeals contains three separate fields, all of a much smaller scale that Fields 1 and 2 described above. The northern field is located adjacent to two public footpaths, one being a sustrans cycle route (No. 51) and has a well vegetated northern and southern boundary (see Viewpoints 1/2). Adjacent to Little Harwood Road lies an ‘L’ shaped field, which also adjoins the A413 along the southern extent of the site. These fields appear to frame the central, slightly larger field (which remains a much smaller scale than Fields 1 and 2). This field, and in particular its western edged tree belt, was the subject of much consideration at the failed appeals, and is a mature tree belt of around 15 metres height (see enclosure Viewpoint 12). We consider the value and susceptibility of the Gladman land to be medium-high to high, it is visually separated from the urban presence of Winslow, has mature vegetation, and two external public footpaths, Little Harwood Road and the adjacent A413 / B4032 all from which its positive virtues can be readily experienced. The differences between the Gleeson/Linden land, and the Gladman site, are: (i) The Gladman site’s value relies to some degree on the TPO trees, their ‘majestic’ appearance and how the existing fields provide a setting for these trees – this site has no trees or woodland within the fields, they are plainly open and pastoral in nature; (ii) The proximity of the site between Winslow and Shipton – whilst the first and last decisions appear to have a different view in respect of the effects of these settlement’s separate identities, this site is clearly separate from Shipton, and its identity should not be a factor, and;

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 105 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01645 Sonia Geary (iii) The visible presence of the urban edge of Winslow, at least for part of the north eastern extent of the settlement. According to the 2008 Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment and its 2013 update, the Gleeson/Linden land lies within Landscape Character Area 4.12 – Winslow Ridge, which includes land to the west of the settlement. The 2013 updated study assesses this LCA as: Being in very good condition, with few detracting features. Visual unity is strongly unified due to the woodland cover; The quality of the landscape around Winslow is good, showing few signs of neglect or deterioration; Cultural integrity is good, due to the field pattern and historic settlements; Ecological integrity is strong; The functional integrity of the landscape is very good; The landscape is of distinctive character and good quality, with a moderate sense of place. Overall, the moderate strength of character combined with the moderate visibility gives the landscape a moderate degree of sensitivity. The 2013 updated study provides this LCA with the following guidelines: Conserve agricultural land use on suburban fringes and discourage inappropriate use. Conserve the pattern of irregular shaped fields and mature hedgerows. Encourage the establishment of new hedgerow trees where hedgerows are clipped. Encourage management of small woodlands adjacent to farms. Maintain connectivity of habitats and aim to increase connectivity of woodlands where possible. Encourage the conservation of older agricultural buildings Recognise the significance of the ridge and furrow and fossilised strips at Swanbourne in relation to the conservation area. Encourage the survey, management and conservation of Historic Parks and Gardens. In respect of the site specifics, and with reference to the above-mentioned description of the site, the key landscape features and qualities are identified as being: The mature woodland that forms an eastern enclosure to Field 2; The rolling nature of the landscape, with glimpsed views to the wider countryside to the east from the public footpath, and; Views of the open landscape from Little Horwood Road, over both Fields 1 and B2.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 106 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01645 Sonia Geary Focusing in more detail on constraints, (which can also act as opportunities for the purposes of site promotion), these are analysed as being: (i) Ensuring significant framed views exist from Little Horwood Road over an open landscape to the east; (ii) Development in the immediate context of the public footpath is avoided; (iii) Maximising the placement of development where a visual relationship with the urban edge of Winslow exists at present (i.e. predominantly within Field 2); (iv) Encourage the enhancement of ecological corridors and small scale woodland. Accordingly, the land controlled by Gleeson/Linden differs in character and site specifics to that of the Gladman land situated to the south. We are currently in the process of preparing a new masterplan for the site which adopts the following high level principles: - (i) Maximising the inter-relationship between the site and Winslow, where its existing urban edge is visible; (ii) Maximising views from Little Horwood Road to the wider landscape; (iii) Minimising views of development from the public right of way; (iv) Promoting best practice use of the landscape in regard to recreation, play, ecology and SUDS, and; (v) Emphasising the appropriateness of the built form in its rural context – a substantially lower density edge with more traditional materials might be required. We consider the site has capacity for circa 130 dwellings which could come forward within the first five years of the Plan period as it is available now for development. Furthermore, we consider that with the revised masterplan principles the site provides for a suitable location for development and is achievable with a realistic prospect of coming forward.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 107 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01660 Mark Harris (DLP Policies Map - 3.0 LAND AT LEIGHTON ROAD, EDLESBOROUGH Planning on belhalf of 3.1 Paragraph 4.72 of the Draft VALP states that Edlesborough has sufficient sites identified (through existing Robin Gaymer) commitments/completions and suitable HELAA sites) to meet their housing requirement, and a process of ranking the suitable sites in order of sustainability needs to be carried out (to select the most appropriate site(s) for allocation). 3.2 In general, the HELAA makes some sweeping statements about the suitability of sites put forward without seeming to have any evidence to back up the judgments made. The result is that numerous sites are ruled out of apparent further consideration without the decision to do so being properly justified. As an example, the HELAA site EDL009, High Street Edlesborough is seen as unsuitable on heritage and landscape grounds. However, when given proper consideration through the Development Management process earlier in the year, an application for development (15/02411/APP), informed by a proper assessment of the impacts, was recommended for approval by Officers and granted consent (subject to s106) by the Strategic Development Control Committee. This calls in to question the conclusions drawn on other sites, not just in Edlesborough, but the rest of the HELAA. 3.3 A total of 21 sites have been put forward in Edlesborough, including land at Leighton Road (site EDL011). The analysis used in the HELAA when considering this site is not agreed, as it fails to take cognisance of the recent grant of planning permission on the adjacent site (referred to above), and fails to consider how effects on the Area of Attractive Landscape and on the long views to the AONB can be mitigated through design. It also fails to consider that part of the site could be suitable for development in isolation. 3.4 In terms of relationship to the existing settlement, the HELAA states that “the site is poorly related to the rest of the settlement”. This is not a true reflection of the situation as the site shares a boundary with two streets of development on its northern development, along Chiltern Avenue and Leighton Road. The site continues the pattern of development that is found on these streets, with the potential for a shared access via Chiltern Avenue, which would need further investigation. Development could front onto Leighton Road, responding to the existing linear character of this area of the settlement. 3.5 The HELAA also states that a reason for the site being considered “unsuitable” for development is the Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL) in which the site sits. The preclusion of the site from further consideration based on this local landscape designation is not appropriate as the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment Methodology (2015) states in paragraph 2.15 that “environmental constraints will be carefully considered. Development may be suitable in these locations, depending on the size of the site and the extent to which the constraint covers a site and its potential impact. These constraints are likely to have an impact on the capacity of a site e.g. affect design and layout and also the timing of when development is likely to take place.” Nowhere in the methodology does it state that a site within an AAL should be automatically discarded from further consideration.

VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll Policies Map - Page (294) (Maps). What is the rationale for adding parcels 109 & 110 west of Leighton Linslade to the green belt? This is a much contested development site is it not?

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 108 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01692 David Wetherill (Turley Policies Map - 1.1 These representations have been prepared by Turley on behalf of Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited in relation to Associates Ltd) ‘Land at Nup End Lane, Wingrave’, which is being promoted through the emerging Local Plan. 1.2 The site has been identified as a proposed allocation for 15 dwellings in the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) and for approximately 30 dwellings in the Submission Wingrave with Rowsham Parish Neighbourhood Plan. This response focuses on matters pursuant to the inconsistencies between the two proposed allocations, namely the developable area and number of dwellings allocated, as well as commenting on the soundness of the VALP. 1.3 The representations set out the merits of allocating the entire site for development for approximately 30 dwellings, to be consistent with the Submission Neighbourhood Plan allocation. VALP16-09-13-01696 Mark Owen (Barton Policies Map - As already indicated within our representations, we are encouraged that the Hampden Fields site has been included Willmore (on behalf of as a potential housing allocation site as illustrated on the map on 7 of the ‘VALP Policy Map Insets’. Hampden Fields Consortium)) We are also encouraged that the Hampden Fields site has been included on both the Aylesbury Garden Town Green Infrastructure Network Plan (page 49) and Transport Network Plan (page 50). VALP16-09-13-01697 Jodi Stokes (Persimmon Policies Map - The site (shown below) is located at Calvert Green, with the closest towns being the small market town of Winslow Homes Midlands) (approx. 7 miles) and the larger service centre of Bicester (approx. 11 miles). The village itself has a community hall, bus service and shop unit. The developable area will be located to the south and will cover approximately 15.5 hectares of the 30 hectare site. The site is comprises part farmed part vacant pasture to the north and west of the existing David Wilson Homes and Persimmon Homes residential development. The southern triangular parcel of land is still actively farmed whilst the rest of the site is scrubland with ponds and significant mature woodland to the northern end. The site is currently vacant greenfield land with roads to the west and northern boundaries. The proposed route of HS2 is further to the east. Persimmon Homes and David Wilson Homes propose residential development to support the delivery of the land to the north (which is of value in terms of ecology and habitats) to be opened up for recreation to the existing community as well as providing the mitigation the County Council is seeking through development and/or financial contributions. The land to the north of the site is a Local Nature Reserve and could been enhanced by formalising the recreational open space within the site.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 109 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01699 Alice Brighton (Planning Policies Map - The purpose of this letter is to promote, for residential development within the vale of Aylesbury local plan Potential) consultation.

The purpose of this letter is to promote, for residential development within the Vale of Aylesbury local plan, the site known as Land between Manor Farm and railway line, Whaddon Road, Newton Longville, which is listed as site Ref: NLV019 within the may 2016 housing and Economic land Availability Assessment v3 (HELLA). Enclosed is a site location plan.

This representation considers the advice provided within both the national planning policy framework (NPPF) and the national planning practice Guidance (PPG) and the draft policies contained within Vale of Aylesbury local plan.

The site Land between Manor Farm and railway line, Whaddon Road Newton Longville

The site comprises 15 hectares of grazing land located approximately 500m to the western edge of the existing settlement of newton Longville. Newton Longville is identified within the settlement Hierarchy as a medium sized village, having previously been designated as a large village in earlier versions of the plan. It should be noted that the settlement hierarchy was reviewed following comments received at the issues and positions stage posting the two tier system i.e, small and large villages was imprecise. it now includes a medium villages category, of which Newton Longville was allocated.

The site is located 7KM south west of Milton Keynes town centre and 2.8km from Bletchley station. The northern edge of the site is bounded by the recently reopened varsity railway line travelling between Bletchley and Oxford, To the north of this railway line is the A421 (standing way) that connects Cambridge and oxford via Milton Keynes and is accessed via whaddon road from the site. Newton Longville village provides a range of services, nearly all within 800m of the site, such as post office(760m), public house (5660m), primary school 992m, village Hall (365m) and church (900m).

The site itself is roughly rectangular in shape featuring two protruding parcels of land along south eastern boundary and comprises a large open area of grazing land largely devoid of hedgerows and tree growth. A small pond is located toward the western end of the site through which a drainage ditch passes dividing the site into two. A central spine running along the banks of the drainage ditch is identified as being within Flood Zone 3 and the site is bound to the north, east and west by agricultural land. To the south of the site is Manor farm, comprising what appears to be farm house and a number of out buildings. Also to the south is a building housing newton Longville Auction and newton Longville Parish council, together with a playing field including football pitches.

There are currently no planning policy designations on the site within either existing or emerging policy other than the restrictions

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 110 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01699 Alice Brighton (Planning 3.6 This is further reinforced in policy NE3 of the VALP which at no point states that the AALs or other designations should prevent Potential) development taking place. The policy states: To ensure that the district’s landscape character is maintained, development must have regard to the Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment 2008 (as amended 2015) and recognise the individual character and distinctiveness of particular Landscape Character Areas set out in the Assessment. Development should consider the role of the landscape character area and: a) be grouped where possible with existing buildings to minimise impact on visual amenity b) be located to avoid the loss of important on-site views and off-site views towards important landscape features c) reflect local character and distinctiveness in terms of settlement form and field pattern, spacing, height, scale, plot shape and size, elevations, roofline and pitch, overall colour, texture and boundary treatment (walls, hedges, fences and gates) d) minimise the impact of lighting to avoid blurring the distinction between urban and rural areas, and in areas which are intrinsically dark and to avoid light pollution to the night sky e) ensure that the buildings and any outdoor storage and parking areas are not visually prominent in the landscape f) not generate an unacceptable level and/or frequency of noise in areas relatively undisturbed by noise and valued for their recreational or amenity value. 3.7 At no point does it state the AAL should prevent development proceeding, as long as appropriate care is taken in the design. The policy goes on to state that “where it is accepted there will be harm to the landscape character, specific on-site mitigation will be required and, as a last resort, compensation will be required as part of a planning application.” It is therefore inappropriate that the HELAA should then go on to reject the site on the basis that it is within an AAL. 3.8 The site can also respond to the existing consent on the site to the north east, maintaining the landscape pattern seen as appropriate to mitigate against harm on the Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL). By developing a proportion of the site along Leighton Road, there is a large area of the site which can be used for landscape mitigation, maintaining the ‘gap’ in the approved application. The detail of units, in terms of materials and scale, could help to mitigate against further impact. 3.9 As can be seen in Figure 2 below, a proposed design, which utilises c.4 ha of the site for development and could yield around 100 homes, adheres to the policy requirements set out in policy NE3 of the draft VALP. The design follows an approach that has been considered appropriate by the Strategic Development Control Committee at AVDC, in considering application 15/02411/APP.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 111 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01699 Alice Brighton (Planning The design focusses development around the existing housing found to the north of the site and running parallel to Leighton Road. Potential) This ensures that the views across to the AONB and the “visible rolling land” that precluded the development from coming forward under the HELAA appraisal is maintained. This is in line with point a) of policy NE3 above. The maintaining of these long views will ensure that the setting of the AONB is protected, as well as the setting of the nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument. Landscaping can also be used to soften the edges of the built environment from the wider landscape. The density, scale, heights and massing of the units on the site will take their cue from those found already in the village. This is in compliance with point c) of policy NE3 above. Figure 2: Indicative proposal for site EDL011 (attached) 3.10 Through the use of careful and considerate design, it is possible that the site can come forward without causing harm to the AAL. The site is well located within less than a 10-minute walk to the bus stops on the High Street, the Village Hall and Edlesborough School (some 450m away), ensuring that vehicular traffic in the village is kept to a minimum. The Post Office and GP’s surgery are also approximately a 15-minute walk from the site, with the local Nisa store in Eaton Bray at most a 25-minute walk from the site. The site is therefore a sustainable location within the town. 3.11 There are no physical constraints that can prevent the site coming forward, and the electricity pylons on the site will not prevent development coming forward and will be incorporated into the design of the site. The site is within Flood Zone 1, and therefore at a low risk of flooding. The site and its main access are within the ownership of one landowner, and so can be delivered without ransoms. As the site has no physical or ownership constraints it can be delivered at an early stage of the plan period and help contribute to the delivery of housing stock to meet both local and strategic needs. 3.12 The alternative sites proposed in the HELAA are by comparison too small to contribute meaningfully to the scale of housing land required in this part of the VALP area, or have significant technical constraints, particularly related to highways around the historic core of the settlement. Whilst it is acknowledged that other sites in the HELAA could have potential for development, the scale of growth that will need to be directed to Edlesborough through revisions to the plan, mean that the 100 homes that could be allocated on the suitable site of Leighton Road should form an essential part of the development strategy for the settlement.

VALP16-09-13-01700 Buchanan Land and the Policies Map - By growing the existing settlement, Haddenham would stand to benefit from the development of new services (likely West of Haddenham to include a Secondary School for one of the largest settlements in the County without one) and bolsters existing businesses and Landowners n/a facilities in the village. The benefits of new infrastructure provision brought forward through expansion at Haddenham, would benefit (Buchanan Land and the both new and existing residents. West of Haddenham As important as the sustainability of the Haddenham Western Expansion is its deliverability. It is therefore important to note that Landowners) within the redline plan (711 acres), all landowners can confirm that their land is available and deliverable with no constraints to vacant possession and therefore early delivery of housing

VALP16-09-13-01702 Derek Bromley Policies Map - We support the policy objectives for rolling back the Green Belt of Wendover in relation to site RSA2. This (Bidwells) representation is made in respect of the area of land owned by the family which is more particularly identified edged red on the plan at Appendix 1. The parcel of land forms the majority of the site identified as RSA2 North Wendover in the Council's Consultation Document. The land to the west of the Grand Union Canal is owned by the Council, it having been transferred to the Council by Banner Homes as part of the development carried out on the adjoining estate.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 112 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01707 Richard Walker Policies Map - We do have a particular interest in Grendon Underwood and Newton Longville. (Pegasus Group) We regard the assessment of NLV002 (Land Between Pond Close and West Brook End, at Newton Longville; even, if this is (wrongly) not the preferred option it does not follow that it is unsuitable. The negative view of much of the land to the west, south and east of the village is not credible. The constraints pertaining to the land and the nature of the impact do not generate an unsuitable rating. Likewise, at Grendon Underwood the accusation that the GUW014 (Land south of Shakespeare House and adjacent playing field, off Broadway) is unsuitable because it could not be designed to protect the setting of the CA and Shakespeare House is unfounded. Further, whilst the village has a linear form there is in this instance no in-principle planning reason for objecting to development that deviates from that linearity. A recent interesting appeal decisions in relation to the ‘shape’ of a village is at Minster Lovell, South Oxfordshire (PINS ref: APP/D3125/W/16/3148659). Permission here was refused but the issues at Grendon Underwood not constraining and therefore a suitable rating should not be withheld. A planning application was submitted for up to 82 dwellings on this site in the W/C August 29th 2016. VALP16-09-13-01720 David Hedgecox Policies Map - Potential Housing allocation Map 15 - Grendon Underwood I feel that all three of the potential allocated sites suffer from the same flaw, that is they are "backland" developments which do not fit the character of the village to which they belong, and which by virtue of their siting will adversely affect the amenity of occupiers of existing properties. Better options should be identified that more obviously maintain the historic linear form of the village, whilst delivering the housing allocation needed. Perhaps to the east of the existing built up area of village. I understand that small developments (below 12 units) do not bring with them infrastructure benefits or additional affordable housing requirements, and so I would express a preference for a few developments that do deliver such benefits, whilst being in keeping with the existing village and not adversely affecting amenity. VALP16-09-13-01785 M C Trim Policies Map - Your plan indicates development on the former airfield at Little Horwood. This "airfield" was a wartime temporary training site and closed 70 years ago, immediately after WW2. It is productive farmland not an airfield and forms a useful "green belt" between Winslow, Great Horwood and Little Horwood.

This area provides very little local employment and any housing development will seriously exacerbate road commuter traffic, which is currently a problem for people travelling to work in Buckingham and Aylesbury. VALP16-09-13-01788 Simon Gordon Policies Map - Stapnells is not suitable as access to the proposed site due to existing traffic problems, especially in the mornings and afternoons with the school children leaving and returning. Any large increase in traffic would also undoubtedly have an negative impact on any Emergency vehicles travelling to Vicarage Road. VALP16-09-13-01801 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Policies Map - It is noted that the drafted Policies Map, illustrates the location of the potential allocations on the ‘settlement’ insets, Planning Services Ltd and provides ‘strategic illustrations’ of Aylesbury Garden Town. (on behalf of Mr and Mrs In relation to this, it is considered that the Aylesbury inset being focussed purely on the south east of the town is misleading, and Collier)) should illustrate the context of growth for the whole town on the inset. Furthermore, as discussed, it is considered that additional allocations should be made in relation to Aylesbury in order to address the shortfall between its residual housing requirement and potential allocations as identified in the draft plan.As highlighted, it is considered that ‘Land at Brook Farm, Broughton’ is ideally located to accommodate such an allocation, and that its development would accord with the emerging development strategy.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 113 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01807 Tom Hutchinson (Land Policies Map - Support for the identification of WIN008 and WIN010 as commitments. and Partners Ltd (Winslow & Haddenham)) VALP16-09-13-01811 Tom Hutchinson (Land Policies Map - Our specific comments for the village of Marsh Gibbon are as follows: and Partners Ltd (Marsh Gibbon)) Section 14 Draft VALP Policy Map insets

We act for the Ewelme Trust, which is seeking to bring forward high quality, sustainable schemes that leave a positive legacy for the village. Ther are particular heritage and landscape sensitivities that has benefitted from detailed planning and design work to respond positively to the particular site-specific issues.

We support the identification of the Ewelme Trust site MGB003 (Land South of Little Marsh Road and East of Swan Lane) and site MGB005 (Land Off Castle Street and West of Leopold Farm) as potential housing allocations. Please note the eastern part of MBB003 (the dwelling curtilage) should be excluded, as this is not available.

These sites should be housing allocations rather than reserve sites as there is a current shortfall in relation to the VALP % target and they have been thoroughly tested through withdrawn applications 15/04213/AOP & 15/04215/AOP respectively and subsquent pre- application work involving round table meetings with landscape and heritage officers. They also benefit from the support of the Parish Council. It should be noted that the Neighbourhood Plan took full account of the potential for development on MGB005 when defining the edge of the Swan Field Local Green Space so the principle of development has been considered through the development plan already.

MGB005 (our 'Site A') is now at 22 dwellings and MGB003 (our 'Site C') is at 9 dwellings, following the pre-application process. Both these schemes are about to be re-submitted as planning applications.

Two additional Ewelme Trust sites are proposed as housing allocations:

Firstly, part of MG004 Land South of Castle Street and West Of Longherdon Farm (our 'Site B') has now been through a pre- application process which has reduced the amount of proposed development since the withdrawn planning application 15/04214/AOP. This site has the support of the Parish Council and we are still awaiting a formal response from the officers. We are currently proposing 10 dwellings and village shop/hub on western part of site, a significant reduction from the much larger HELAA site which was considered unsuitable. This work has been informed by the expert heritage advice of CgMs to address the Council's initial concerns about the amount of proposed development on the site. We now have a scheme which has carefully responded to its context and will provide a much-needed local facility.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 114 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment Secondly two new sites (in combination currently being referred to as 'Site D') have recently been put forward to the Parish to specifically address the shortfall in the village in this Plan, with a view to this being considered by way of a Neighbourhood Plan review. This is at an early stage of planing but we include a provisional access drawing indicating how the sites could link to Little Marsh Road, close to where there are already housing frontgages and pavements. We also enclose an initial concept layout having regard to the local context. This shows 35 dwellings in total; 8 in the northern field, 27 in the southern field, although futher work is needed to refine this. The work to date has been informed by heritage and ecological input from our consultant team.

Features to note:

- Green Infrastructure running through the heart of the scheme, focused on the existing Public Right of Way. This will consist of of Public Open Space and associated landscaping to enhance the experience of users of the Public Right of Way and also create a wildlife corridor linking the patches of woodland and the pond. Also a small community orchard linked to the woodland around the pond, set within the southern field.

- A strong, landscaped buffer down western side of site next to the Conservation Area and in the south east corner

- Retention and enhancement of the trees and hedges, as far as possible.

- House types and plot sizes that respond positively to the local context (esp. the Conservation Area character) which results in a modest density overall.

This is only an initial concept to broadly test the capacity of the two sites and further work is ongoing. We suggest each field should be assessed in the HELAA separately, with perhaps a maximum of 10 in the northern field and perhaps a maximum of 30 in the southern field.

As well as the concept layouts we have included a diagram showing all the Ewelme sites in context. We suggest the following indicative amounts: A (25), B (10) C (10), D (10 - 40) will make a valuable contribution to the current target for the village.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 115 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01813 Tom Hutchinson (Land Policies Map - Section 14 Draft VALP Policy Map insets and Partners Ltd (Great Horwood)) Support for the identification of GHW014 (Land to the south of Little Horwood Road) as a commitment. This site was selected for development through the Neighbourhood Plan process and is now about to be brought forward for development. In the Neighbourhood Plan it was originally intended to be delivered in two phases of around 15 dwellings each, but we understand that in the light of the emerging VALP there is now recognition of the advantages of delivering the site in a comprehensive way. This will result in a well designed frontage, combined landscape buffer along the eastern edge and the optimum arrangement of amenity green space and SuDs.

An outline planning application for up to 30 dwellings is now about to be submitted, following pre-application advice which has influenced the design concept and confirmed that in policy terms this is an appropriate amount of development and can be brought forward as part of a comprehensive scheme. As part of the pre-application work, the combined delivery of GHW017 (also allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan) has been fully considered and agreed with the Local Highway Authority. The illustrative layout is attached.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 116 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01814 Tom Hutchinson (Land Policies Map - Section 14 Draft VALP Policy Map insets and Partners Ltd (Ickford)) There should be a housing allocation identified for Ickford on HELAA site ICK004 - Land Off Turnfields (1.4ha). This is currently identified as unsuitable for housing or economic development in the HELAA, along with all the other HELAA sites. However the site assessment gives only a general reasons of development on the site would 'constitute an outward extension of development into the pleasant rural countryside surrounding the settlement to the detriment of its rural character and appearance'.

A recent appeal was dismissed on part of the site (43 Golders Close) for just 4 dwellings (Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/W/16/3147176 App Ref: 15/03887/AOP). The Inspector concluded that it was unclear what the shortfall in the Council’s five year housing land supply was and that the provision of four dwellings is unlikely to have any significant effect in reducing the deficit. Only minor benefits in terms of the economic and social aspects of sustainable development can be acknowledged from a scheme for only four dwellings, which at the time of the appeal was unable to weigh the harm which included the conflict with the adopted Local Plan. The appeal decision establishes that 'Given the juxtaposition with the existing development on Golders Close, and the relative accessibility to local services, I agree with the appellant that the dwellings could not be considered to be isolated in the context of paragraph 55 and would no doubt help to maintain the vitality of the rural community.' (paragraph 12).

As well as establishing the sustainable location of the proposal, the appeal decision provided some useful comments on how landscape mitigation might be able to address development here. Although an Outline application, approval of both Access and Layout were sought on a site of only 0.37ha, which meant that there was limited scope for the proposal to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector considered whether additional landscape screening would address the impact on the character and appearance of the area but concluded that 'Given that layout was considered at the outline stage, the position of the dwellings does not allow for further landscape mitigation within the site and the points where it would be beneficial to do so' and that off-site 'tree screening to the south east, as shown on the submitted plan, was outside the scope of the application' (paragraph 10). For these reasons, the appeal decision should not be taken as confirmation that the wider site ICK004 is unsuitable for housing in principle, merely that the particular proposal for a fixed layout of four dwellings on part of the site was unable to demonstrate a positive planning balance on this occasion.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 117 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment The current proposal being worked up for ICK004 is having full regard the refusal reasons of the previous application and subsequent appeal decision. It will be able to demonstrate a greater benefit in terms of housing delivery and, at the same time, provide much greater landscape mitigation as a result of a new layout concept on a larger parcel of land which allows for a contextual, Green Infrastructure-led approach. We believe this will be able to overcome the previous HELAA site assessment in that, whilst there would inevitably be some impact on the the character and appearance of the area, the high level of mitigation and enhancement would result in a sustainable proposal overall. This approach is a direct result of landowners working together to find a common solution of benefit to the village.

In relation to the shortfall for Ickford of 51 dwellings in the emerging VALP, we suggest that the 0.76ha site of ICK003 (Land West of Sheldon Road) will work well in combination with ICK004. The HELAA assessment currently regards ICK003 in isolation as being '..in a exposed location at the entrance to the village without any corresponding development opposite in Sheldon Road. Developing the site would not relate well to the character and townscape established in the village.' Having regard to this assessment we believe ICK003 in combination with ICK004 would provide a logical extension that wraps around this corner of the village and ties in development to both Turnfields and Sheldon Road. It would follow the line of an established mature hedgeline that runs along the north eastern boundary of ICK004 and is able to extend this along the north eastern boundary of ICK003 to create an enclosed scheme with a strong edge to the surrounding countryside. The land to the north is in the same ownership which offers further opportunities for landscape mitigation. VALP16-09-19-01830 L P Conybeare Policies Map - The only land shown in the plan for development is the land at the end of Stepnells. This is actively farmed land and my reaons for asking this land not be developed are as follows: It is essential to a village to have farmed land. the local plan recongises 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 sites, were originally idenitified 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 wihtin Marsworth and therefore must be included in Marsworth's vuilding 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 cannot be considered without due diligence to the health and safety of the residents of the village, both old and young that will be put at risk by increasing the amount of cars this development will naturally bring. 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 georgraphic centre of the village has no amenities. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 118 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-19-01831 N P Conybeare Policies Map - The only land shown in the plan for development is the land at the end of Stepnells. This is actively farmed land and my reaons for asking this land not be developed are as follows: It is essential to a village to have farmed land. the local plan recongises 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 sites, were originally idenitified 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 wihtin Marsworth and therefore must be included in Marsworth's vuilding 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 cannot be considered without due diligence to the health and safety of the residents of the village, both old and young that will be put at risk by increasing the amount of cars this development will naturally bring. 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 georgraphic centre of the village has no amenities. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 119 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Policies Map

ID Respondent Name Comment VALP16-09-19-01832 Joanna Conybeare Policies Map - The only land shown in the plan for development is the land at the end of Stepnells. This is actively farmed land and my reaons for asking this land not be developed are as follows: It is essential to a village to have farmed land. the local plan recongises 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 sites, were originally idenitified 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 wihtin Marsworth and therefore must be included in Marsworth's vuilding 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 cannot be considered without due diligence to the health and safety of the residents of the village, both old and young that will be put at risk by increasing the amount of cars this development will naturally bring. 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 georgraphic centre of the village has no amenities. If Marsworth is deemed to be a small village, it needs to find 5% growth in housing which can be more than accommodated in the White Lion, Bulbourne and Lower End sites. There is no need to develop farmland.

Date: 25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 120 of 120 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-07-11-00200 Lesley Dance Other Comments - I am very concerned that there will not be a proper enironmental assessment completed and in place before any more building goes ahead. I do not wish to see any more houses in Haddenham but if this happens, it is vital that this envirnomental assessment is not sidelined but done properly. Even small things like adding bird boxes, bat boxes and 'Swift Bricks' simple modified house bricks which cost pennies to install, would be a boon. But of course there is so much more to be taken into consideration in the bigger enviromental picture. We continue to saw off the tree branch we are sitting on !

VALP16-07-12-00202 Maggie Evans Other Comments - Let's look at creating new villages instead of constantly expanding existing ones VALP16-07-18-00209 Lynne Garton Other Comments - I would request that the identified sites, and the number of dwellings per site, is in line with the Neighbourhood Plan. VALP16-07-22-00215 Gemma Whitehouse Other Comments - In terms of the Local Plan () I note the following references within the document:

Page 68 states - Ensure strong place shaping, with community safety and sustainability principles are embedded throughout. Community safety will be a key component to ensure residents feel safe and secure within the development.

Page 70 and 71 states - Following the adoption of the local plan, an SPD will be produced to set out a master plan for the site with key stakeholders and partners. The SPD will reflect design codes and standards so as to secure high quality sustainable development; it will outline the required DRAFT Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 71 infrastructure on and off site (both within Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes). Planning applications should be accompanied by design statements, which will need to demonstrate an understanding of the local natural and built environment; they should embrace sustainable urban design principles, including flood and landscape mitigation measures. Design principles will show how the development will relate to its surroundings and integrate with existing neighbourhoods and communities.

Page 158 states – Private, useable, functional and safe.

Page 170 states - Although appropriate lighting may help to enhance community safety and reduce the fear of crime, caution must be taken to ensure that lighting only illuminates the intended areas or structures and does not negatively impact surrounding areas.

I do not believe there is enough information about Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and how the Council will seek to create safe and sustainable environments for the future. As per Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, it states all local authorities should exercise their functions with due regard to their likely effect of crime and disorder. Therefore the planning process and Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED) is an important aspect of reducing and preventing crime for the future. As you will be aware CPTED looks to alter the physical design of the communities in which people reside and congregate to deter criminal activity. Local Plans should ensure this information is embedded within this document and other supporting documents to ensure a multi-disciplinary approach to deterring criminal behavior through environmental design is embraced.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 1 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment In the old AVDC Local plan (2004) http://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/page_downloads/AVDLP-Full-Version.pdf there was the section on Secured By Design and I can’t find any similar policies or references within the new draft plan. As you will be aware the old plan had these details under policy GP45.

‘GP45 - The design and layout of all planning proposals should incorporate measures to assist crime prevention and help reduce risks to personal safety. In considering applications for planning permission the Council will have regard to the security aspects of development including personal visibility, the arrangement of buildings, landscaping and walls, and lighting and closed circuit television surveillance. In granting permission for buildings in town centres with public access, the Council will use planning conditions or legal agreements, which may include financial contributions, to secure reasonably-related measures that would improve community safety’.

There is also text within the old document to back up the policy which states – ‘Safe and Secure Development 4.139. In association with the Police authorities, the Council is keen to promote good practice in applying “Secured by Design” principles. Crime prevention is a material consideration in planning decisions. It is possible with careful layout and design of development to avoid obvious opportunities for crime. This can be achieved by maximising natural surveillance, encouraging a mix of uses and allowing views to permeate development. “Threatening” designs should be avoided, such as poorly lit subways and high walled footways. The objective should be to create a safe environment. The Council has produced Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to “Secured by Design”. 4.140. The Council is especially keen to improve safety and security in town centres. In association with local businesses and the Police authorities, a number of initiatives have been introduced to reduce crime and improve safety in Aylesbury. These include a town centre closed-circuit television (CCTV) scheme, and a programme of security improvements to public car parks. A similar programme is being discussed for Buckingham. Particularly in town centres, it may be appropriate to require developments, which include public access and public movement through the centre, such as retail and leisure facilities and some employment uses, to contribute to the programme of security measures’.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 2 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Is it possible to incorporate a similar policy/references within the new plan? I believe this should still be changed/improved though. Firstly the policy shouldn’t be titled Secured by Design (SBD) Considerations and instead could be changed to Crime Prevention Through Environment Design considerations or similar. This is because I believe we should be referring more to CPTED and not just SBD. Yes as a Police force we recommend applicants look to design their developments to the principles of SBD and look to achieve the accreditation, but there are other best practices documents (such as manual for streets, Safer Places (which is to be released soon), Lighting Against Crime etc), By Design (Urban Design) etc that should also be considered when designing developments. I believe policy and references to CPTED are essential to ensure the planning process and to addressing the need to reduce crime and the fear of crime when designing new developments and improving existing areas.

Other suggested references to include within the document include:

• Applicants should have regard to the need to design the layout taking into consideration the prevention of crime and the surveillance of the public realm.

• Continuity of street frontage and enclosure of space by clearly defining public and private areas and locating main building entrances on the street.

• Applicants should design the development ensuring high design quality and the creation of safe and sustainable environments by complying with best practice documentation of the time such as urban design principles in By Design, Manual for Streets, Secured by Design, Safer Places, or future best practice guidance (note - the last part is key to ensure the document is kept current with any new research or best practice documents that are released).

• Lastly other areas have also made references to achieving the highest standards of designing terms of safety and security. For example references to my role as Crime Prevention Design Advisor for the District and the assistance and guidance I can provide on CPTED on behalf of Thames Valley Police. This may be referred to in the Local Plan but also supplementary planning documents such as Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan Supplementary Guidance 3 – Safety Through Design.

I believe references such as the above could be added into the new AVDC plan under policies/sections D2 or BE2. I hope these comments are of use and I would be happy to be consulted further if needed. I am also available to attend any meetings in relation to this document if required.

VALP16-07-22-00217 Emma Pattison (CLH Other Comments - Thank you for your letter to CLH Pipeline System Ltd dated 6 July 2016 regarding the above. Please find Pipeline System Ltd) attached a plan of our clients apparatus. We would ask that you contact us if any works are in the vicinity of the CLH-PS pipeline or alternatively go to www.linesearchbeforeudig.co.uk our free online enquiry service. VALP16-07-22-00219 Chris Wright (Oxon and Other Comments - OBRAC is mainly concerned with East West Rail so did not wish to comment on other factors. Bucks Rail Action Committee)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 3 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-07-27-00227 Paulette Taylor Other Comments - Edlesborough has been listed as a 'Larger Village' because it has been built up over the past 30 years. Unfortunately, the infrastructure has not been updated in line with this increase and we have reduced transport links, limited employment prospects, drainage system which cannot cope with existing housing, overcrowded school and overcrowded doctor's surgery. In short the village cannot cope with huge additional traffic and housing. VALP16-07-29-00237 Sue Belgrove Other Comments - I write to comment on the draft Wycombe Plan.

Having perused both your plan and the VALP I see that the horrendous idea of a New Settlement in Aylesbury Vale, possibly by Haddenham , is largely only necessary because of the "unmet need" of housing in the Wycombe District.

Whilst I understand that neighbouring Authoritys have a duty to co-operate with each other, I implore you to look again at your Wycombe plan and consider every angle as to how you can need your own needs. Increased housing density in your chosen sites. Use of Green belt Expansion of Wycombe Use of every possible brownfield site.

It's outrageous that the unspoiled countryside of the Aylesbury Vale should be sacrificed to needs the needs of neighboring Authorities who have not exhausted their own possibilities. VALP16-07-29-00240 Robert Wright Other Comments - Re: 15 - Appendix A page 208. I wish to object to the allocation of dwellings that conflict with the draft neighbourhood plan. The village has been engaged with the neighbourhood plan, and a great deal of consideration has been given to the various options for providing the numbers of dwellings needed. It is not unreasonable for AVDC to call for a further number of dwellings to be identified if plans change, but it is anti democratic, arbitrary, and ill informed for the wishes of the village to be ignored, and for extra houses to be planned for land that the vast majority have ruled out. One such example is the inclusion of land to the west of Church Street (21 dwellings, WGR 001). The villagers have been strongly opposed to these fields being developed because of the negative impact on views from the village for a large number of people and not just residents whose property overlooks this part of the village. VALP16-07-30-00243 Keith Jennings Other Comments - As a resident in Leighton LInslade I wish to comment specifically on the two areas adjoining the district boundary, as set out in part 2. These are site references 109 and 110. The proposed designation as Green Belt is the most effective way of preventing further and inappropriate urban sprawl into the existing "green corridor" running along the route of the A4146 from Bletchley to the Wing Hill roundabout, and logically joining up other already existing green belt areas. The A 4146 would provide a permanent and defensible boundary to any piecemeal sprawl. I fully support the District Council's proposals as part of their coherent plans for the district as a whole. VALP16-08-01-00244 Elizabeth Oliver Other Comments - Excessive development of the village of Haddenham not a good idea. Winslow, a town situated on an important East-West route is preferable. New village to east of Haddenham would result in loss of high grade agricultural land. Land to west is subject to flooding and will tend to lead to merger with Thame which is undesirable for both settlements. Duty to co-operate means that Wycombe should take more houses, or possibly Milton Keynes, where employment possibilities are greater.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 4 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-03-00248 Marcia Davis Other Comments - The increase in traffic and in particular on local surgeries is of great concern and must be addressed.

VALP16-08-05-00253 Terry Curtis Other Comments - My comments concern the proposed Wycombe District Plan although of course this has a direct impact on the ADVC local plan, because of the Duty to Co-operate to accommodate unmet need. And in turn this then affects Quainton, where I live, which it is being suggested may have to take a further 100 houses. This would be a massive increase in the size of our village would significantly change the village’s character for the worse.

In my view, both Councils need to do significantly more work on their plans and reach a solution which is much fairer to all residents - we in Quainton accept the need for new housing, as our Neighbourhood Plan clearly shows, but it should be distributed fairly.

High Wycombe with 50,000 homes, substantially larger than Aylesbury, is only proposing 10% housing growth compared with AVDC's 40% - yet is asking AVDC to take on its unmet need of 5,000 homes. High Wycombe needs to take its responsibilities far more seriously and significantly increase its proposed housing growth and thereby take some of the pressure off AVDC. Equally, AVDC needs to exercise its responsibilities to its residents and resist having to do Wycombe's job for it.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 5 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-05-00254 Abigail Alderson Other Comments - Updated Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment: (Buckinghamshire Although we are aware that an updated Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is being prepared there is no supporting document County Council) available for the draft Local Plan. There is inconsistency across the Local Plan in that in some places there is reference to the draft SFRA, which is not yet available, and in other places it refers to a previous version Level 1 SFRA in 2012. The updated Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) will recommend if a Level 2 SFRA is required so early confirmation of this would be required. There was a level 2 SFRA undertaken in 2009 and AVDC website states that this is still considered to be relevant. This is a concern as the determination of whether an update of the Level 2 SFRA will be made in the current Level 1 SFRA being undertaken. As a Level 2 SFRA was required previously it is highly likely that a Level 2 SFRA will be required. This may be a substantial piece of work which will take time to complete. There is high level of concern as to the timeframe for undertaking a Level 2 SFRA within the timeframe of the Local Plan being published in final form.

Several Section 19 Flood Investigation Reports for different locations in Aylesbury have been published by Buckinghamshire County Council. As some Reports cover areas where there are housing allocations identified in the Draft Local Plan, we would expect the latest version of Aylesbury Vale’s SFRA to refer to the S19 Reports.

We understand that the Updated Level 1 SFRA will include recent changes to the policy on Climate Change allowance.

Policy for Allocated Sites: We would recommend that all sites should have a standard policy on incorporating sustainable drainage to manage surface water from the site and ensure no increased flood risk outside of the site. For those sites that have surface water and/or groundwater flood risk we recommend another policy to ask for a sequential approach on site so development is steered away from surface water and/or groundwater risk areas.

The Aylesbury Vale water advice note supports policy I4 Flooding and AVDC should therefore adopt it as a Supplementary Planning Document

VALP16-08-05-00257 Helen Harris Other Comments - Royal Mail would welcome further engagement with Aylesbury Vale District Council particularly where proposals (Cushman&Wakefield would impact on the usage of the highway and allocations / sites next to or adjacent to the Delivery Offices coming forward for (on behalf of Royal Mail redevelopment. Ltd))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 6 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-05-00259 Carolyn Fray Other Comments - Thought you may be interested in the following admissions policy based on the new housing developments near Waddesdon church of England school.

Click to view: http://www.waddesdonschool.com/admissions

There will be protection for children already resident in the village dwellings, which means current occupants will still have a chance of attending the school of their choice even after the new builds have been built. Which is an ideal compromise.

Many family residents of Haddenham have purposefully moved to this village based on the excellent choice of schooling available in surrounding areas.

For example, many of Haddenham residents already attend the Lord Williams's Secondary School in Thame, which is an excellent school and although it is not technically in the catchment area for Haddenham, the Lord Williams's secondary school is closer to Haddenham than Princes Risborough is, with the significant and long established free school bus route to Thame.

After living here in Haddenham for so long It would then be terribly unfair and disappointing for current residents to be told they have less priority as a result of the new housing development.

VALP16-08-05-00264 Phyllis Hobbs Other Comments - I'm not impressed at all with the local plan for the Aylesbury Vale and the amount of houses & dwellings proposed in this Gridlocked area ... Before you start to build any houses ... Infrastructure needs to be put in place ... Bypass for Aylesbury Town, (North, South, East & West) and not the ring / link road that it is now ..... Joined up with A418 & A41 etc not having to go through built up areas that are gridlocked Now..with slip roads underpasses etc. Hospital, Dr's surgery's, schools, transport are not coping now ... There needs to be a lot more of these in place before a brick is laid.

I went to Wendover AVDC drop in session today ... Maps were in a pile on the table ... Surely these should have been laid out for people to see not shoved on a table too small so nobody could get a good view of them .... Very disappointed with this whole process. No one seemed interested in engaging with discussions , there was a large discussion going on round one table and several officials not engaging . Just manning the door? VALP16-08-05-00267 Sue Hetherington Other Comments - I attended the drop-in session at Wendover on 4/8/16 and I am none the wiser for it. I don't have a clue what the VALP is all about or how it would affect me where I am living in Wendover. Your drop in session failed to communicate your plans, I believe the whole thing was just a box-ticking exercise. All I know is what the papers etc tell me and I believe hundreds of homes are going to be dumped on my doorstep. I am fed up living in the Vale of Aylesbury, it is becoming a horrible, overdeveloped place. The other blight we live with with in Wendover is HS2. In Wendover itself, the schools are overcrowded leading to gross nuisance with parking in our road. Parking generally in Wendover is inadequate, leading to other street parking problems. It is almost impossible to get an appointment at the GP surgery. The police station has closed down. It is hard to engage with the parish council or their staff as they now sit behind a locked door. The tourist information office has closed down. I am so fed up with it all that I have put my house on the market and am moving away to a better place. I wish you good luck with your precious plan.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 7 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-06-00268 John Oliver Other Comments - This was my first draft, which was not sent, but please read it in conjunction with my later submission.

VALP16-08-08-00273 Sheila Cotton Other Comments - A good road infrastructure is needed to serve any large developments, preferably dual carriageways round the outside of Aylesbury. VALP16-08-09-00275 Andrew Burnett Other Comments - NB - pressing the Previous button loses comments already entered on subsequent pages. I suggest you fix this as it is very frustrating. VALP16-08-09-00279 Valerie Jones Other Comments - Dear sirs

I fully intended to give some comments on the draft plan I saw in Wendover last week.

However I have just looked at the pro forma on the AVDC website today which requires a lot of detailed responses to numbered paragraphs and sections of the full Plan. I have not got a copy of the full plan just an eight page summary of A4 paper which I picked up at the hall which is what most people who are interested will have. To complete a formal response would take me a considerable amount of time and access to my own copy of the draft plan. I would also have to have quite detailed knowledge of planning law.

I feel that most people will take one look at the form and say that they can't complete. It is not that we are apathetic but unable to couch our response in the way you want it. I suggest that this is not really a consultation where ordinary folk can have their say so the Draft Plan will go through generally unopposed as people can't have their say in a straightforward way on subjects that affect them and their families.

Having lived in the Vale for the last 15 years we have noticed that many housing estates including Fairford Lees and the new estates over by the Parkway Station have been already built. These large recent additions of thousands of houses to the housing stock have not taken into consideration when stating the new numbers of houses required. I also amazed that AVDC is considering taking the Chiltern DC house building allocation increasing the total by 50%. It seems that AVDC is and has taken on more housing allocation than it was obliged to taking into account the recently built estates. In other words Aylesbury is doing "more than its bit". The proposed infrastructure plan will have to consider the needs of the people who live in the housing recently built as well as those planned. It seems that Aylesbury will be full to bursting and AVDC owe a duty to those people who live here already that it is still going to be a good place to live.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 8 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-09-00280 Lee Pitchard Other Comments - The witch dent wall surrounding y property, which separates it from the cornfield in which you propose building 210 houses, has a consecration order on it for which am responsible.

For this reason it is imperative i have access to both sides for inspection and adequate space for repair work. if form of public access or damage by builders occurs, i would be liable. This i am not prepared to be.

Only a few years ago we were told houses were to be built on the airfield that would include a school, with a road out to the 418.

Please explain an acceptable reason for your opting for a valuable cornfield instead, if you have one. Your excuse that it is used for the pleasure of a glider pilot and the occasional light plane is not a sufficient reason, nor is it acceptable.

The airfield is a very short walk to the station, whilst a car should be required from the cornfield, adding to the parking problems already experienced.

I await your reply with interest .

VALP16-08-09-00281 Simon Dackombe Other Comments - TVP reserve the right to comment further on future iterations of the Local Plan document. (Thames Valley Police) VALP16-08-10-00282 Michael Dickson Other Comments - 12 Appendix A. Page 207 referring to HAD007 and 210 dwellings: There are insufficient facilities (e.g. Schools, Shops & Medical Centre) in Haddenham to support this volume of houses in the village. If access is planned via Rosemary Lane or if could become a cut through, the size of the lane is totally inadequate for a potentially high volume of traffic.

VALP16-08-10-00283 Shirley Henderson Other Comments - The VALP is looking to build at least l3,OOO new homes across the Vale by 2O33. Much of the area lies in Green Belt or the Chiltern Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I write to object to the proposal to build a new settlement at Haddenham -

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 9 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-10-00288 Peter Braithwaite Other Comments - Having seen outline plans for additional housing in Haddenham,Thame,Chinnor and smaller villages it would seem that Thame will become even busier and that car traffic/parking will become an even bigger issue for Thame than it is today. Better public transport will help. I have written to the County Council and to Arriva ,with sadly negative response, concerning the possibility of rerouting some of the 280 service through Cuddington,Chearsley and Long Crendon - perhaps one per hour of the current three per hour through Haddenham?

To get car drivers out of their cars requires a more frequent and longer hours bus service through to Thame and on to Oxford or to Aylesbury

The current subsidised service is poorly used because it is every two hours and ends early in the evening Many car drivers are now using the 280 buses especially to Oxford, but they rely on parking in Thame to do this

Will public transport be a part of the planning - we need to reduce car usage - more bus services not less

VALP16-08-10-00291 Andrew Dean (Global Other Comments - Smaller towns and villages must be maintained as they are. Towns such as Aylesbury that have grown... should manufacturer) be grown further. VALP16-08-10-00292 Martin Page Other Comments - What is more important Quality of Life for the community or Developers profits?

Make the right choice for the community, which you serve. VALP16-08-10-00297 David Noy Other Comments - Re exhbition held in Winslow on 10/8/2016: 1. The Winslow Conservation Area is shown wrongly on your maps. The correct area, which is much bigger than the one shown, is at https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/winslow-conservation-area 2. The idea of building the A421 expressway so that Winslow is on one side and its school is on the other side doesn't seem to have been thought through very well. VALP16-08-11-00306 Norman Gibbard Other Comments - As a lifelong resident of Winslow I visited your consultation event at Winslow Public Hall on Wednesday 10 August 2016. I note that your information displays stated a new secondary school and two primary schools were to be built. Is the secondary school in addition to the Sir Thomas Freemantle free school which is currently being built on the Buckingham Road Winslow?

I also note that no information was made available regarding health care. Currently Norden House Surgery Winslow is the only provision available. What provision will be made if an additional 6000 houses were to be built?

Looking at the bigger picture with the rapid growth of Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes what plans are being made for the expansion of the local hospitals?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 10 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-12-00307 Graham Juniper Other Comments - Aldbury Parish Council wish to express their disappointment that no consideration has been given to the impact (Aldbury Parish Council) of the house building proposed in the draft VALP on the already stretched capacity of Tring Station. We are of course scarcely surprised by this lack of consideration in the draft VALP as we are well aware of the pressures on AVDC to plan for a considerable house building programme. That clearly has to be the first priority for AVDC planning officers. The additional demand generated however will inevitably further impact local residents both sides of the county boundary, both in their current and future roles as users of the railway service from Tring Station. It will of course also impact the residents of the locality of Tring Station, suffering from the consequential parking issues. The attached file, containing a briefing document and covering email, originally sent in January this year to the leaders of Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire County Councils, outlines the issues faced at Tring Station and calls for an integrated cross-county transport strategy. It seems clear that the solution has to involve the provision of sustainable transport, e.g. buses, cyclepaths/footways and park and ride schemes as no further car parking is likely to be provided next to Tring Station. We would advocate that a sizeable cash contribution should come from the Train Operating Company (London Midland and /or the West Midlands Rail Franchise holder), who after all benefit from providing train services to passengers. The situation has moved on somewhat from the attached briefing document as we now know that there are two bidders for the West Midlands Rail Franchise and that the plan for Crossrail to be extended to Tring is not being taken forward.

We intend to continue pressing our previously expressed concerns to both BCC & HCC as they have responsibility for transport issues and will need to co-ordinate their actions. We would welcome continuing support from AVDC in our efforts to maintain and increase awareness of the serious and deteriorating situation concerning Tring Station and to move towards implementing solutions. We would of course also welcome AVDC support at the upcoming Great Brickhill, Wing and Ivinghoe Local Area Forum (LAF) to be held on Wednesday 28 September at Ivinghoe as we hope that Tring Station will be an item on the agenda as it was at the LAF held on 21 January at Wing.

One or more of us from Aldbury Parish Council would be happy to attend an AVDC meeting if that is seen as worthwhile.

Also attached is Aldbury Parish Council's response to the recent West Midlands Rail Franchise Consultation. While this document is aimed at the rail operators, it explains further the current situation and issues at Tring Station regarding lack of parking and limited non-car access.

VALP16-08-12-00309 Bevelrey ENGLISH Other Comments - I strongly object to 7000 houses being built in the Winslow area to protect the village community that there is in Winslow and the Horwoods.

People live in these smaller villages for a reason, making them into larger conurbations is never going to be acceptable to anyone that has invested in living in a smaller village. VALP16-08-12-00311 louise Rendle Other Comments - I would like to object to these plans and wonder if as a town we can vote on these proposed changes? I hope that the voices of the disgruntled get heard.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 11 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-12-00312 Peter Martin Other Comments - Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the local residents meeting held last evening, where a number of these points might have been covered, but I did want to ensure that I had the opportunity to raise my concerns with you, and my current opinion that the proposed 'new' development be revisited in terms of the number of additional housing that Marsworth should be expected to include in the plan, particularly as the wharf development, and the planned additional houses on the White Lion site, have already or will, affect Marsworth . VALP16-08-12-00314 Sally Corfe Other Comments - I would like to register with you my dread of Haddenham being forced to expand. I attended the public meeting recently and over 200 local people attended to express their strongly held disagreement with this being a good idea. To keep this short, it seems that Milton Keynes and Winslow are actually asking for expansion, so it seems obvious to me that that's the reasonable solution. Haddenham cannot take more expansion. We do not have the infrastructure for it, plus the fact that we would lose our unique village status, which is part of what makes our rural life so special.

Please fight for us to stay a village, and allow for the expansion where it is wanted. VALP16-08-12-00316 Robert Hammond Other Comments - I strongly oppose this development on agricultural land. This is a development which affects seriously in a detrimental manner the most important historical heritage of Haddenham. The area around the Church, Grenville Manor and other Grade 1 and 2 houses is an area loved by the people of Haddenham and known by thousands of visitors who come to the village, to which this is the most evocative part.

I would add, in the 1990s when I was a District Councillor for Wendover, and on the Planning Committee of the District; there was at that time a proposal to have houses put on this same, beautiful piece of agricultural land. The Committee turned it down overwhelmingly. Planners should have the courage to do the same now. This is not the site of a redundant manufacturing building or even an aerodrome; it is in fact the one pristine, preserved area of ancient Haddenham. VALP16-08-12-00318 D B Tillyes Other Comments - we understand from the leighton buzzard observer (27.7.16) that the ADVC is currently consulting on a draft local plan to include a proposal to extend the green belt to include land at valley farm.

We have been supporting the campaign to save the country side, particularly against Paul Newman homes planning on guilding houses etc at valley farm. We feel so strongly about a development on this land and hope it will become green belt. We do not want Paul Newman homes to spoil the area and hope to be notified of any meeting at AVDC about this.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 12 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-15-00327 Will jones Other Comments - The proposed development would destroy the character of existing communities, and put massive extra pressure on the local road network during construction, let alone when these homes were built and full of commuters.

I think it would be safe to say nobody wants to see this scale of development in open countryside other than those who stand to profit financially from it. So let's not do it! In the short term, small developments, particularly where they can be "infilled" in urban/semi urban areas are the least worst option. In the long term - well, there wont be a very long term, if something isn't done to address the "supply" end of the chain, rather than desperately trying to meet the demand at any cost.

Finally, having begun to fill in the online form, I predict you will have a very low response rate. Most people simply cannot/ will not plow through the whole document in order to respond to it section by section, paragraph by paragraph. It is unreasonable to expect them to do so, and it would be unreasonable to underestimate the strength of feeling about these developments on the grounds of a low response on the official form.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 13 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-15-00328 Mike donald Other Comments - Having sat and listened to the recent public meeting of the Thame Town council in St Mary's Church on August 4th 2016, I would like to express my opinion concerning the proposals put forward that evening.

1) The amount of homes proposed for Thame, 600. I cannot see the infra structure being able to cope with this, neither do I see any plans for said improved infrastructure.

2) Re Employment Land, the same lack of infra structure applies. One only has to look back a few month to the massive flash flood in the streets opposite and in the COUNTRYWIDE premises to envisage the effects of removing even more drainage area from the town. The last houses to be put up opposite the river thame in the Prebendal are already near to being overwhelmed when the river floods.

3) The town has already stated it's opinion about having a large supermarket taking footfall away from the town centre, so seeing another proposal, if this is indeed new? Needs no further opinion. We don't one one!

Reservoir...not enough information.

To sum up, none of the questions concerning the above points were answered at the meeting as nobody had enough information. As a matter of urgency there needs to be clear plans laid out concerning the massive infrastructure that would be needed to be put in place for any of these schemes to be survivable.

The residents of Thame chose to live in the area because it wasn't like Bicester or Aylesbury, no one at the meeting expressed anything other than dismay, bewilderment and outrage at the proposed changes to what is a beautiful market town that doesn't want to become a faceless shopping arcade threatened by flooding, pollution and massive congestion.

I would suggest another PUBLIC MEETING is held when someone has the actual facts to hand as well as a proper sound system as the one we had to endure was abysmal, and considering most of the people there were in their 60's and I could see them straining to cope with the unintelligibility of the discussions. VALP16-08-15-00330 emma wheatley Other Comments - why do we need all the housing when the doctors schools and shops can not cope now

VALP16-08-15-00332 Maurice SouthWell Other Comments - I hope i am wrong in all this and perhaps you will kindly let me know sometime.

VALP16-08-15-00333 Moira Millen Other Comments - I have thought about this for some time, and felt I had to put these points in writing, in the hope that this matter will be re-considered seriously VALP16-08-16-00341 Elaine Standen Other Comments - While I agree additional housing is required in the whole country, Marsworth cannot support the number proposed in the draft Plan. It is a small village with very few amenities (e.g. no regular bus service, no middle or upper school, little prospect of employment within 2km. etc) but has been incorrectly assessed as a medium sized village. Further, the village suffers from drainage issues which cannot sustain the number of new homes proposed in the draft Plan.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 14 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-16-00345 Poet Simon Other Comments - when it comes down to crucial voting at committee stage the people you thought you could depend on are usually sitting on the fence or have "gone AWOL" ... it seems they are all full of hot air at the end of the day as they make their public platitudes.

AVDC will continue to ride rough shed over the will of the people.

... Unbelievable comment I heard recently from a well to do local resident who lives in Aston Clinton: " well of course Aston Clinton is no longer suitable for young people trying to buy their first home, it's for middle class wealthy people moving in from London!" ( It seems our planners and greedy developers think exactly the same) .

PS I have three adult children living in our family home; my second son in local employment with Arla working as a dispatch supervisor/technician , age 33 engaged to a local girl age 31, unable to find anything affordable to rent or buy within 6 miles of where he lives or works in Aston Clinton.... My youngest son age 28 (First Class Hons Degree), in International Accountancy , plus AAT, his Financee LLB ( Hons) passed first year on her long road to becoming a Solicitor: Two highly motivated bright young professionals unable to get a roof over their heads in the Aylesbury Vale area, let alone Aston Clinton. Result: five adults living in one open plan 4 bed home: This is modern day over crowding in the Aylesbury Vale... Planning what planning: it's a disgrace!

VALP16-08-16-00349 Brian Murray Other Comments - I find it incredible that AVDC with all it's planning expertise and local knowledge finds it necessary to ask external consultants to come up with a plan and with such a narrow brief.... Must have good rail and road links?????? It seems to me that AVDC did not get their housing plans into the government on time they also then narrowed their brief to consultants to exclude most of the county and now seem to be hiring consultants for every decision that may be emotive. I am sorry to say this but if managers are not good enough, knowledgeable enough to do the job without hiring consultants to cover their backs then please change the management

Yours a very disgruntled Haddenham resident VALP16-08-16-00350 L White Other Comments - Haddenham was once a quinticential village this is slowly becoming less so and will soon be a small town if what you are proposing goes ahead.

1. I was born and lived in Haddenham for 49 years,but can no longer afford to live in the village. Where is the affordable housing? My children have also had to purchase property outside of Haddenham as the properties are too expensive?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 15 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-16-00351 Tim Ecott Other Comments - I would strongly urge AVDC to reconsider the classification of Cuddington as a 'medium village'. It is clearly not. It remains an example of positive small scale community, at threat of being subsumed into a morass of commuter belt towns with no discernible individual identity. People in Cuddington reman intimately connected with village and coomunity life in ways which are being lost across the south of England at an alarming rate. Increasing the population by almost a half would endanger that community spirit and impoverish the quality of life of the residents who pride themselves on keeping the village engaged with itself in a way that fosters neighbourliness, charity and closeness. These things are being lost, at great cultural cost, in so much of the modern world. Please don't disregard them for the sake of an ill-conceived plan which concentrates on numbers rather than people.

VALP16-08-17-00361 Ella Jones (Wendover Other Comments - Wendover Parish Council have consulted with Halton Parish Council and Cllrs Steve Bowles and Peter Strachan Parish Council) from AVDC in the formation of this response.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 16 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00364 Elma Martin (Martin Other Comments - For the reasons stated in this consultation, we believe that the site labelled WIN022 has been hastily dismissed Family) as having potential to fulfil the housing need in Winslow. The site has been labelled as being detached from the settlement, which it is not (as it now bounds new development) yet at the same time has been designated as suitable to enable a major piece of infrastructure. This will will create significant activity on the site and negate its ability to be used for farmland.

The family have owned this piece of land for over 60 years and while we understand that the expansion of Winslow is a difficult decision, it is one AV have made by citing it as a strategic growth area. We support the Council in their quest to address the chronic housing shortage. However, we believe that our site could make a major contribution to that target and has a number of good reasons to justify development on the site as we have outlined in this process. We have never aggressively looked to promote the site for development and merely put forward the site to AV as being available for development in response to their "call for sites" after the original Local Plan was rejected.

We believe that our site is suitable for development because:

- It bounds the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan boundary. The Winslow Neighbourhood Plan fed into the original AV Local Plan which was rejected by the planning inspector for not providing enough housing. AV have also cited Winslow as an area of strategic growth and therefore have stated that they expect to work with parish / neighbourhood councils to try to identify further sites beyond those cited in the Neighbourhood Plans. Sites on that original boundary would therefore be the obvious starting point in the search for additional sites.

- Our site has been incorrectly described by the HELAA as being disconnected and having inadequate access. The site sits directly adjacent to two major development sites, a commercial premises (nursery / garden centre) and a major piece of infrastructure (East - West Rail Link). Therefore with the exception of the graveyard, there are no open fields between our site and Winslow. Also, Furze lane, the access road, is already being improved to accommodate the development by Bloor Homes (WIN008).

- Our site has been identified by Network Rail as being suitable for compound space for the new East West rail line. This will mean that the land will not be used for agricultural purposes and will have a lot of activity on it for a set period of time. This could also affect the quality of the land for agriculture once the compound use has ceased. The AV Draft Local Plan is looking to preserve good quality agricultural land, yet our site is unlikely to fall into that bracket.

The site is located directly opposite the St Thomas Fremantle School site / commercial space site / new railway station site (WIN003). Unlike other sites being promoted, which are the other side of Buckingham Road, our site is the other side of Furze Lane -

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 17 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00365 Karin Saevik Other Comments - So there are 51 houses still to be built in Grendon Underwood, assuming that each house has a child who will go to Grendon Underwood combined school that means 51 more children and 51 more cars at drop off and pick up. In an idel world more people should walk but reality is that not many will. Currently the only parking available is the village hall car park (which the school is not guaranteed to use) and along main street. During the beginning and end of the school day is carnage to say the least and it is just a matter of time before a child is seriously injured (or worse). I don't believe the infrastructure around the school is anywhere near capable of handling additional pupils. The school classrooms may be able to accommodate the additional numbers but as a parent to a child in the school I fear the quality would suffer, not to mention the village school mentality that attracted us (and many with us) to the village in the first place will be lost. VALP16-08-19-00370 Sally Mccloy Other Comments - I am saddened to see the plans to ruin our village. It is pitiful that the DC has deliberately chosen to have the consultation period while people are on holiday. When Aylesbury and Milton Keynes have already been destroyed by excessive building why do it to Haddenham too? Parking on the main roads by the station is already terrible,causing problems with the buses, and in order to get to work in Aylesbury I have to leave ludicrously early as the traffic is so bad. I have nearly been killed cycling as cars travel so fast and there is not a cycle path to Thame or Aylesbury . VALP16-08-19-00373 Pbp poet Other Comments - I would like to have it recorded that as a Haddenham resident I am disgusted by the NIMBY attitude of some of my fellow residents. Whilst Haddenham is a pleasant village it is not in an area of outstanding beauty and is well positioned for development, with good communication links. The obstructive attitude of a vocal minority, is one that I find offensive and does not reflect the attitude of all residents. The waste of time, money and effort on futile resistance campaigns should stop now and a more helpful attitude adopted. VALP16-08-19-00375 Norma Tanner Other Comments - Please do all you can to keep Haddenham a charming village as it is and not another ugly sprawling town .

VALP16-08-19-00376 John Wheeler Other Comments - Having read this ragbag of proposals the duty of cooperation is complete no sense I have lived I. Wycombe and could identify at least 5 sites suitable for housing. Society is changing at after the Brexit vote people do not co what they are told and you will be in for a hell of a struggle. VALP16-08-19-00378 Alan Weston Other Comments - I have never objected to a planning application before, as I believe in "live and let live", but the proposed 7,000 houses between Thame and Longwick is so totally over the top that I feel I must add my voice to, I am sure, the hundreds of others who will find this totally unacceptable.

Please tell me it is either a joke or a typing error - three zero's too many! VALP16-08-19-00387 Stuart Nelhams Other Comments - Dear Aylesbury Vale, this is the fourth time I have written in some form to express my feelings as to why these houses should be built in such numbers. I have no idea why you aren't listening to the people who overwhelmingly reject your flawed plans. There have been so many valid reasons provided against these developments that I cannot understand the logic of this local plan which expressly ignores the will of the people and expert evidence such as gridlocked roads. I agree with the following points set out by Hampden Fields Action Group:

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 18 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-19-00392 Lynn Andrews Other Comments - I am concerned that under the current proposal too many houses are to be built without adequate arrangements for traffic control and the ensuing increase in pollution. There does not seem to have been a rigorous enough investigation in to how the increase in traffic use will affect surrounding roads in the area.

However, my main worry is that each village surrounding Aylesbury will be in danger of loosing it's own identity and will just become part of a sprawling mass fanning out from the centre. These villages help to preserve the charm of Buckinghamshire and should be cherished in their own right. I realise that extra housing is required but I think considerable time should be taken to listen to alternative plans that help to achieve this without destroying the 'greeness' that seperates traditional settlements.

VALP16-08-19-00394 Beth Howell Other Comments - I am concerned about the lack of consideration for the increase in traffic that would result from an increase of over 15,000 homes to the south of Aylesbury.

Not only for getting traffic around Aylesbury, but more importantly into Aylesbury, which is surely where lots of these people will want to go on a Saturday! Aylesbury cannot cope at the moment, particularly with regards to parking. I hope that the traffic impact of so many new homes will be considered seriously with all new planning applications. VALP16-08-20-00399 Christopher Sykes Other Comments - The proposal for 7,000 houses on a greenfield site 3Km East of Haddenham is disproportionate and wholly inappropriate. There is no industry or infrastructure. Three times as many houses as Haddenham, One and a half times the size of Thame. Is it joke, I wonder. Far better to broaden the band around Aylesbury, or to build more proportionate extentions adjacent to Thame or Haddenham VALP16-08-20-00400 jim woolgar Other Comments - The expansion is much higher than existing.comparable size villages. This form could be made a lot easier for non IT skilled people

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 19 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-20-00401 Barry Maskell Other Comments - I have the following general comments on the AVDc Plan. Highly valued landscapes to the South of the town and between the villages of Stoke Mandeville and Aston Clinton,will be lost. The impact will mean each of these villages will loose their individuallity,and become joined up and an extension of the town.This is in direct conflict with the outcome that AVDC say they want. Air Quality will suffer in these locations. There is no proper transport strategy,and no account of the seriouse flooding risk on some parts of the scheme. The number of houses planned is too high and we should not be considering accepting other towns shortfall when they are using different intensity figures. How can you gaurantee that Developers will fund the roads that will be required.

There is no proper Infrastructure plan s in place to show how roads,hospitals,schools doctors etc will be provided for.All these services in this area are already overloaded.

The impact of HS2 is not addressed.This carves across the SE corner and has significant implications on roads and houses with noise and pollution .to existing inhabitants of Stoke Mandeville. The new planned Bypass road will impact on Lower road and the proposed developments planned here,together with hospital traffic. Its not good enough to say that Hs2 is in planning.Its very obviouse that it will happen.Do not bury your head in the sand.

The AVDC has ignored peoples requests to consider another strategy other than vast developments to the South of Ayelsbury,which will destroy the communities of Stoke Mandeville ,Aston Clinton and Weston Turville.

VALP16-08-20-00402 Martin Armitstead Other Comments - This whole procedure lacks clear and rationale thought.

VALP16-08-21-00406 Richard Barrie Other Comments - Filling out this VALP comments form has not been a simple process. The documentation that the form refers to is not readily or obviously available on the Aylesbury Vale website. This contains circular links between pages and not all of the required information is available on a simply laid out single page with notes. It would appear to me that this is not a case of poor website and documentation design, but it has been a deliberate concept to make it as difficult as possible for residents to access the information let alone be able to comment on it. The whole consultation process has been very unsatisfactory considering that the VALP could alter quality of life for a large number of Vale residents in an irreversible process. VALP16-08-21-00409 Clive Rodgers Other Comments - We believe Haddenham to be the better proposal for the expansion site. It is closer to Wycombe for the (Swanbourne Parish overflow homes (which Wycombe District cannot accommodate) as well as having better transport links already in place to London Council) 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.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 20 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00410 Clare Barr Other Comments - I am deeply troubled by the proposal of 50 per cent expansion of Haddenham and consider it completely unfair on existing residents. Given that other large villages have a maximum of 22 per cent expansion, why is Haddenham having to withstand more than double that? A major concern I have is lack of secondary school options, if a child does not pass the 11 plus, as with the recent dramatic expansion of Thame, Lord Williams School certainly will no longer be taking Haddenham children. Surely you will not be asking ALL children of 11 and above from our new Gigantic village to be bussed out to school every day? Traffic is going to be a major problem in Haddenham , with the scenic (narrow) road through the heart of the village past St. Mary's church over-run with cars. Parking is already a major problem on the roads around the station. People are selfishly parking on the main road outside the station which restricts the traffic to one lane flow at the busiest times of day. It is dangerous, and impossible for cyclists, an accident waiting to happen. Why can some of the many other surrounding villages not take some more houses each? It needn't be hundreds, even twenty or so each would massively reduce the strain our village will be under. This new expansion is going to rip the heart out of Haddenham, it has been such a wonderful place to live, but will be stripped of it's identity and it's narrow streets will not cope with the influx.^ 0

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 21 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-21-00412 Tracy Filler Other Comments - In Respect of WHA001

As a small village we have already been identified as too small to sustain extensive development and yet you are proposing 2000 homes in a village of 180 houses and labelled the plan as 'Sites adjacent to Milton Keynes'. Who's development is it? The boundaries between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes are made clear by the current space you are planning to fill in with this development. You would not just be expanding the village, you will effectively be merging this with another boroughs community.

This area of the village is not connected to mains sewage or gas, which questions the viability of the plan.

We have no local capacity for senior school students. This means they will need to travel to Aylesbury or Buckingham on already recognised highly congested roads. Nearby Milton Keynes senior schools in the area have already expanded to accommodate their developments in the area.

We live on Shenley Road and our entrance is concealed by a blind bend. We have incumbent road bollards on our verge as a warning. The turn into Shenley Road is on a blind bend and is adjacent to children's playground. Excessive increase in traffic is going to create a high-risk situation.

With 2000 homes using the road for access and taking into account your policy for parking, this could see in excess of 4000 extra vehicles using what is essentially a country road on a daily basis. We are deeply concerned about getting out of our drive and driving safely into it without risking a collision as our entrance is on a blind bend.

We accept that the government housing policy has to be met but dispersing new settlements into the nooks of small villages will add pressure on already limited services and infrastructure. The Haddenham site is close to M40 and good links to London with a mainline station nearby. This has already been deemed suitable for housing. This seems a more solid option for growth.

Defensible boundaries are highly subjective for this site as there are no obvious breaks in the landscape. Where Milton Keynes starts and Aylesbury Vale finishes or vice versa will be difficult to determine if you proceed with WHA001.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 22 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00416 John Currell Other Comments - I thought that the material on display at the public exhibitions was particularly weak. Maybe that is almost inevitable. No-one could make a responsible judgement on the Plan based upon the exhibitions.

I thought that it was particularly bizarre that the plan on display was the Aylesbury Garden Town Plan - page 49 of the VALP Policy Map Insets. That plan alone does not suggest that the Council actually have a "plan". The public want to be assured that the Council actually have sound proposals to ensure the provision of all the infrastructure - particularly the highways - required to support all the new yellow and crimson colouring on the plan. The plan on page 50 shows the proposed highway network improvements . That plan should have been on display . However, the plan alone is not enough. The public wish to know the proposed standard of the new roads and how and when they are going to be built. This MUST be shown and clearly stated in the next version of the Plan. Lastly, why is there no new road proposed from the Oxford Road to Fleet Marston/Aylesbury Parkway?I know that BCC have agreed a protected development control line for this in the past. Is it proposed that and Rabans Lane will continue to provide the "outer town bypass" in this quadrant of the town?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 23 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00417 Diane Phillips Other Comments - VALP & Grendon Underwood (GU) Comments: 1.General comments: 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.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 24 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00418 Mac Jefford Other Comments - 1. I cannot see how Brill can be considered a medium sized village. Two shops - a post office that only opens for half a day per week and geographically constrained by its hilltop location. 2. The figure of 96 houses still to be allocated on page 85 of the plan does not include 13 Miller homes recently completed and conversion of 2 houses on Temple Street being converted into 4. There is also a conversion taking place on The Green. There are no locations within the village for further houses without going outside it's boundaries and thus contravening policies on conservation issues. 3. AVDC 2011 draft plan states that it is very unlikely that there is much scope for Brill to be further developed. Nothing has changed in the last 5 years. 4. Public Transport is inadequate. A further bus service to Oxford has recently been removed. 5. The local Primary school is oversubscribed. 6. There are no employment opportunities within the village. Virtually all of the working population have to commute by car due to the lack of Public Transport. 7. Roads into and out of Brill are narrow and unsuitable for large vehicles. They also become congested during commuter periods. 8. Residents living in the middle of the village have to park on the road thus constricting traffic and causing potential problems to Emergency Fire Service vehicles. 9. The Worminghall wastewater treatment works are near capacity. Any further development of this facility would be the responsibility of the local water authority. 10. Any expansion of the Primary School would lead to further school run congestion on the only narrow approach road through a housing estate.

VALP16-08-22-00419 louise Johannes Other Comments - AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than a vast development to the South of Aylesbury.

10.Overall, the Vale of Aylesbury Plan is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It Is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.

The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered, based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 25 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00422 Steven Hyams Other Comments - I am very concerned at the disjointed manner in which the housing plans for Aylesbury are progressing and the lack of a coordinated and understanding approach to other factors that will have serious consequences for the residents of the area.

Start with the additional detrimental effects of HS2 to the area and Aylesbury will become the place no one wants to visit or live in, then consider; •AVDC has ignored people's explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. •The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC's own traffic consultants acknowledge it is "unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues". •There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. •The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the "orbital road" round the south of the town. •The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks. •There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. •The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. •Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other

VALP16-08-22-00423 Gary Gurney Other Comments - Why also will people want to visit Aylesbury town centre when there is also insufficient parking ?

Why not ruin all the villages (decrease the value of property) for all surrounding Aylesbury or join them all together just for financial gain ???????

I currently pay Band E council tax for a 2 bed character property in Weston Turville and trust that this will be reduced when we are joined to Aylesbury ???

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 26 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00424 Keith waterman Other Comments - •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure

VALP16-08-22-00425 Jonathan Wellstead Other Comments - Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. - The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure. VALP16-08-22-00427 Judy Cowper Other Comments - There are not enough jobs in the area for an increase in residents and with the convenience of the nearby station, I imagine the village will just become a dormitory for London and nearby large towns.

Please think again about your plans for the area, I am sure Haddenham has already built it’s share of the new houses needed in the county. VALP16-08-22-00431 Sue Clibbon Other Comments - What a disappointment – it is shocking that a village is about to be overgrown by housing which Wycombe and other District Councils claim they cannot meet. Have they tried? Is it not a ‘cop out’ to ‘shove’ it over to AVDC and get it and its electorate to do the thinking? It would seem, in its turn, that AVDC has ‘copped out’ and that the residents are required to do the thinking. I did not attend AVDC’S Roadshow – what an inappropriate name for something so serious- rather more in keeping with Punch and Judy – where’s the dignity? – not at the Village Society/Parish Council meeting in Haddenham either where the sound system was dreadful.

If we must build on prime agricultural land in and around Haddenham, it surely would make better sense to build between the Scotsgrove-Hartwell road and the A418 where, seemingly, one scheme has already been approved. All other proposals involve more and more traffic crossing the village, using already stuffed village roads in order to use existing public transport – i.e. buses and trains.

Have all the planners explored Haddenham? Has any thought been given to where all the new residents are coming from? Where they will work? Where their children will be educated? Where vehicles will park? Where will shopping facilities be available? Where sporting and leisure activities will take place?

What about Aylesbury becoming a Garden City? There’s plenty of land and with some imaginative road building, villages could become walled islands. It would be a chance to fill in, improve the landscape, shops and generally do a tidying up job. A few recent improvements such as the Waterside Theatre, the Canal Terminus and the University building are a clue as to what might be achieved and whoever designs the flower beds, hanging baskets and other planting is/are to be congratulated – someone is thinking …

Further, it is said that Winslow wishes to expand …

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 27 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00432 Dianne Frearson Other Comments - •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

VALP16-08-22-00434 Paul White Other Comments - I am not a NIMBY however I believe that if the development is going to be done it should be done properly. The absolute lack of infrastructure planning and the total lack of consideration for the current residents beggars belief. This is not a mature, thought out plan.

The 'temporary'solution to the extra traffic will be more traffic lights to manage the chaos that it will create until such a time as the 'imaginary' extra roads are built. Managing traffic is not planning. Does anyone even consider the long term adverse affect on business. I am 100% convinced that I spend more time planning how to get from one end of Aylesbury to the other numerous times a day than the planners ever have, to avoid the chaos that has already been caused.

There should be benefits for current residents. I should be pleased that there will be an increase in potential customers for my business. However I just dread it. I currently turn down anyone on the Aston Clinton side of Aylesbury as it takes too long to get there and back through the traffic lights at any time of day. This plan will just make the situation worse.

When the increased amount of traffic from the all of the new houses causes journeys to take longer are businesses going to be compensated for loss of income and extra costs out of the increased revenue/council tax or the developers profits from these developments? Or are they meant to be satisfied with such 'superb' benefits as a bit of a 'maybe' ring road or another set of traffic lights. How about a plan that includes real benefits such as more real roads, schools, hospitals, doctors' surgeries etc? I have no faith whatsoever that any issues caused by these new developments will ever be properly addressed. Whether it is the extra pressure on roads, schools, hospitals or other services with this plan the council demonstrates absolutely no regard for the quality of life of the current residents. This plan just over develops the area and will overload the services. I seriously doubt any of the planners actually live anywhere near Aylesbury? Isn't this meant to be the council that represents Aylesbury residents?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 28 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00435 Chris Heald Other Comments - As a long-term resident of Wendover I have followed these plans with an ever increasing level of concern.

There are many problems with the scheme, but the most fundamental issue is the failure to listen to the views expressed by local people - surely, you should be listening to local people, rather than doing the “dirty business” of a central Government!

Specifically; •The number of houses planned is too high - there is a need for housing but we are absorbing more than our “fair share”, •More attention should be paid to the importance of what we have - the environment and quality of life should both be protected - we will not build a sustainable solution if we continue to build without protecting what we already have, •Further consideration needs to be given to the wider housing stock - we need a much more effective rental sector and a greater volume of council/social housing, •The infrastructure (roads, hospitals, schools etc.) is inadequate to support the plans and there is no proper strategy to address any of these issues - it is not OK to build now and leave future generations with a sustainability problem (+ potentially very significant flooding and environmental issues). In summary a much broader (whole system) and long-term (strategic not tactical) approach is needed. The whole process should be stopped until such thinking has been completed. I look forward to this happening

VALP16-08-22-00437 Aidan Byles Other Comments - To whom it may concen, I live in Wendover and am anti any further building especially what is proposed The roadshows where unprofessional an uninformative. With a population of just over a 100,00 in the vale. To try and build over 33,000 houses is just insane. Given the change in political climate and change of guard from self interested egotistical idiots to possibly more sensible politicians surely this is the time to challenge central government. Frankly, my opinion of AVDC has plummeted. you need to realise that you should be working in our best interests. The houses that have been built or shoddy or far too expensive. current plans will simply ruin the environment for everyone. Given we already have HS2 to contend with this is just a complete slap in the face for the benefit of greedy, self interested builders who do not give a damn about anyone else but themselves. You are only providing cheap houses , so that councils in London can shift people on benefits out to the Vale and then sell off council housing in London for development. Traffic around Wendover is already at saturation level. You are ruining the area for all! Show some tenacity! Do not give into the bullys in central government! Please take Wendover off the strategic list. We have suffered enough over the years. It is not sustainable.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 29 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-22-00439 Stephaine O`Callaghan Other Comments - VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN, DRAFT PLAN SUMMER 2016 CONSULTATION, REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF SCOTIA GAS NETWORKS

We are instructed by Scotia Gas Networks (SGN) to submit representations to the of Aylesbury Draft Plan Summer 2016 consultation to ensure that the interests of the company are maintained; to ensure that we can be party to further consultations; and to enable the future development capacity of the site can be realised.

We now submit representations to the of Aylesbury Draft Plan Summer 2016 consultation, in accordance with the specified timescale of 5th September 2016, please find our letter enclosed.

I look forward to your confirmation of receipt of this email and the representations enclosed. VALP16-08-23-00447 Alan Tipple Other Comments - Very disappointing to see that all the hard work carried out by our councillors, not tp mention the expense of referendum etc, could all be for nothing. Cheddington has agreed a viable Neighbourhood Plan and it has been adopted - it should not be overridden. VALP16-08-24-00449 Ellen Webster Other Comments - Ickford plan - The school is already full with children from Ickford, Shabbington and Worminghall. The shop in Ickford has no room for expansion to cater for increased customers. Land on the southern edge of Ickford floods easily. Neighbouring villages also include pubs, churches & village halls, the addition of "school" and "shop" would not be sufficient amenities for 50 additional houses. WE STRONGLY REQUEST THAT ICKFORD IS RE-CLASSIFIED AS A SMALL VILLAGE - it is NOT a MEDIUM SIZE population. The sewerage system is under pressure in heavy rain.

VALP16-08-24-00454 James Styles Other Comments - I am writing to comment on the AVDC's apparent acceptance of the requirement to build extra houses in the Vale to accommodate South Bucks' & Wycombe's 'unmet need'. I am not happy that they can rely on the co-operation of the AVDC to accept an increase in its allocation of housing. This means there is no motivation/incentive for them to look closely at density levels and brown field sites in their own districts. The presumption seems to be that land in south Bucks is of more value than the Vale's.^

VALP16-08-24-00459 Wendy Stuart Other Comments - Dear AVDV, I have looked very carefully at the proposed garden village and feel the impact on wildlife, agriculture and the general wear and tear of already unfit roads is massive. I was led to believe an AONB was sacred and untouchable and we live in the area for that reason. Schooling and health centres are all under pressure here. 7000 houses mean about 20,000 more cars etc. Unbelievable. VALP16-08-24-00460 Sara Brown Other Comments - I do believe the Hampden fields development would be extremely detrimental to the area . Our infrastructure cannot handle more homes with more people using the local amenities . Please reconsider

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 30 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-24-00462 John Day Other Comments - I totally object to your local plan and a summary of why follows below under “ My objections ", but what is even more objectionable is your continued total waste of taxpayers time and expense with your experiments where you historically have decided what is best, and just paid lip service to taxpayers objections by ignoring them and implemented what you have already decided.

You may not like or agree with that comment, but as a resident of Aylesbury Vale since 1979 I have witnessed this over many years, and on many occasions, and now most recently where you have ignored the explicitly expressed public objections to vast development to the South of Aylesbury !.

But with the advent of increased public awareness, allied to the press and social media etc, the long suffering residents who have had to suffer having these past failed plans imposed on them, are now deciding that enough is enough and are objecting with vigour because the previous decisions taken have had such an adverse effect on their lives, and the wellbeing of their families.

So I am very hopeful that with a watchful eye from the press, elected representatives, and informed residents a sea change is now underway and that all objections and constructive criticisms and suggestions will now be truly considered, noted and included in this latest plan.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 31 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-24-00469 Joyce Graham Other Comments - •To whom it may concern... •AVDC has ignored people's explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. •The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC's own traffic consultants acknowledge it is "unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues". •There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. •The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the "orbital road" round the south of the town. •The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks. •There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. •The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. •Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure. Do not be remembered for being the people that ruined the day to day lives of many Aylesbury residents that have valid, rational reasons for saying 'NO' to these flawed plans. VALP16-08-24-00470 Adrian Colwell (Head of Other Comments - I refer to the above Draft Local Plan and would firstly like it to be noted that Cherwell District Council has for the Strategic Planning and second time, not been formally consulted on the Plan. I would be grateful if you could update your records and engage with us the Economy - Cherwell formally in accordance with the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ as we are a key neighbouring Council. District Council) I would emphasise that Cherwell District Council wishes to positively engage in your plan making process. In due course we would wish to attend the Examination to speak positively in favour of it. VALP16-08-24-00471 Rob White Other Comments - Over development will be counter productive leading to a less desirable place to live. This looks like a good money spinner for developers but of no benefit to he community. We object. VALP16-08-24-00472 Christine Fee Other Comments - Aylesbury Vale (it would appear) is a "dumping ground" for the surrounding Authorities unmet needs of housing allocation. I would ask AVDC to strongly resist and challenge this.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 32 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-24-00476 Peter Hoare Other Comments - Existing infrastructure is already barely coping with the current demands. How on earth do you expect these same facilities to manage very many thousands more! Traffic flow is getting worse. More and more bottle necks occur with traffic being forced to go through the town in order to get to where they want to go. Why does planning always arrange to take traffic through residential areas? What is the problem with an orbital road being built to divert that traffic that doesn’t need to clog up the town in order to pass through? Why do we who live in Aylesbury have to accept thousands of more houses to accommodate the likes of Wycombe and South Bucks? When will this madness stop. VALP16-08-24-00478 Ann Gordon owen Other Comments - AVDC has ignored peoples' explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC,s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is "unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues" There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic models. These state there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. The orbital road strategy is based on flawed thinking. Flooding issues are likely on some sites of the draft Plan and if those sites cannot be built, the Council will fail to get enough money from developers to build the so-called orbital round round the south of the town. Too many houses are planned. There appears to be no plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided. The Council has the responsibility for all these. Villages will end up being joined up, air quality will be poorer and public footpaths will be ruined.The landscape between villages needs explicit protection especially the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. This process needs to be stopped now.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 33 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-24-00479 John Holliday Other Comments - We object most strongly to the above plan for the following reasons :- •AVDC has ignored people's explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. •The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC's own traffic consultants acknowledge it is "unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues". •There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. •The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the "orbital road" round the south of the town. •The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks. •There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. •The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. •Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other VALP16-08-24-00489 Glynn White Other Comments - An incomplete and flawed Transport Strategy

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 34 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-24-00493 Peter austin Other Comments - I assume that the majority of you , like me and my family , have grown up and lived in rural bucksall your lives, If you have , then would you consider giving up this way of life and moving to a major urban area like Milton Keynes , or luton ? , no? ,well nor would I ,so why do you propose to fill in all the gaps between the south of Aylesbury villages , thereby creating a huge soul-less, urban development ? We , like most people in aston Clinton , have paid a premium to live in our nice , small village , not because we are dead rich , or snobs , but because we’ve lived all our lives in a village environment , we could have bought the same size house in a town location , but chose to pay a premium for village life , so do you despise us ? , and plan to teach us a lesson ? is it a case of ‘ if the people won’t live in a major town , we’ll take the major town to the people’ ?. I assume that most of you who attend council meetings , travel to the meetings by helicopter , and maybe , sometimes look down and wonder what all the snakey lines of bumper to bumper cars are ……….. well that’s the rest of us , trying to get about in our daily lives , we are virtually grid-locked already , yet you propose to add up to 15,000 new homes [probably 35,000 extra cars] south of aylesbury , and assure us that your traffic surveys show that with a couple of extra roads , and some traffic lights , congestion should not get any worse, really / I’m still annoyed that you used my rates , to send me a glossy brochure telling me why living in a huge development will benefit me , then when I disagree , you go ahead and allow mercenary developers to build whatever houses they want in our villageantway. If you want to join all the villages up , thereby losing each of those villages unique identity , then you have the power to do it , whatever I say , but please don’t pretend that you are doing it for my , or any other residents of the affected villages , if you allow the building of all these houses , you have done so for your own personal reasons , against the will of the vast majority of your constituents , and will have to live with the consequences.

VALP16-08-25-00495 andrew hunter Other Comments - We live in Wingrave and we visited your exhibition in the shopping centre in Aylesbury and spoke to one of the planning officers there. Your suggested plan to build 21 houses in Knolls field in Church Street seems to go against the recent proposals for houses in Church Street and Lower End. Two applications to build houses in Church Street and Lower End were rejected by yourselves twice and when these plans went to appeal they were refused again. The government Inspector made careful review of the applications including visiting our house to view the proposed site of the development from our front windows. After three months the appeal was refused and the reasons ran into a number of pages and included the narrowness of Church Street and the cars parked there and site lines onto the main roads either end of Church Street and Lower End. Residents of the recreation ground also park their cars in Church Street as they have no other options. It is important that you view the Inspectors reasons for refusal because all of the reasons given seem to apply to your proposed site in Church Street. We wish to formally object to the proposal to build in Knolls field, Church Street, adjacent to Cobblers Wick and the reasons are those shown in the Inspectors report. On a personal level we purchased our house 18 months ago because of the peace and quiet and the beautiful views of Aylesbury Vale. To now be told we might have to look at 21 houses instead is extremely upsetting to say the least. We also feel it likely that it will devalue our property.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 35 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00503 Mr S Kidnee Other Comments - I wanted to express my thoughts and total dismay about The VALP.

I find it very frustrating about the continuous plans to slam properties on green land south of Aylesbury, with no real plan around infrastructure and facilities to support the additional population, and the unfortunate impact on the landscape. The bottom line there is no business case to benefit Aylesbury, its young people (who never seem to be thought about with these plans) or surrounding areas. The only real benefactors are property developers and the landlords who I suspect end up owning a large proportion of the property.

Perhaps AVDC should look at ensuring all existing properties, including the half empty industrial estates that have been built over the years, are being used effectively before looking to build elsewhere? VALP16-08-25-00504 Vic Gerhardi Other Comments - Sometimes I just feel it is a complete waste of time writing to you when you have a public consultation, and this is once again one of those times.

Let me give you a date, 13th April, 1967. This was the date of my driving test, the inner ring road was just being completed. The population at that time was 28,000. Looking at the future, the predicted population for 2018 is 75,000.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 36 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00505 David Locke Other Comments - I have read, and tried to understand, the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. Like local councillors I am not a planning expert, just someone taking the draft VALP at its face value My comments are:

•Why should Aylesbury Vale just absorb the housing target shortfalls of neighbouring local authorities? There is nothing to suggest that you have discussed and challenged these shortfalls with neighbouring authorities.

•There has clearly been some effort made to estimate the Vale's housing needs but then you've just added 50% to that figure for no apparent reason.

•There is absolutely no proper consideration of the effects on traffic. Even your own traffic consultants say that their traffic projections can't be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues. Have any councillors (some of whom live many miles from Aylesbury) actually sat in the 20 minute queues that back up the A41 most afternoons? If it is this bad now, it will only get worse.

•It is all very well to plan for bicycle lanes and the like and to call it 'sustainable' (whatever that means). You can't carry a week's shopping home from Tesco's on a bicycle. You need to use a car. For that you need roads.

•Who is going to build the schools and doctors' surgeries? It is no good allowing developers to leave little bits of land empty for the 'provision' of these facilities. Developers should be made to build the facilities as part of their plans.

•There are no firm commitments to insist that developers build housing that can be afforded by local young people who would like to live where they grew up, when they have finished their education and start their working lives.

•Without proper traffic planning and without roads being built before any development is complete, the plan risks creating a traffic black-spot around Aylesbury. People will the avoid coming to Aylesbury and this will affect business and the town's prosperity. Why would anyone want to sit in traffic jams in Aylesbury when they can drive 20 minutes to Milton Keynes and do their shopping their without the traffic problems?

•Local residents have protested loudly and at length about the plan to infill between communities to the south of Aylesbury. Indeed, one development proposal has already been rejected by the Secretary of State. Why then do you continue to ignore the wishes of local people and carry on with plans to allow development that will join these communities together?

VALP16-08-25-00506 Joanne jolyons Other Comments - •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.

VALP16-08-25-00513 Frank Valentine Other Comments - I have recently moved to the area to live in a decent environment .I am completely outraged at your proposal to build extensive housnig in Aylesbury. The traffic situation in this area is bad enough without the possibility of the problem being worsened with the population explosion.I earnestly implore that you seriously reconsider this awful proposal .

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 37 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00516 David Martin Other Comments - I am writing to inform you of my objections to the published local plan.

The plan is fundamentally flawed, it starts from an assumption that houses are needed and that is paramount to existing residents. This is not the case. Any change MUST be of benefit to both existing residents and any new developments.

The proposed plan simply puts more traffic into already congested roads and overloads existing junctions. It puts more strain on the local water and electricity supplies, not to mention the existing emergency services.

Any development that creates more homes will inevitably mean more people and more traffic, unless the idea of a “Cycle Only” development was used.

Basic “Network Theory” says increasing the number of homes in small area means that traffic will become more intense at peak periods when for any existing resident the current roads are already full at peak and “Grid lock” quickly occurs in the event of an incident.

“IF” more development is required, rather than better use of existing homes, then the local plan needs to build a number of new “Centres” (whether they are called towns or villages), so that there a multiple points of activity and traffic is spread rather than concentrated.

The “HS2” plan is rubbish and not justified in my opinion, but if it does go ahead, the development of an additional road along different parts of its length will be much cheaper than any other development. The creation of such a road / roads (either side of the line) opens up possibilities for new settlements or reasonable enlargements of existing settlements.

A good local plan would be looking at cannels (Potential to extend), sources of water, positioning of emergency services, roads, rail ways, business / office links, telecoms, electricity and most importantly the quality of life for the residents of the area. Building over all open land does nothing for existing residents.

I propose the current plan is rejected as not fit for purpose.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 38 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00517 Colin Ruscoe Other Comments - The Alternative However, residents of a similar development to the proposed Hampden Fields location, but to the north of Aylesbury, would have no such destination alternatives, apart from distant Bicester, and further afield still, Oxford, where town centre traffic problems do not make for an attractive destination. But if the 3000+ dwellings proposed at Land at Hampden Fields were to be located within the large area of land available north of , residents would be much more likely to see a redeveloped Aylesbury as their destination for shopping, business, and social interaction – and so fulfil your aims in this respect. This option has none of the issues that the proposed Hampden fields development inevitably has and which are in conflict with the published principles of the VALP, in particular – a) avoiding compromising the character of surrounding villages and community cohesion , b) impact on attractive/sensitive landscapes and biodiversity, c) impact on existing pedestrian routes. ……and certainly d) causing significant additional congestion on the already congested roads Importantly, local opposition to a N of Aylesbury scheme would be low or non-existent…….

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 39 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00518 Paul Stimpson (Slough Other Comments - Slough Borough Council took a report to Planning Committee on 3rd August 2016 regarding your consultation. Borough Council) Please accept this as confirmation that, in advance of minutes being published, the Committee Approved the recommendations (at section 2). That included endorsing comments regarding the review of the Vale of Aylesbury local plan at para. 5.23 and that we forward these to you as a response. The relevant extract is below. We also need confirmation about the deliverability of the quantum of housing to meet South Bucks’ housing shortfall, and the mechanism by which South Bucks will have nomination rights for the affordable housing element of that. (The full report is available here: http://www.slough.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s43157/i%201607%20Final%20Draft%20Policy%20Item%20for%20Committee%2 0Report%20August%2016.pdf ). The Committee is requested to resolve that: •Comments set out in paragraph 5.23 can be forwarded as a response to the current consultation on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. Consultation on the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Aylesbury Vale District Council has produced a draft Local Plan for public consultation. We would not normally expect to be affected by this but current circumstances mean that it could have unforeseen consequences for Slough. This is because of the inter relationship between Aylesbury and South Bucks. It had previously been agreed that South Bucks was in the same Housing market Area as Slough and Windsor & Maidenhead. The decision to prepare a joint plan with Chiltern meant that for administrative plan making purposes it had to be decided which Housing Market Area (HMA) the combined areas would be put into. As a result it was decided that using the “best fit” methodology, the combined districts should be part of the Buckinghamshire Housing Market Area. This is significant because in theory South Bucks can now look northwards to meet any shortfall in housing in the District even though in practice there had been no change to the functional geography of the area. The Aylesbury plan calculates that 21,300 new homes and 22 hectares of employment land would be required to meet its own needs up to 2033. Because it is not so constrained by Green Belt, Aylesbury has had requests from Wycombe and Chiltern and South Bucks Councils to meet their collective unmet needs by building an additional 12,000 houses. As a result the draft plan has been prepared on the basis that under a “worst case scenario” 33,300 houses will have to be built. In order to do this the plan proposes that Aylesbury should be designated as a Garden Town, there should be a new settlement and consideration should be given to the release of some of the Green Belt land that it has for housing. The Council has, however, made it clear that it will be robustly challenging the level of unmet need that it is being asked to accommodate by its neighbours to the south.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 40 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00518 Paul Stimpson (Slough This has implications for Slough because we have suggested that South Bucks should consider meeting its needs where they arise Borough Council) by building a northern extension of Slough in the form of a new “garden suburb”. Under the new proposals the unmet need would be met in numerical terms in Aylesbury. As explained above, the justification for this is that South Bucks is now in the same Housing Market Area and planning guidance suggests that any unmet need should in the first instance be met within the same Housing Market Area. 5.23 Slough welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan and makes the following representations: Slough considers that Aylesbury Vale Council should robustly challenge the level of unmet housing need that it is being asked to accommodate from Chiltern/South Bucks. Slough welcomes the fact that that both Aylesbury and Wycombe are proposing to make Green Belt releases in order to accommodate housing needs, and considers that serious consideration should also be given as to whether a similar Green Belt release should be made to the north of Slough. The above should be looked at not just in terms of reducing the number of houses that need to be built in Aylesbury but also, in keeping with the NPPF’s (para. 84) need to promote sustainable patterns of development, how realistic it is to assume that housing needs arising in somewhere like Burnham can be met in Aylesbury which is around 25 miles away (by road). Whilst building additional houses in Aylesbury may mean that that the right quantity of housing is being built in Buckinghamshire as a whole, it is not necessarily the most sustainable distribution and will not do anything to relieve the housing pressures in the southern part of the county. It is recognised that any proposal for releasing Green Belt for housing will need to meet very special circumstances and be agreed through the Local Plan process.

VALP16-08-25-00524 Richard Pullinger Other Comments - Dear Sir/Madam,

As a resident in Winslow I would like to make the following comments with regard to the above:-

1) I would suggest that the 'Winslow Plan', which has the support of the majority of residents in Winslow, be implemented in its entirety including any infrastructure changes, before any further housing developments are even considered. We should allow time to see the effects that the 'Winlsow Plan' has on the area before proceeding with any further developments.

2) Assuming that the 'Winslow Plan' is successfully implemented I would then have no objections to the 'Airfield Site' off the Little Horwood Road then being developed, but only after the improvements are made to the A421 road in order to cope with the extra traffic that would result from this development.

I consider that all of the above would prove to be an ample development for the Winslow area and would not wish to see any further development VALP16-08-25-00528 Fiona Lippman Other Comments - Why were there not enough options to comment on more policies under each heading? (Buckland Parish Council)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 41 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-25-00529 Lucy Murfett (Chilterns Other Comments - Note: I am attaching a pdf copy of our comments. This is a duplicate containing a covering letter as well as all Conservation Board) the policy responses which I have also submitted electronically via this webform. VALP16-08-25-00530 Eric Sergeant Other Comments - 'Some of the jewels of Buckinghamshire's crown lie in the Quainton Hills which are admired and enjoyed by countless visitors, ramblers and residents. Further encroachment on the tranquillity of this ANOB, such as the industrialisation of the area around Ladymead Farm, should be strenuously opposed if our grandchildren are to be able to enjoy the countryside'.

VALP16-08-26-00533 John Beckerleg Other Comments - I am supportive of the developments in Grendon Underwood as shown in the plan and also the yet as unsubmitted potential more major developments (Springhill, rumptions Paddock and Bridleways). In supporting any of these developmeetns I would want to ensure that there was proper support infrastructure (inc Schools) and consideration to the roads infrastrucutre at the north west end of the village. I would want the parish council to establish a more strategic village plan to provide shape and coherence to the village development.

VALP16-08-26-00536 Simon Vessey Other Comments - CRA encourages AVDC to challenge the level of unmet need being met by surrounding authorities. They should (Cheddington Residents' be made to take their fair share. Association) VALP16-08-26-00538 Robert Burford Other Comments - I am a resident of Cheddington and live in a property directly adjacent to Croft Meadows (identified as CH001) which has been identified as potential development site to fulfil the 140 (now 150 I believe) new houses in Cheddington under the VALP draft. The Cheddington neighbourhood plan had successfully identified two development sites in the village (CHE005 & CHE006) which would have supplied space for the earlier requirement of 100 houses. These two sites included additional buffer space the would accommodate the remaining properties proposed under the VALP draft.

Croft Meadows provides an area that adds to the character of the village as well as a magnificent view to Ivinghoe beacon and across the Chilterns. The High Street area is already a busy route and the substantial addition of houses in this area could lead to greater congestion. Croft Meadows should also be considered an area of historical interest due to the presence of ridge and furrow medieval farming practices. I have a further concern of housing being built so close to a high speed rail line. Cheddington experienced a container train derailment in March of 2008 and although the incident took place outside of the village, it was still on the same line which runs adjacent to Croft Meadows. The risk in my mind is too great to allow new housing to be built in the area. I appreciate that living next to the proposed site and expressing these opinions could simply seem to be "NIMBY-ism" but having only moved to the area in late 2015, my partner and I already feel a part of this community and would like to see it develop and grow in a sustainable and reasonable way, the Cheddington Neighbourhood plan allows for this and was an invaluable tool when we researched the area. In conclusion I fully support the growth of the village as it would seem do most of it's residents and a simple "no new houses" approach is wrong but careful consideration must given to protect the villages character and history.

Thank you for reading my comments

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 42 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-27-00540 Rosanne Ward Other Comments - 1. Aylesbury Vale District Council has a long history of letting down its communities in general and Haddenham in particular over strategic planning :- a. It has no Local District Plan in place following the 2104 withdrawal. b. It informed Parish Councils that they did not need to prepare Neighbourhood plans, resulting in opportunistic planning applications by predatory developers.. c. It has not supported the preparation of Neighbourhood plans eg Haddenham where it advised the District Council members to give no weight to its Plan in preparation and instead to approve an opportunistic planning application for 280 houses , far in excess of the Village Plan, which was accepted on voting by an overwhelming majority d. It did not support the Neighbourhood Plan for Haddenham against the developers judicial review application, resulting in the entire chapter being quashed in March 2016, and the planning application upheld. At this stage AVDC was already preparing its new VALP with the new settlement at Haddenham, so this may well explain its refusal to support the Haddenham Neighbourhood plan. This latest onslaught on Haddenham is unacceptable.

2 AVDC now needs to get this right, not to seek to grow on its previous disregard of the views of the local community in Haddenham, by treating it as a town with 50% expansion as with Winslow or Buckingham, and in addition imposing a large new town on a rural area of good quality agricultural land ( best and most versatile ) which should not be lost in the post Brexit period where food security is important. It is far from clear that housing at this level will be required in the post Brexit period. 3 It is therefore disappointing to find that the New Settlement Study by GL Hearn is very limited in its range ( to AVDC not beyond ) and in its considerations ( to recommending Haddenham as a preferred choice for the New Town ) 4. No regard is given by it to :- a. The impact of development proposed in adjoining areas by adjoining District Councils eg Chalgrove/J 7 M40 3500 houses, Thame 600 plus 775, Longwick/Princes Risborough 2600 all in addition to the 1059 AND new town of 4500/7000 for Haddenham. This would result in an urban sprawl from Chalgove/J7 M40 to Thame to Haddenham to Longwick/Princes Risborough. And in addition there will be further development at Aylesbury/High Wycombe. It does not make any sense to create a huge urban area here, destroying all that residents value.. b. The study majors on the fact that Haddenham already has a station and rail service, in favouring a New Town at Haddenham. It takes no account of the fact that the trains arriving at Haddenham will already have called at Banbury ( extra 7500 houses recommended ) Bicester ( 10000 houses in progress ) as well as serving Oxford via the soon to be opened link into Oxford city and the connection to North Oxfordshire via Oxford Parkway. The same trains will also be serving the Chalgrove/Thame/Prices Risborough/High Wycombe growth areas. At peak times these trains are already at or near capacity. It is totally unrealistic to assume that Haddenham has the capacity to accommodate huge extension because it has a station.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 43 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-27-00540 Rosanne Ward c. Road transport. The study includes what seems to be a desk top study of local traffic near to its preferred new town sites and puts forward some minor improvements. It takes no regard of the devastating effect of the extra vehicles on the Thame by pass and connecting roads to the development and to the M40 nor pays regard to the present peak hours traffic jams at both ends. This will not serve the huge development now proposed and the Thame/Chalgrove additions . Mentioning that Haddenham has motorway access as a reason for huge development is unrealistic and deeply flawed. d Competition over employment location. The expansion of Thame, Aylesbury and Prices Risborough will mean this competition over employment in the area is a serious problem, which is not considered. This is unrealistic in planning a large new settlement in Haddenham, showing a lack of consideration of the wider picture. Employment land is available elsewhere according to the VALP and should be used. 5. The VALP is only available online and comments are required online. This, combined with the short consultation period over the summer holidays, and the lack of more and longer public exhibitions and information, mean that there will be many people in AVDC who are simply not aware of these very extensive proposals. This contrasts badly with adjoining District Councils who have been far more pro active in producing information eg Wycombe is having Q & A sessions and doing a weekly update and briefing now, SODC has a drop in Exhibition in Thame Town Hall, where comments are invited. There is a disappointing lack of commitment by AVDC to the consultation process. VALP16-08-27-00541 Martin Hopcroft Other Comments - Ivinghoe is designated as a larger village, which is contrary to evidence and facts. Ivinghoe is a small village.

VALP16-08-28-00545 steve Other Comments - We are all aware of a chronic housing shortage - throughout the country, and government directives on social/affordable development. Unfortunately, for many years, AVDC has failed to grasp or recognise the basic problem within the Aylesbury area. Namely: Infrastructure and transport (roads). Time after time newbuilds (major and minor) are constructed with little regard for the impact on the town's overstretched arteries. Businesses will never come here with the mess you have let happen (most recent debacle being "Arlas" reconfiguration of the Tring Road. I thought their vehicles were not going to come through the town in such numbers and at all times day and night?) You allow housing development in what seems to be a scatter-gun approach (what a mess you are creating in Aston Clinton, ripping the soul out of the village, and Bierton/Stoke Mandeville appear to be your next victims). Could you please (just once), lay down proper roads/links/infrastructure to accommodate the increased volumes in traffic and services required, BEFORE a development application is granted? Homes are built. People and cars arrive.... and then they join the queues on the already gridlocked and unrelieved traffic jams called Buckingham Road, Oxford Road, Tring Road, Wendover Road, Stoke Road, Bicester Road.....

VALP16-08-28-00548 Nicola Page Other Comments - Please examine carefully map comments. Include schools at least in a vague area, we will need them. Supermarkets may be on the decline but convenience and Doctors will always be needed. Rights of way should not just be a legacy, they need to be planned in with new developments and new developments planned adjoining the new roads proposed should only be accepted with proposed gaps for access to those roads, which is sensible given the congestion, particularly near the hospital, it is avoidable.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 44 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-28-00549 James Hale Other Comments - My comment is in relation to the site which has been identified in Cheddington described as being to the east and south of Crofts Meadow. I appreciate that a hell of a lot of work has gone into putting this plan together. My concern with it is that only earlier this year the village held a vote on the neighbourhood plan which had been created with the consultation of villages at the forfront of it's considerations. The location for the planned development was identified as being to the rear of Partridge Close, Barkham Close, Mentmore Road. This went to a vote and the plan was overwhelmingly voted in. I understand that the number of homes that Cheddington needs to accommodate has increased but I have been assured by the parish cancel that these extra homes can be built on the existing agreed site at Patridge Close. By identifying Crofts Meadow as a potential site I feel it to be undemocratic and totally going against the wish of the local community which deemed the site to be inappropriate when the vote was cast earlier in the year. I understand the need for more housing and I had been extremely impressed with how the community had been included in the process, however if you persist with the site at Crofts Meadow then my opinion will have totally changed to one of "we hear what you've said but ultimately we're going to do what we want." If I've been correctly informed and the additional housing can be located at the Partridge Close then I can't see any reason that a second site for development needs to be created at Crofts Meadow.

Many thanks,

James Hale VALP16-08-29-00556 Anna Ellershaw Other Comments - This is a ridiculous process form and document which excludes the majority of people from commenting on their environment and the proposed changes. It is too long and complicated and people are put off doing anything which I imagine is what you want to do so you can do what you like with no regard to the affect the changes will have on the communities. I give up. I don't have the time to flick back and forth through it all. VALP16-08-29-00557 Anthony White Other Comments - I object to the excessive housing development in and around Haddenham. 544 new houses is enough and they can be built in the next 16 years. Any more spoils the village and the surrounding areas.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 45 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-30-00559 Jonathan Stoll Other Comments - I would like to compliment the authors on a clear and well-argued plan. As a Haddenham resident I accept that we must make our contribution towards fulfilling the need for new housing in the area. I can also appreciate your arguments that our transport links and employment opportunities make Haddenham a leading candidate for the nearby location of a new settlement. My key point is to stress, as you state yourselves (4.40) that any new settlement “is expected … [to] … benefit from its own community facilities, retail provision, green infrastructure and will deliver improved infrastructure which benefits current and new residents in the locality.” Under no circumstances would it be appropriate for the new settlement to be created as an extension to the existing village for the following reasons:

1)Haddenham does not remotely have the community infrastructure to cater for a population three times its current size. Retail units, schools, health provision and public amenities are those of a village and would be unable to accommodate additional demand of this scale.

2)Haddenham is a village with much of its historic built environment intact. The conservation area, the large number of listed properties, the high concentration of ‘witchert’ buildings and the surrounding areas of open countryside give it a unique character which must be protected as part of our national heritage. To add an “extension” of an additional 4,500 to 6,000 houses would completely overwhelm and destroy its character.

3)The village roads will already be under severe stress from the 50% expansion already envisaged in the VALP and there is certainly no capacity to take the traffic generated by another 4,500 plus houses. On the map we may appear near to the M40 but all the connecting roads are single carriageways which are already congested during rush hour. The proposed new settlement would only be practicable if it had its own road links to the station, and the A418 or the Thame roundabout, and it is essential that new traffic is kept away from the existing village roads. VALP16-08-30-00560 Cathy Tracy Other Comments - Winslow is also an unsuitable site for the proposed "new settlement" which would inevitably result in the loss of separate identities for Winslow, and the Horwoods, eclipsing the size of Buckingham! It is completely unreasonable to expect N Bucks to cope with the unmet housing needs in the south of the county when the employment situation in N Bucks is completely different. Siting the new settlement in Winslow would only exacerbate the already difficult transport problems faced by those trying to travel through Aylesbury. VALP16-08-30-00562 Andrew Bateson (AB Other Comments - These supporting representations are made in my capacity as agent for the landowner of House at Planning & Development Bletchley (in Newton Longville parish) - CAS Properties Ltd. Ltd)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 46 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-30-00564 karen Gouriet Other Comments - With regards to the proposed development of S4 800 houses on this site, I believe that the infrastructure within Wendover would not be able to cope with what will effectively be 1600 minimum vehicles in the centre of Wendover. I wonder why the Wendover bypass was built if you then blog back up the roads in the town ? Secondly the current schools would not be able to cope with the increase of families on this development and as additional schooling would then have to be provided which again would increase the volume of traffic travelling to these schools as we all know people continue to drive their children to school and this will only add to the traffic in the town. There is no large employment developments within Wendover and so all people living on this development will have to travel to a place of work, more traffic. There is not enough parking at the train station/ town centre to enable people to commute easily and streets that already suffer from parking issues will only increase. Finally the boundary between Halton and Wendover will be lost. Whilst I appreciate houses have to go some where I do not feel that this site is appropriate, housing needs to be at the other end of Wendover ,worlds end area as traffic would have easy access to the by pass or aylesbury not congest the centre of wendover VALP16-08-31-00566 Arlene Bocking Other Comments - Along with other local residents I am seriously worried and distressed about the high volume of new houses proposed in this area, this excessive building plan ruins the lives of so many (including those who have to live in these horrible estates of box houses with postage stamp gardens). There should be much more effort to use brown field sites of which there are several seemingly not being used around Aylesbury(Dayla for example) and perhaps 4-6 floor apartment blocks should be considered for first time buyer homes , the old Nestle site on Tring road is a great example. Please note points below; •AVDC has ignored people's explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. •The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC's own traffic consultants acknowledge it is "unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues". •There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. •The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the "orbital road" round the south of the town. •The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks. •There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. •The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. •Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 47 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00570 John Abra Other Comments - To me the VALP consultation process feels somewhat disingenuous. The Council's Planning Department appears to be pursuing a different agenda especially with regard to traveller sites where decisions have already been made. The consultation process has therefore been disregarded even while residents are spending their own time making comments! Please take this comment as a formal complaint. VALP16-08-31-00572 John horward Other Comments - •A VDC has ignored people's explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. •The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC's own traffic consultants acknowledge it is "unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues". •There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. •The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the "orbital road" round the south of the town. •The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks. •There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. Surely the Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. •The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. •Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. •Large amounts of prime agricultural land will be destroyed; there should be a much greater emphasis on the building of many more flats etc, especially on brown field sites in the town centre. •Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome. •The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 48 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00574 Kate Billimore Other Comments - Re: proposal for potentially 50 new homes in the village of Ickford.

Ickford highly unsuitable for siting new homes:

a) flood plain - drainage and sewage already a serious issue;

b) primary access to village (from south) severely restricted over 2 tiny humpback bridges - width and weight restricted; eastern access comprises 4 small single lane bridges;

c) no regular bus service to nearest town - car travel essential;

d) school already at capacity and serving surrounding areas where schools have closed;

e) too many vehicles already park on pavements, across driveways and on dangerous corners, particularly at school drop-off and pick-up times;

f) vehicles cutting through village en route to elsewhere drive very fast;

g) delivery lorries to shop already block street causing long tail backs;

h) village shop already struggles to cope at busy times VALP16-08-31-00584 Bruce Gardner (Cherwell Other Comments - Cherwell Gospel Hall Trust object to the Definition of Community Facilities, which are not limited to ‘multi- Gospel Hall Trust) purpose’. This has been considered in a number of planning appeals. We would refer to the following appeal decisions:

a.APP/P0119/A/06/2011716 Armstrong Way Yate Bristol BS37 5NG paragraph 18; b.APP/E2530/W/16/3147751 62 High Street Carlby Lincolnshire PE9 4LX paragraph 29.

Neither the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 nor the NPPF support the limitation to ‘multi-purpose’ uses in order to qualify as ‘Community Facilities’. This issue was raised as a ‘soundness’ test at Dacorum Core Strategy Examination and the relevant policy CS23 was subject to Main Modification (MM18).

Copies of the above appeal decisions are attached.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 49 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00586 Gillian Miscampbell Other Comments - Background

Vision and Strategic Objective

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.

Strategic

3. The idea of Aylesbury becoming a “Garden Town” is interesting, particularly if it brings more Government money and support. Growth in Aylesbury and the South must be maximized. This is where the demand is and where the links to London, the M25 and the M40 Aylesbury are better. The area south of Aylesbury has potential with access to the A41 leading to the M25.

VALP16-08-31-00588 Peter Aldington Other Comments - i) If, as now seems to have been the case, a town/village of the size now proposed has been in mind for some time, then a proper town/village centre should have been planned ahead of housing. The recent development of the Spicer-Hallfield site opposite the existing shops and adjacent to existing village facilities was an opportunity for proactive planning tragically missed. ii) The whole process of producing a village plan, in which a high proportion of the village participated, seems to have been a mockery.

VALP16-08-31-00589 Rosemary jeffries Other Comments - In view of the objections I have raised, I would ask AVDC to reconsider the above issues and take them into account in order to review and amend the draft VALP in respect of development in Haddenham. In particular I would ask that they reconsider the categorisation of Haddenham as a “strategic settlement”.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 50 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00590 A D Fanthorpe Other Comments - I wish to make the following observations about the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.

1. I do not see how shoehorning over 15,000 houses into the spaces between the villages to the South of Aylesbury - notably, Aston Clinton, Stoke Mandeville, and Weston Turville - constitutes a coherent strategy for sustainable housing in the Aylesbury. It would seem much more logical to consider the creation of a new integrated population centre with good links to existing transport infrastructure - which patently Aylesbury does not possess, and cannot possess because of the historic road structure we have inherited, which funnels all traffic into Aylesbury. Potentially the proposed East-West corridors (road and train) - to the NORTH of Aylesbury might provide suitable infrastructure in that direction.

2. Transport has been poorly considered, not only in the VALP, but in every major planning application currently under consideration. The VALP does nothing to alleviate concerns over the traffic nightmare which is already building up, without the proposed major developments such as Hampden Fields and Woodlands (traffic is already backed up from Aylesbury to the Woodlands roundabout, even during the school holidays, and it is virtually impossible to turn right at the end of New Road on to the A41 - but of course the roundabout at Bedgrove has been removed, so the only alternative is to detour through Aston Clinton, but perhaps councillors do not travel that way?) 3. Where are the details relating to infrastructure that will be needed? A recent planning application in Weston Turville noted that children would have to be sent to Great Missenden for primary education as the local school is full! What about health centres, schools and hospitals amongst other infrastructure? 4. The VALP would result in coalescence between Aylesbury and Wendover with the villages subsumed into a mass sprawl. Areas of attractive landscape, which harbour much wildlife including deer, badgers, and birds of prey, will be buried under concrete, brick and tarmac. 5. The VALP seems to be predicated on existing planning applications which are being promoted by AVDC or BCC rather than taking an impassionate look at what is really required. It should be thrown out and started again.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 51 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00592 Gloria Wren Other Comments - I wish to register my objection to the current VALP, for the following reasons.

1.The Council has apparently ignored people's explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. 2.AVDC’s traffic proposals appear to use a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. 3.There is no proper transport strategy, despite the county-wide traffic model which states that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads. 4.The number of houses planned is too high. 5.There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided, for which the Council has a responsibility. 6.Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection.

Overall the VALP appears to be an attempt by the Council to push through a pre-determined outcome.

The process should be put on hold until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure. VALP16-08-31-00593 Hugh Morton Other Comments - I have attended the roadshow in Winslow and read the proposed plan and I'm feel there is an assumption that VALP is largely based on some unknowns and other district councils lack of concern as to the impact on other Bucks residence.

VALP16-08-31-00599 Martin Hopcroft Other Comments - Ivinghoe is being designated as a larger village, which is contrary to the evidence and facts. It would result in a totally disproportionate increase in housing that will swamp the community. Ivinghoe is a small village. VALP16-08-31-00602 Micheal Sadler Other Comments - Please think carefully about housing allocations before going ahead with creating large settlements that completely alter the countryside around. Let the people of Winslow have their say. We have to live with with the consequences!

VALP16-08-31-00608 John Coker Other Comments - I am of the opinion that the pressure should be eased by a review of the very small or no contribution made by smaller villages rather that ramping up the contributions made by the other village classes. There is evidence that some parishes have escaped ‘scot free’ and that cannot be equitable or defensible in the circumstances we find ourselves in at this moment in time.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 52 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-08-31-00611 Alan Hall Other Comments - As a resident of Grendon Underwood we would like to comment on the proposed development of houses. We understand we have to accept some but we believe you should adhere to the conservation paper drawn up by yourselves some years ago which has been followed to the letter in the past. This village is a linear village and building behind has always been turned down in the past to keep the character of the village. With this in mind we believe the Marcello land is the best prospect. This would be infill. GUW004 Baileys Farm is another option. The Springhill site next to the prison gates is a further option as this is unused land. We do not agree with Shakespeare Orchard or Rumptons Paddock as this would be building behind. With reference to the Rumptons Paddock site this floods during bad weather. The source of the water comes from the surrounding fields but more importantly from the houses in Rumptons Paddock and the church area. For example one of the houses has a storm drain which you have to climb down a ladder to. When extensions have been carried out the footings have filled with water very quickly. Also someone tried to place a pit in his garage and the workings filled up with water very quickly. I have also been told on good authority when a grave is dug at the church it often fills up with water and it is difficult to insert the coffin. Also our gardens are regularly flooded during the winter. We actually approached the farmer a few years ago to try and purchase some extra land for our gardens. We eventually decided against it due to the flooding and the fact we were told we would not be able to build anything on it.

It also floods on Broadway. The traffic down this road travels like a race track. As the traffic is very heavy on the A41 there seems to be a need to be first in the queue so they can get out first. The entrance the developers have requested is on a very dangerous sharp blind bend. Public transport is currently very poor and would need to be improved. The village school we are told is almost full. With regard to our catchment area school Waddesdon this is oversubscribed. In fact a family has lived in the village for two years and has to drive her children to Aylesbury every day as Waddesdon do not have spaces. We have copies of your paperwork from quite a number of years ago which shows a conservation view from Shakespeare House and St Leonards Church. The conservation view is on to the fields behind Rumptons Paddock.

VALP16-09-01-00613 Denise McClellan Other Comments - I found the format of the form very difficult due to the requirement to insert specific paragraph references in each box, the length of the plan and not wanting to repeat myself. Many of my fellow residents, with whom I have had several discussions, also felt the same and have not therefore replied. This is not due to apathy nor lack of interest and concern regarding the proposals. There is strong feeling in Whaddon about the large number of houses being proposed to be built in this villge and the "knock on effect" to the identity of the village, the inadequate infrastructure/services stated in the plans and the apparent lack of consideration about the people living here and their health and well-being. We appreciate that additional housing is needed, but there are more suitable sites that could/ should be considered that would make more sense regarding jobs, roads, schools, hospitals, transport, services, etc.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 53 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00618 Jonathan Proctor Other Comments - I wish to raise the following issues/concerns: (Stephenson Harwood) It appears that there are question marks over the extent to which neighbouring authorities are assessing their own housing needs. For example, it seems that Wycombe District Council is applying very low densities and thereby failing to maximise its own sites for principal settlement. This raises the question whether a new settlement is needed at all?

The Plan does not take into account the impact of other proposals for housing growth in neighbouring areas. For example, the Plan appears to ignore proposals for substantial development north of Princes Risborough (just outside the Vale boundary) and for similar proposals for new settlements in South Oxfordshire. Again, it seems questionable whether the existing infrastructure (in particular, rail and transport links and existing shopping, educational and social facilities) can cope with development on this scale. This is further exacerbated by the construction of HS2 and seems to indicate a lack of "joined-up" planning.

The Plan would seriously damage the heritage of Haddenham as a village. Haddenham does not have the central focus nor the service core traditionally found in a high street, such as Winslow. Similarly, the Plan would result in the loss of agricultural land which is in the top "best and most versatile".

It seems uncertain, in any case, that such housing growth on this scale is deliverable within the indicative timetable.

Finally, it is unfortunate that the consultation process was launched over the summer holidays at a time when many will be away on summer holidays and therefore unable to fully engage.^ Finally, it is unfortunate that the consultation process was launched over the summer holidays at a time when many will be away on summer holidays and therefore unable to fully engage.

VALP16-09-01-00620 Jane Hennell (The Canal Other Comments - Due to the importance of the Grand Union Canal and the Aylesbury and Wendover Arm, the Council may which & River Trust) to consider creating a specific canal policy covering protection, enhancement and the impact of development on the waterspace, towpath and character and appearance of the canal environment. The Canal & River Trust would be happy to work with the Council to consider suitable policy wording and share examples of similar adopted policies elsewhere in the Country.

VALP16-09-01-00622 Lachlan Robertson Other Comments - Please see attached letter. (Savills on behalf of Aylesbury Vale Estates)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 54 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00626 TREVOR DAWE Other Comments - I am writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the part of the plan which deals with Marsworth . It is inappropriate to categorise Marsworth as a medium village . While the population of the village falls just within the bottom end of this category the minimal services and amenities available to the village clearly place it in the "small" category . It is therefore inappropriate to designate the village for the level of residential increase which is contemplated in the Plan . This redesignation is further supported by the inadequate road network within the village which is already under severe stress from the limited developement which has occurred in recent years . I also object to the site designated for any new housing which is to be permitted . The sites MAR001 and MAR002 which were designated as suitable for housing in the draft 2014 Plan have now apparently suddenly become unsuitable for specious reasons which could equally well be levelled at Mar003 which is now apparently the councils preferred site for new housing . The first 2 sites are no more remote from the village or out of character and do not involve the use of good quality farmland or further strain on the road network on the Church side of the canal . Any limited further housing which is to be permitted should be at Lower End where any increased services can be combined with those necessitated by other developement between Marsworth and Gubblecote .

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 55 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00627 Susanna Allford Other Comments - AVDC Local plan With reference to the proposal of changing the current green belt adjacent to the John Colet school and the canal would have a devastating effect on Wendover and surrounding areas. The current amenities are just recovering from the impact that the Princess Mary Gate had on the area. The proposed Halton Lane development and the above as there would not be enough school places, Doctors and sufficient close green belt areas to accommodate this need to the area. Wendover has expanded over the last 25 years and with the large extension to the John Hampden First School and Wendover Junior School, plus Halton Combined School, this has been done to accommodate the need from the Princess Mary Gate, this does not include the added knock on effect to the John Colet School. 800 houses would approximately create 800 children – if half the houses had 2 children in them it therefore easy assume 800 children. Catchment area for the Wendover schools would children from there – anybody else would be classed as out of catchment. There is no alternative land sites in Wendover and I would wonder where they suggest the provision be made as the land that was there has already been built on to accommodate the Princess Mary Gate bulge. Therefore, I do not understand where the following comment comes from. Schools in the area are at capacity so additional capacity would be needed. It is estimated that 800 homes would generate in the region of 240 pupils. As the existing schools are at the limits of their sites, on site primary school provision would need to be made. Historically Wendover has been a place that has attracted people to the individual and bespoke shops, cafes, restaurants and boutiques, with HS2 being battled one end and 800 houses plus the possible Halton Lane the other side. Wendover, as we know it, will cease to be and it will be a mini Aylesbury. The Wendover Arm of the Canal and also Weston Turville reservoir will be effected dramatically – tranquillity is needed for conservation – natural habitats will die due to noise, pollution and rubbish and yes 800 houses will produce a lot of rubbish Wendover will be part of Halton, Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville. These villages, market towns will cease to have their own identity and will be part of a huge Aylesbury, this will have a knock on effect on the local shops which will then close as no-one will be coming to visit and enjoy the peace that Wendover brings from their own noisy areas. The Schools or the standard of education will fall as they try to cope with appeals and being pushed to bring their classes to 30 plus!!! Local children will have to go to schools outside of their area – currently there is separate Primary and Junior school – there will be families trying to get children to two different schools – this will have an amazing effect on the traffic that we already have on the overcrowded campus! How wonderful that a new school access point will be built – the only access point that is currently viable is through that land – which would be potentially 100 houses that they can’t build!!! That won’t be happending! VALP16-09-01-00627 Susanna Allford To get a Doctor’s appointment would be a six month wait!! Doctor’s will be stressed and locums bought in who will now know the patients – Wendover Surgery has worked very hard over the years to build these relationships. If there is such need for a large amount of housing to be built then a new town needs to be built like Welwyn Garden City was. It is ludicrous to add a little bit here and a large bit there that will destroy what has taken hundreds of years to evolve within these communities.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 56 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-01-00637 Viv Lynch (Wingrave Other Comments - Appendix A - Development in Wingrave: Assuming the Wingrave with Rowsham NP is made the sites listed on with Rowsham Parish page 208 will need to be replaced with those in the Wingrave with Rowsham NP. Council) 10.60 There is 1 bridleway in Wingrave with Rowsham, starting in Rowsham and terminating in Weedon. To reach the bridleway it is necessary to ride from Wingrave to the cross roads and along the A418 to Rowsham. There are many footpaths in both Wingrave and Rowsham and some of these could be upgraded to improve the network both towards Rowsham and Mentmore/Crafton.

The issue of HGVs using Wingrave as a "rat run" needs to be addressed. In recent weeks lorries have become stuck on the narrow lane to Long Marston when trying to pass each other. This has caused damage to the banks and kerb stones.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 57 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00641 Christopher Matthews Other Comments - I should like to make the following comments which I consider are very important points to be taken into account. Selection of Haddenham as a Strategic Settlement with reference to the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Draft Plan Consultation July 2016. 1.‘The NPPF identifies the need to plan for sustainable development. Sustainable development includes supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities…’ (Para 2.1). Haddenham is a large and vibrant village (not town) and treating it as a ‘Strategic Settlement’ risks destroying this ethos. 2.In Paragraph 2.4 it states ‘In determining the settlement hierarchy and the likely role of settlements in Aylesbury Vale, it is important to recognise the potential influence of adjoining areas and the wider context. In particular the proximity of major urban areas including High Wycombe, Milton Keynes and Oxford’ It is clear that inadequate account has been taken of these areas and the effect developments in those areas will have on transport and other infrastructure. 3.Aylesbury and Buckingham have populations that are considerably larger than Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham. It would be more appropriate to classify Wendover, Haddenham and Winslow as Small Towns/Larger Villages to enable better decision-making in VALP regarding which settlements are best placed to accommodate future development. 4.The Settlement Audit Methodology used Assessment Criteria that are extremely simplistic and give a crude points score based on a limited set of criteria. 5.Points have been allocated to Haddenham (and possibly other settlements) with little knowledge of local conditions - I.Haddenham has a small range of shops and most people shop in Aylesbury or Thame II.The Village Hall is inadequate and does not provide a satisfactory village centre III.Haddenham is well served by the 280 bus between Aylesbury and Oxford but the 200 route is a variation of the 280 and the 112 route only runs once on Wednesdays and Fridays IV.Haddenham Medical Centre is already under strain from the existing number of people living in the village V.Secondary schools should be considered a Key Service. The majority of children aged over 11 currently attend Lord Williams School in Thame. With the large developments proposed in Thame this may not be possible in future and there will be similar pressure on places in Princes Risborough and Aylesbury. VI.Other important aspects have been omitted from consideration such as capacity of local roads, the impact of local railway Parkways (on traffic and parking), the effect of capacity limitations of rail transport, the continuing need for high grade agricultural land. In conclusion, the answers to the questions posed in Paragraph 3.3 of the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Assessment (page 6) are- 1)Is the identification of strategic settlements, larger and smaller villages and other settlements still appropriate? NO, it should include an extra category Small Town/Larger Village to cover Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham. 2)Are there any settlements in the wrong category? YES, Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 58 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00643 Angela Matthews Other Comments - I should like to make the following comments which I consider are very important points to be taken into account. A) Selection of Haddenham as a Strategic Settlement (Paragraph references are from the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Draft Plan Consultation July 2016) - 1. In Paragraph 2.1 it states ‘The NPPF identifies the need to plan for sustainable development. Sustainable development includes supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities…’ . Haddenham is a large and vibrant village (not town) and treating it as a ‘Strategic Settlement’ risks destroying this ethos. 2. In Paragraph 2.4 it states ‘In determining the settlement hierarchy and the likely role of settlements in Aylesbury Vale, it is important to recognise the potential influence of adjoining areas and the wider context. In particular the proximity of major urban areas including High Wycombe, Milton Keynes and Oxford’ It is clear that inadequate account has been taken of these areas and the effect developments in those areas will have on transport and other infrastructure. 3. Aylesbury and Buckingham have populations that are considerably larger than Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham. It would be more appropriate to classify Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham as Small Towns/Larger Villages to enable better decision-making in VALP regarding which settlements are best placed to accommodate future development. 4. The Settlement Audit Methodology used Assessment Criteria that are extremely simplistic and give a crude points score based on a limited set of criteria. 5. Points have been allocated to Haddenham (and possibly other settlements) with little knowledge of local conditions - •Haddenham has a small range of shops and most people shop in Aylesbury or Thame •The Village Hall is inadequate and does not provide a satisfactory village centre •Haddenham is well served by the 280 bus between Aylesbury and Oxford but the 200 route is a variation of the 280 and the 112 route only runs once on Wednesdays and Fridays •Haddenham Medical Centre is already under strain from the existing number of people living in the village •Secondary schools should be considered a Key Service. The majority of children aged over 11 currently attend Lord Williams School in Thame. With the large developments proposed in Thame this may not be possible in future and there will be similar pressure on places in Princes Risborough and Aylesbury. •Other important aspects have been omitted from consideration such as capacity of local roads, the impact of local railway Parkways (on traffic and parking), the effect of capacity limitations of rail transport, the continuing need for high grade agricultural land.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 59 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment In conclusion, the answers to the questions posed in Paragraph 3.3 of the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Assessment (page 6) are- 1) Is the identification of strategic settlements, larger and smaller villages and other settlements still appropriate? NO, it should include an extra category Small Town/Larger Village to cover Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham. 2) Are there any settlements in the wrong category? YES, Wendover, Winslow and Haddenham.

B) Development of Haddenham - With regard to Haddenham I consider that the proposed allocation of 1059 houses to Haddenham is excessive for the following reasons – 1. Haddenham is a village with its character reflecting its origin as 3 ancient hamlets alongside a stream. It does not have a single centre, is NOT a town, and should not be treated as such. 2. The total number of houses proposed for Haddenham represents an increase of about 50% which is completely out of scale with the existing village and will ruin the historic environment that AVDC is obliged to protect. 3. The proposed increase clearly ignores the wishes of the residents of Haddenham and takes no account of Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan. 4. Proposals for developments at both Haddenham and Thame should be considered together because of the major impact on the local area arising from the proximity of the two communities. 5. In addition to this, other developments in South Oxfordshire District, Wycombe District and along the Chiltern Rail/M40 corridor should be fully taken into account because of the impact on local road and rail services 6. Not enough account has been taken of the effect of the large increase in traffic which will arise from all the housing developments proposed. Local roads struggle to cope already and there is an urgent need for a study into traffic management in the area. This study should cover road configuration, flow control, safety, parking provision, both within the village and for the railway, and methods to encourage rail users to use the parking provided at the station as opposed to residential areas. 7. Plans in VALP for new cycle routes within Haddenham and to link the village to Thame and Aylesbury are undefined. It is important to ensure cycle routes from Haddenham to Thame and Aylesbury, as set out in recent Feasibility Studies, are actively pursued and that cycling and walking routes are given high priority in the design of new developments. 8. The proposal for so many new houses for Haddenham makes a mockery of Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan and leaves villagers with no say as to where the houses can be put, since every available space and more besides will be built on. However, for all other considerations, particularly building design, infrastructure, sport, recreation and community facilities, the principles set out in Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan should be adhered to.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 60 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment C) Proposed new settlement - I consider that neighbouring District Councils (DCs) should be challenged to provide more of their own housing. I am particularly concerned with Wycombe DC (which has claimed an unmet need of 5,000 homes proposals) for the following reasons: – · Wycombe DC is not 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; . it is applying very low housing densities compared with Haddenham and other Aylesbury Vale settlements I support the AVDC decision to appoint consultants to scrutinise demands from neighbouring District Councils. If neighbouring DCs provide more of their own housing a new settlement will not be needed.

In the event that it is considered that a new settlement is still needed the Haddenham area is completely unsuitable for the following reasons- 1. Haddenham is still essentially a village with no central focus or retail centre and does not have adequate shops to cater for so many extra people 2. Haddenham has an acclaimed conservation area and is a popular tourist destination which will be ruined by large traffic volumes 3. Fields proposed for development around Haddenham are all in the top ‘best and most versatile’ category of agricultural land 4. Local roads are not adequate to cope with all the extra traffic 5. The A418 is single carriageway with limited options for upgrading 6. If HS2 is built there will be a major impact on A418 from construction traffic 7. The Chiltern rail line/M40 corridor includes growth proposals beyond AVDCs of well over 20,000 homes. These rail and road structures are already operating at close to full capacity and although plans are under consideration to upgrade Chiltern Rail there will not be sufficient capacity until the line is electrified (and maybe not then), well after all the housing developments have been built. 8. Many of the new houses being proposed in this wider area will be served by Haddenham & Thame Parkway station but there is already a major parking problem in Haddenham because of the station 9. Not everyone wishes to work in London or Birmingham. Milton Keynes, for example, provides many employment opportunities but it is more difficult for people from the Haddenham area to get to work in Milton Keynes and N Bucks because of current road system.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 61 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 10. Developers market new housing in Haddenham to people who currently live in London so many properties in a new settlement close to Haddenham would be taken by people from outside Aylesbury Vale at prices current Aylesbury Vale residents would struggle to afford. 11. Thames water is proposing a major new reservoir north of Chinnor which will have a big impact near Haddenham. 12. The fact that Haddenham is nearer to Wycombe, Chiltern and S Bucks districts is irrelevant if they provide for their own housing needs and it is very important that AVDC reaches agreement with these councils on this matter. 13. Absolutely no effort has been made to consult with SODC, with no consideration being given to the impact on Thame. I urge AVDC to explore a wider range of possible settlement sites other than Haddenham and Winslow. In particular the potential for development in the north of the county, close to Milton Keynes and near to the Oxford/MK/Cambridge axis should be thoroughly investigated.

D) Overall assessment of VALP - I am concerned that the VALP has been constructed in a piecemeal and insular way with no account taken of developments further afield. Worryingly it appears that the VALP is not evidence led and local knowledge has been ignored. Rather it looks as though the allocation of homes at different settlements has been fixed to arrive at the required total, with no reference to local circumstances, and then evidence has been constructed to justify the numbers. This is particularly the case with the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Assessment for the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to accompany Draft Plan Consultation July 2016 where the criteria appear to have been chosen simply to ensure that certain settlements score sufficiently highly to justify large numbers of houses. The attractions of the Chiltern Line and the proposed east-west rail line through Winslow have made areas close to these routes easy targets for development with little attempt to ensure a better balance of development throughout Aylesbury Vale. It is also vitally important that full account is taken of proposed developments in districts adjoining Aylesbury Vale. There are proposals for a large development north of Princes Risborough, just outside the Vale boundary, and for new settlements in South Oxfordshire. Settlements such as these are proposed for exactly the same reasons as proposals for extra housing and a new settlement are included in VALP – existing road and rail links (especially the Chiltern Line) and existing infrastructure in local towns. No account has been taken of the construction of HS2 in the area during the planning period and the impact this would have on the area. For all these reasons and the ones listed above I do not consider the VALP to be a satisfactory plan for the future development of Aylesbury Vale.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 62 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00645 Colin Bloxham (The RSA Other Comments - The RSA Thame Group (for the RSA see https://www.thersa.org/ ) has been formally appointed to act as Thame Group) Honorary Consultants to Thame Town Council in the development of the Thame Green Living Plan, a key recommendation of Thame's Neighbourhood Plan, formally adopted in 2013 under the terms of the Localism Act. Thame is of course in South Oxfordshire and thus outside the area of the Aylesbury Vale. Yet it is implicitly involved in your proposals – apparently without any consultation. Although the VALP makes several highly significant assumptions about the links between Haddenham and Thame, a spokesman for SODC recently declared at a town hall meeting in Thame that he was not even aware of the VALP proposals. Likewise we have not seen anything in SODC’s Preferred Options Proposals paper for its area that links through to any planned growth just across the border in Buckinghamshire. We would respectfully remind you that the two communities are only about two miles apart, and yet the planning for both has no cross-reference to the other, let alone to the significant implications to Thame of the proposals in Haddenham. This is in our view a very serious flaw in responsible planning. To a lesser but still relevant degree the same is true of Long Crendon. The demands on the local infrastructure, already substantial – and to be materially increased if the SODC proposals are carried through - will be even more considerable if substantial new development is permitted in Haddenham. We understand that a minimum of 600 new homes and possibly as many as 6,000 are to be built there if the idea of a "new settlement" is approved. Your paper predicates an infrastructure based on Thame without any consideration of how and when that may be available. This is simply unacceptable. At present, and after the best part of a year trying to progress the issue, we seem to be no further forward with regard to the proposed cycleway between Thame and Thame & Haddenham station. Sustainability involves getting people away from their cars, which is a core reason for the cycleway, yet we seem unable to elicit any action from Buckinghamshire County Council on such a long-outstanding and relatively simple issue. The current road route to the station is a death trap for cyclists. This is merely one level of integration and infrastructure and if this level of inaction is repeated across the area of your plan there risks being paralysis and a total degradation of the environment. In short we cannot see that your plan can remotely be called ‘sustainable development’ unless it incorporates a full and viable infrastructure design, properly integrated with surrounding communities, which this plan signally fails to do. Accordingly, the RSA Thame Group urges that no decisions be made on further development in Haddenham or adjacent areas unless and until a) the necessary infrastructure is included and funded and b) the assumptions on which the plan is based and their implications for elsewhere are properly thought through and tested. We believe these actions will show that the plans for Haddenham will create a dormitory town for commuters to elsewhere, increasing car and vehicle use to the detriment of the area and leaving residents struggling to find facilities in surrounding areas, a result which is the exact opposite of what you seek to achieve. Comments prepared by Charles Boundy, Chairman of the RSA Thame Group, and Colin Bloxham on behalf of the RSA Thame Group.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 63 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00646 Roger Edwards Other Comments - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) (Buckingham Society) Comments by the Buckingham Society on the draft local plan

It is worth beginning these comments by stating that members of the Buckingham Society, having been closely involved with the development of the Buckingham Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP), recognise the difficulty and complexity of the task that AVDC planners have been given in the production of the VALP. Any comments that we make are intended to be positive, helpful and aimed at improving the VALP.

There is little evidence in the consultation document to support the additional housing requirement for Buckingham or anywhere else. In fact, the writers of the document go to some lengths to stress the evidence that has not been finalised as well as that where “some information needs updating”. This of course has made it very difficult to come to definitive conclusions. How can people be expected to make judgements when so much detail is not available? Will Aylesbury Vale be expected to take “unmet need” from outside of the ‘Housing Market Area’ (HMA), e.g. Luton? And what is that unmet need expected to be? Nobody seems at this time to know. Therefore, the comments that we make are necessarily of a general nature until such specifics are known.

We are pleased that AVDC recognises explicitly the worth of the BNDP and the policies contained therein. Regardless of the final outcome of the VALP exercise with regard to housing numbers, the BNDP must be preserved, albeit in an amended version if necessary, in order to protect the town from inappropriate and predatory development. The Buckingham Society is confident that AVDC would share that ambition.

The Buckingham Society does not have, and never has had, a NIMBY philosophy. The Society recognises that there will always be a need for growth in the size of Buckingham’s population and that there will, inevitably, be additional housing to go along with that growth. However, such developments must be properly planned and in the right places; be well thought out with regard to design and construction; have an appropriate quantity of affordable housing to enable young people to stay in the town if they wish to and be accompanied by appropriate advances in the town’s infrastructure, transport links etc.

It is the Society’s view that these aspirations could and should be extended to the whole of the VALP. There are a number of issues with the VALP that we believe run counter to these criteria and need careful consideration before the next stage of the planning process. These are set out below:

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 64 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Density of housing (not specifically referred to in VALP)

We are reliably informed that housing density of the Lace Hill development in Buckingham is 32 dwellings per hectare. Government has stipulated at various times a target range for new building densities on plots of hectare or more of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare with a specific number of 40 per ha around transport hubs. If densities such as these, or the Lace Hill density, or even that applied to WHA001 of 23 per ha were to be consistently applied across the whole HMA of the VALP, the need for a new settlement would be voided and the number of additional houses for towns such as Buckingham would also be lessened.

Assessed rise in population by 2033 (Paragraphs 1.38 – 1.39)

The possible rise in population appears to be exaggerated. The document suggests a population for AVDC of 214,000 by 2033, an increase of 23%, but using the growth figure for 2001 – 2011 (0.5% a year) it would be more like 194,000. AVDC suggest the low growth was due to economic factors but austerity will continue and it is still very unclear as to what the effect of Brexit will be. It would seem highly likely that the actual growth would be around the historic level of 0.5% a year. If that figure were to be used, then the required number of new houses before outside unmet need is included would be something like 17,000 rather than 21,000+. We would request therefore that the growth figure should be re-examined.

Other Districts’ “unmet needs” (Paragraphs 1.10 – 1.13)

It is pleasing to see that AVDC will be “robustly challenging” the level of “unmet need” arising from the south of Buckinghamshire. We have already referred to housing density levels and these seem particularly low when relating to Wycombe, which, as a transport hub with multi transport choices available, should conform to far higher densities than currently expressed in their Local Plan.

Furthermore, there seems to be little logic in any proposal to build extra houses in the north of the County to provide dwellings for people from the south. At present around one third of Buckingham residents commute out of the town every day. That figure would increase markedly should there be an increase in housing numbers in the north due to unmet need in the south. North/south transport links are very poor and, even if they were not, the consequences for transport and sustainability of mass commuting around the County would be horrendous.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 65 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Distribution of increased numbers of dwellings (Policies S2 & S3)

The VALP does not seem to be clearly thought out with regard to where new houses might go. The figure of 50% predicated for Buckingham appears to be an arbitrary figure. With poor transport connections in rail, compared to Aylesbury itself as well as Wendover and Haddenham, we question the sustainability of this figure.

Paragraph 1.18 There is a greater need to focus on transport improvements on east-west connectivity before these projected increases in numbers can deliver sustainable development in the north of the district.

It might be better, for example, to expand Haddenham if it should be chosen to be a new settlement. There is a good rail service to London, Oxford and Birmingham; regular bus services to Aylesbury and Oxford and the M40 is close by

Another realistic and sustainable plan would be to develop Aylesbury’s proposed garden communities further to the south and east closer to railway stations at Stoke Mandeville and Wendover, and to the north and west at Weedon Hill and Fleet Marston where Aylesbury Vale Parkway and the A41 provide good transport links.

Buckingham has, as already stated, poor road links to motorways, no rail service and bus services that lack modern facilities such as Wifi.

Student accommodation

The VALP does not mention student accommodation which seems to be a peculiar omission considering there are universities in Buckingham and Wycombe and a university campus in Aylesbury. There seems to be an assumption that they do not count towards housing allocation numbers. This assumption should be reconsidered and a recognition given to the demand that students make on the wider accommodation needs of an area not only in terms of housing numbers but the effect on rents and the ability for the local population, especially young people, to afford to live in their home areas.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 66 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Social housing (H1)

The VALP has not much to say on the subject of social housing and it is our view that the importance of the need for social and affordable housing should not be forgotten. This is another instance where the promised Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document is urgently needed so that a clear definition of what these categories of housing include will be provided and the VALP must seek to ensure that social housing percentages are protected. (H1)

Neighbourhood plans (Paragraphs 3.82-3.90)

The VALP recognises the worth of Neighbourhood Plans and there is a clear implication that the plans would be respected. The Buckingham & Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP) identifies significant growth over the years 2013 – 2033. This growth has been carefully assessed, alongside the deliverable provision of the necessary infrastructure the development would require. Further growth should only be identified once a similar exercise has been undertaken with regard to that growth. In particular this would relate to an upgrade of the A421, extension of the bypass between the A421 and A422 and deeper consideration of the “Expressway”. No additional sites should be identified until there is clarity around projected road and rail schemes.

The BNDP has identified the most sustainable locations around the town on the basis that these sites would be developed within the plan period (2013 – 2033). The Buckingham Society would seek an assurance that the commitments in the BNDP should be built out before any identified additional capacity is allowed, backed up with a policy in the VALP, and appropriate strategic links and other infrastructure requirements are identified and planned for.

Paragraph 4.103

A statement that “Buckingham Town centre…needs to build on its programme of regeneration to maximise the benefits that continuing growth can bring,” does not appear to recognise that more housing equals more pressure on a medieval town centre layout. Continuing growth of itself does not bring benefits and the town centre suffers, for example with the increase in the number of outlets being developed on the industrial estate. Greater thought needs to be given to how a medieval market town such as ours could cope with growth over and above that identified in the BNDP.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 67 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Transport issues (Paragraphs 3.55 – 3.64)

A number of references have already been made to the poor transport links from and to the north of the District. It should be recognised that, by and large, people in the north of the district do not look towards Aylesbury. For healthcare (where possible), shopping, entertainment and so on, Milton Keynes, Bicester or Oxford, which are linked by a good bus service, are the main destinations. The provision of an upgraded A421 “expressway” is therefore vital if Buckingham is to support a growth of anything like 50%. A statement that starts, “In the longer term, the potential provision of an A421 Expressway” (paragraph 1.19) provides no confidence that this matter is being given the level of consideration that it warrants. It also does not deal with the question whether the Government would fund a route along the current path of the A421 / A4421 or whether other routes would be more cost effective.

Equally, more detail on the progress and timing of the projected East-West railway line with the new station at Winslow is vital to understanding where sustainable growth can be accommodated. More prominence must be given to this issue.

Delivering a New Settlement & Coalescence (Paragraphs 4.27-4.29)

In our view a proposed new settlement at either Winslow or Haddenham is unworkable. It would lead to co-alesence by encouraging more development with adjoining centres. The case for the new settlement is not proven as the “unmet need” is still subject to review.

In our view, it is vital to recognise and respect the importance of parish boundaries, and the separate identities of each community within those individual parishes.

As is clearly recognised in the VALP, Buckingham is the hub for its surrounding villages. It is equally important to underline the role that Buckingham, with its greater range of facilities, plays vis-a-vis the villages surrounding the town. Therefore, if for example, a large development was to be agreed for the separate settlements within say a three mile radius of Buckingham (e.g.Gawcott, Maids Moreton, Tingewick), it would have major consequences for Buckingham in relation to transport, parking, health and school services and so on.

The Buckingham Society seeks an assurance that developments of that kind, over and above the numbers identified within the VALP for the village, would be counted against Buckingham’s housing allocation.

Referring back to our comments on the distribution of increased numbers of dwellings, (Policies S2 & S3) we would hope that, when identifying housing allocations for the surrounding villages, due recognition is given to the effect that the level of growth in the neighbouring village populations has on the facilities and infrastructure within Buckingham.

Those are our comments. Thank you for the opportunity to make them. We look forward to seeing the amended plan when it is ready.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 68 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00648 Paul Edwards Other Comments - please see attached copy of letter outlining my concerns regarding the local plan for Marsworth area copy also sent via email link VALP16-09-02-00650 Tracey Skates Other Comments - Rural Transport (Worminghall Parish council) Worminghall has a very limited bus service. If AVDC wish residents would use sustainable travel, it needs to provide better transport links. The bus service we have doesn't tie in with commuter needs. It would also be beneficial to have links into Wheatley to allow residents to get to Oxford and all it's connections/amenities. Worminghall has no amenities so residents have to travel to surrounding towns/villages for everything. VALP16-09-02-00651 Karen Smethurst Other Comments - re categorisation of Whitchurch as a large village. I visited your stand at the County Show and looked at the documentation. You state Whitchurch has 2 pubs, it does not - The White Horse closed 5 years ago - it is now a residential dwelling. The White Swan is the only pub. The food store mentioned is a convenience store at a garage with limited range and very expensive. Any potential new resident would have to travel to Aylesbury for food shopping on a regular basis. The bus service is infrequent and only runs a couple of times on a Sunday, The X60 is mentioned but only stops in the High Street. which is approximately a mile from the surgery and school. Development in Whitchurch is not sustainable and the village does not have the infrastructure to support such a large number of extra dwellings. VALP16-09-02-00653 Quainton Parish Council Other Comments - HS2 - is there a plan B if this is scrapped as common sense should dictate.

VALP16-09-02-00655 Frances Durkin Other Comments - Having moved into Cheddington less than a year ago, we have been impressed by the village's welcome and its practical view on future expansion. The Neighbourhood Plan researched by the Parish Council has given us a valuable insight into the way in which the village is willing to expand as well as its determination to protect its own historical rural characteristics. The organisation and detail of this plan is impressive and it has been disappointing to see the VALP try to ignore the recommendation to preserve the Croft Meadows site as a Local Green Space. There must also be a more constructive plan for infrastructure, e.g. more school places and bus transport, before more housing can practically be built.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 69 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00662 John Mott Other Comments - We are concerned about the new revised local plan. AVDC has failed to listen to local people. In my area we successfully opposed the Hampden Fields Development in 2013. The Inspector rejected the application on the grounds of traffic volume and a year later we are faced with a renewed application from the Developers that has been included with yet again flawed traffic numbers. Getting through Aylesbury is a major problem now.

We have yet to see the impact of the large Bierton Developments when this vast housing project comes into being. The South of Aylesbury will be one large conurbation and villages that were independent thriving communities will be consumed by developments of several thousand.

Two years ago AVDC asked for opinions about what residents wanted in terms of development. Clearly villages need to provide housing that is financially viable for young people with families to enjoy the benefits of village life. Therefore limited small, affordable developments must be considered . We already have problems accessing primary health services in a timely way, to say nothing of the pressures that will be put on our one local hospital in Stoke Mandeville, especially A and E . I have yet to read any comments from Health or Education Officials. Please can AVDC take note of local people's concerns and base any decisions on reliable evidence of the impact such numbers will have for the community.

VALP16-09-02-00665 Gary Palmer (South Other Comments - South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) would like to reaffirm our desire to work together with Aylesbury Vale Oxfordshire District District Council (AVDC) and engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis, and where possible and to undertake joint work Council) where benefits can arise.

Please note that these comments are officer level only. VALP16-09-02-00669 Sean Carolan Other Comments - I'd like to see a statement to the effect that any additional housing (etc) delivered over and above the VALP requirement will be taken into account in any subsequent revisions or plans. To do otherwise might be seen as penalising communities that voluntarily take on an additional share of the development burden, and will discourage communities from proactive development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 70 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-02-00672 Sara Rendell Other Comments - I am a resident of Haddenham and I wish to express the following issues and concerns with the draft Vale of Aylesbury Plan ("the Plan")

1. It appears to be questionable as to the extent to which neighbouring authorities are assessing their own housing needs. For example, it seems that Wycombe District Council is applying very low densities and failing to maximise its own sites for principal settlement. This raises the question whether a new settlement is needed at all?

2. The Plan does not take into account the impact of other proposals for housing growth in neighbouring areas. For example, the Plan appears to ignore the proposals for substantial development north of Princes Risborough just outside the Vale boundary and for similar proposed new developments in South Oxfordshire. Again, it seems very questionable whether the existing infrastructure (in particular, rail and transport links and existing shopping, educational, medical and social facilities) can cope with development on this scale. This is further exacerbated by the construction of HS2 and seems to indicate a lack of "joined up" planning.

3. The Plan would seriously damage the heritage of Haddenham as a village. Haddenham does not have the cental focus nor the service core found in a traditional high street such as Winslow. Similarly, the Plan would result in the loss of agricultural land which is in the top "best and most versatile".

4. It seems uncertain that such housing growth on this scale is deliverable within the indicative timetable.

5. Finally it is unfortunate that the consultation process was launched over the summer holidays at a time when many will be away and therefore unable to fully engage.

VALP16-09-02-00675 Mr and Mrs Hudson Other Comments - Multiple Photographic evidence can be made available of all aspects commented on including Great Crested Newts and Barn Owls. VALP16-09-02-00676 martin thomas Other Comments - The draft VALP is a big document, contents a lot of jargon and on those accounts would have benefitted from a better index and name recovery process.

It was really helpful to have had the opportunity at the drop-in consultation in Wendover to have plenty of time to look at the draft plan, maps etc. I had hoped there would have been AVDC staff on hand with a particular knowledge of Wendover, sadly that was not the case when I went to St Anne's Hall. VALP16-09-02-00678 Patricia Stradling Other Comments - The draft VALP has been an enormous piece of work and congratulations to all involved. Hopefully the 'worst case scenario' of 33,000 new homes will not materialise and there will be adequate time to carefully plan the integration of new building with infrastructure provision so that an increasing population can be welcomed into our beautiful area and settle into being productive and involved community members. VALP16-09-03-00679 Samita Kirve (Bucks Other Comments - AVDC must be appreciated for their long term vision. We have embarked on a beautiful journey. I would like to NHS Trust) see my Aylesbury develop into a small self-sufficient city bringing in all the good features of established modern cities like MK, Reading, etc. I wish us good luck in our endeavour!

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 71 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00688 Andrew Osborn Other Comments - As an Ickford resident I want to particularly comment on our village classification as a 'medium village' and the expectation that the village needs to supply approximately 50 new houses. In principle, I do not object to our village having a small amount of new development, but the following points need to be accounted for in any consideration of future planning applications. 1), We are a low lying village in an area very susceptible to regular flooding. Development needs to be carefully placed to avoid making this worse. 2). The sewage system is already over capacity resulting in fowl water flooding in wet periods. No more homes can be built without an organisation making considerable capital investment to upgrade the sewage system. 3). If houses are to be built, the village needs small houses that local people can afford. Not more large executive, expensive homes.

VALP16-09-03-00704 Yasmin Bevan Other Comments - There is very little provision for employment, entertainment and no provision for post primary education in Edlesborough. Public transport is very limited and vehicular access to existing services such as the doctor's surgery is very difficult. These factors are challenging for residents of all ages resulting in the need travel by car out of the village for most services and facilities. The level of additional housing proposed would turn Edlesborough into a very large dormitory village servicing the housing needs of neighbouring towns with nothing to sustain a sense of community. It would be far more appropriate to classify it as a medium village which would allow for sustainable growth and preserve the quality to life for existing and future residents.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 72 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00705 Elizabeth Dickson Other Comments - Reference the Haddenham potential housing application ref 210(had007)

I have the following concerns and very strong objections.

Haddenham is a wonderful village not a town as Wycombe is. It has a community and a strong village feel which would be seriously changed should this housing estate be approved. Rosemary lane is a unique place with listed buildings and is an area of conservation.... The field at the back of us is prime agricultural land and the poor residents who bought their houses moved here for the wonderful views they are now faced with the possibility that they will be looking at a housing estate with red brick walls and noise and cars and it goes on and on!... There are many other fields that would not impact in this way..... People say when you write a letter of objection to something you shouldn't put emotional thoughts down on paper ...... this IS an emotional issue, it affects people's lives, their homes, their way of life! Don't see this as a blue area on a plan on a piece of paper with 210 written on it! See this as our homes our lives..... This field is beautiful, we walk our dogs there, watch the seasons change, marvel at the wild life, the wonderful light...stop to chat with friends also walking their dogs..People in Rosemary lane have actually planted small trees there and also pretty holihocks.... We care about it very much and feel it is almost part of Rosemary lane! ... Walking along the footpath that runs through this field will we now walk past brick walls and cars.... It doesn't need to be like this... Just with some thought and understanding and empathy .... Wycombe should be considering its green belt as Aylesbury is.. If it needs housing why why why come to Haddenham... Make some of Wycombe's green belt available .... It is a town! Please keep Haddenham a village..... There are other fields on the outskirts of Haddenham that I'm sure wouldn't impact on people like the one in Rosemary Lane... It is Incredibly sad and totally avoidable.... My home is surrounded by lovely people and all the residence of Rosemary lane are so incredibly upset about this... I recentely had coffee with a lovely lady in our lane who's garden looks right onto this field ....the thought of looking onto a housing estate immediately next to her fence is just terrible ... It doesn't need to be do near to our houses... There are other alternatives . Please please please please consider another site that would not impact in such a dreadful way for the lovely people in Rosemary lane...and for Haddenham.....

Thank you for your time..

Elizabeth Dickson

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 73 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00712 Frank Donlon Other Comments - Foreword I object most strongly to the description of a new settlement as an "exciting proposal". That is an emotive and positive endorsement of an idea which is for discussion and debate. Personally I think the more apt description would be a "dreadful proposal" but I don't have the privileged opportunity to attempt to influence opinion in such a biased way.

This online consultation form This online form is not user friendly. Having heard many reports of people struggling with it, I started to populate it on Tuesday 30th August - some 8 weeks into the consultation period. I identified a fundamental flaw in that you MUST click to "next page" in order to activate the autosave function. If you click "previous" in order to refer back to an earlier comment then the current section comments will be lost. I brought this to your attention on 31st August and you agreed that this was a previously unidentified problem. You then added an additional instruction to the website for new form registrations. However this additional instruction was not apparent to anybody who had already started the process of populating the form. I am appalled that this problem went unreported and unidentified for almost the whole consultation period. I have spoken to many people who have found the form to be daunting and had not realise that the alternative of emailed comments would be acceptable. All of this raises serious questions about the response rate. I would urge you to research the respondents for feedback on user friendliness, and to devise a new system for consultation on the final version of the plan.

VALP16-09-03-00716 Bryan Mitcham (Year) Other Comments - Overall, the VALP is flawed and incomplete in some key areas fundamental to good planning, principally traffic and infrastructure. This renders the current consultation meaningless. Also, the weakness of the policies contained in the draft Plan strongly suggests no more than another attempt to put housing where the council wants it. This does not align with the claimed desire for ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’. Winslow has a democratically agreed plan; this ignores it. Also the timing of this consultation is terrible; a very short window for feedback in the middle of the summer holiday when many residents are not around. This plan also hasn’t been previously mentioned; but been dropped like a bombshell at the very last minute to ensure minimal opposition. This future development plan has been in process for many years now, in fact 7 years ago (this) large development was agreed by the council to be situated between Watermead and Bierton. Looking at this area as a whole, Winslow is surrounded by vast housing developments currently being built without any visible improvements to the infrastructure. To the west is Bicester and the large Eco Town/Garden Town housing estate. To the south is Aylesbury with the large Berryfields/Buckingham Park etc etc. East is Leighton Buzzard with the large Sandhills housing estate. Newton Leys to the west of Bletchley as well as the proposed Salden Chase and ever westward expanding Milton Keynes currently at Westcroft and Snelshall. There is also Lace Hill on the Winslow side of Buckingham. Does this area really need all these houses on top of the many thousands currently being built in the surrounding area? Where is everyone going to work, where are their leisure services, how is everyone going to get around because all this plan is showing is a vast housing estate plonked in the middle of a rural setting and relying on two transport infrastructure schemes that are funded by different sources and may never be opened.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 74 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-03-00720 Ruth Scott (Scott Travel Other Comments - I am appalled that WHA 001 has even been proposed, particularly in view of the infrastructure/transport Ltd) problems and pressure from Milton Keynes. The suggestion that the development "will use some facilities in Milton Keynes given it’s proximity” is widely misleading and way off the mark.....if built, these houses will be almost totally dependent on Milton Keynes! It is virtually inconceivable that new residents will travel to Buckingham, Winslow or Aylesbury (unless in very special circumstances), and for officers to make such comments shows they are ill-informed about the local situation. Speculators have apparently decided that the west side of MK offers them the best chances, even though MKC has more land to the North and East of the , which is much better located for sustainable development especially considering the already upgraded and extended road and rail infrastructure, together with the potential offered by Cranfield Technology Park, Cranfield Airport, Marston Gate Industry, Marston Thrift Nature Reserve, M1 motorway access, and the reserved canal corridor opening up tremendous leisure opportunities alongside the old Quarry pits around that already attracts a large number of water sport enthusiasts. It seems that this ‘ready made’ and sustainable area that already benefits from improved infrastructure to Bedford is being overlooked, for rural North Bucks that has little to offer yet – apart from the promise of an unproven rail link and an Expressway that has not yet come off the drawing board with a route for consideration!

VALP16-09-03-00726 Richard Dorrance Other Comments - My only other concern is that at least one of the land owners submitting land for development is a Parish Councillor who stands to benefit if the land is selected for development. While procedures are in place to ensure that any Councillor with a conflict of interest withdraws from formal Council discussions and decision making, I'm concerned that they will still have influence. I would like to see a rule that land owners who want to have their land selected for residential or commercial development should stand down as Councillors before their offer of land is considered by the planners. VALP16-09-04-00732 Andy Savage Other Comments - I am responding as a resident of Buckingham and my comments relate only to that part of the plan relating to Buckingham. I am also assuming that the plan accurately represents the housing need that needs to be satisfied and that the external pressures from the South of the county have been challenged suitably. For Buckingham, what I cannot see in the plan is land allocated for infrastructure, even though the increased number of houses would indicate a strong need for such things as: - Primary Schools (particularly to the West of the town) - Doctors' surgeries - sporting facilities - improved roads, i.e. where are the new dual carriageways to get traffic to and from the enlarged town? where is the western bypass to take traffic from the existing bypass to the Brackley road? - additional town centre parking so that the increased population can use and enjoy the town-centre facilities - where is our Waterside Theatre (there are no concert venues that hold an audience bigger than 200 people)? One final, specific, point: area BUC032 does not take into account of the fact that the latest planning application includes accommodation for over 100 university students; this will have an impact on the demand for housing elsewhere in the town.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 75 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00734 Michael Waterhouse Other Comments - I am sorry I was unable to negotiate the form but my comments relate to Cheddington: I am not satisfied that the terms of our democratically arrived at village plan are being overruled by the Vale plan in that we agreed that the Croft meadows site should not be developed but in the Vale plan it is promoted as a possible site for building. I don't think that our village should be used for unfulfilled quota from other areas which I understand include Luton and London.

VALP16-09-04-00736 Vivienne Pickett Other Comments - In reference to Cheddington: Our village has produced by a democratic referendum a plan for our village to accept the number of houses required for the Vale plan. In our plan Croft Meadows was outside the building land allocation. This should not be overruled by the Vale Plan. We should not be expected to take on unfulfilled quota from other areas, which in our case could include Luton and London. Each area should be obliged to fulfil there quota. VALP16-09-04-00738 Linda Kemp (Kemp's Other Comments - For months we had to put with massive notices in the village objecting to the turbine proposal, which made Farm) visitors feel the village was in permanent conflict. Whether in agreement or not can there be limits to this happening again.

VALP16-09-04-00739 Pierre & Wendy Hibble Other Comments - This submission is made on behalf of both Wendy and Pierre Hibble. We note that the Vale Plan is a draft document but even so is significantly lacking in critical details for transport, infrastructure and the longterm protection of our environment. While the ideals and principles that are liberally and oft repeated throughout the document may be generally endorsed there is no indication of how the authorities will maintain the objectives, enforce the plan controls or ensure the quality of life of residents is not adversely affected. Experience has shown that there is no integrated transport plan and that necessary infrastructure developments do not occur at the required time or consistent with housing developments. We would also comment for future consideration that the draft document is a lengthy and tortuous document. Is that really appropriate for the general public? Many people will fail to comment on significant issues that affect their future simply because they are deterred by the size and complexity of the document. VALP16-09-04-00743 Fiona Simmonds Other Comments - Living next to Kingsbrook and having had our home and lives totally destroyed by this development for the last 20 months, with years still to come - I would suggest that when considering building on this scale, particularly around such a small hamlet, that a substantial green boundary be placed around that hamlet in order to protect the hamlet, the local environment, the existing homes from damage, and to protect the existing residents privacy, health, mental and emotional welfare - all aspects of which have, and continue, to suffer injuriously. The human cost of this project is not "limited to one household" '- it is spread far and wide. The councillors who agreed to the design of this development would not, and could not tolerate or cope with what we have been subjected to for nearly 2 years now and no real end in sight. The detrimental impact on all aspects of life for existing residents should be enough given serious consideration and respect when agreeing designs of these developments. The council should raise their game considerably with regard to ensuring regulations for the protection of the general public and site workforce are a strictly adhered to. Many lives have been irrevocably shattered and no one is held responsible or accountable. No one should suffer such a massive human cost for development when it can be acheived without damage to health and existing property with just a few simple actions and decisions. Mistakes have been made which should never be repeated for Vale residents again.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 76 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00744 Cllr David Finch Other Comments - The representations contained in this response reflect accurately those agreed at an extremely well-attended meeting of Cheddington residents on 10th August 2016 (as reported in the Village Newsletter) I wholly support AVDC in its efforts to reject the excessive amount of housing imposed upon it through unmet need from surrounding areas such as High Wycombe and South Bucks. The Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) clearly shows that any development in Cheddington should be only on those sites designated by the CNP. As only part of the said site shown in the VALP has been designated for development tin the CNP, there is sufficient area to accommodate those extra houses as shown in the VALP if needed. 100 houses area already destined for Cheddington; the VALP is not the correct instrument to be used for re-assessment, but the local people acting through a revision of the CNP. The nomination of Croft Meadow in the VALP as a potential site for development was rejected at a meeting held on 10th August, open to all in the village and attended by a significant proportion of the local people. Croft Meadow is an integral part of the character of the village, being where the countryside meets the High Street within the village itself. Important views across the Chilterns would be lost if the meadow were developed, plus a heritage loss of ancient Ridge and Furrow.

VALP16-09-04-00745 Marianne Faux Other Comments - The representations contained in this response reflect accurately those agreed at an extremely well-attended meeting of Cheddington residents on 10th August 2016 (as reported in the Village Newsletter) VALP16-09-04-00746 Ian Denison Denison Other Comments - I am concerned that the viability for the whole VALP rests with a road infrastructure that is governed by a different controlling authority.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 77 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00750 Colin Read (Aston Other Comments - The need for the five year housing supply as required by the NPPF is the dominant factor governing the supply Clinton parish planning) of housing by the VALP. To fulfil these needs we can see the need for a new town, but it needs to be sited very carefully to avoid overwhelming any nearby village. This is surely relevant and will abide by the statement in S3 para a) should not compromise the open character between settlements, and para b) should not result in negative impact on identities of neighbouring settlements. We note the evaluation of the green belt and would like confirmation of the exact position of the proposed release of green belt within Halton Camp and the land north of Wendover. There has also been speculation concerning land to the north of Upper Icknield Way and south of the . We would like the status of this area to be clarified as well.This could have implications to the viewpoints from our village towards the AONB of the Chilterns. The preservation of these views is mentioned towards the latter part of the proposal. We will be seeking designation of Local Green Spaces for Aston Clinton Park and Green Park. The scrutiny of the unmet needs from Wycombe and Chiltern district is most welcome as we feel this is far to easy an option for these two districts to offload their housing requirements onto Aylesbury Vale. The desire to change Aylesbury into a garden city is a laudable aim but needs to be carefully thought through. Trying to complete a ring road may well have the effect of people routing around Aylesbury to visit MK, Watford, Brent Cross, or Oxford. This would concur with your thoughts that people would drive a fair way to go destination shopping. We don't think the two hours quoted is reasonable, but an hour is, and all those mentioned are within that range. Having several series of traffic lights to enter town is not conducive to attracting shoppers, neither is high car parking charges, and permanent bus lanes. Whatever your wishes people will continue to use their cars and you must attract them if you are to be successful in transforming the town. The assessment that Aston Clinton requires no more housing is welcome. We note the quoted approvals in the plan are 345. We would like to point out that approvals now sit at around 700 without the huge amount proposed for the enterprise zone of Woodlands. Because of this we must have traffic mitigation to restrict the flow through the village and alongside this the completion of the sound barrier on the A41, south side, to reduce the oppressive noise reaching the village northern dwellings. Regards Colin Read on behalf of Aston Clinton Parish Council.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 78 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00753 Alan Branch Other Comments - I have lived in Newton Longville for twenty five odd years, moving up from London through work. I am passionate to retain Newton Longville as a rural community, whilst realising growth has to happen.

Both my son and my daughter are employed in an essential service, with one a teacher and the other a police officer, neither can, at the moment, afford to purchase a property. I am therefore also passionate that the young should be given a chance to get on the property ladder without having to pay money to a landlord to simply allow that person to purchase more property.

With regards to the housing proposals I have no objection to developing land outside my village but the village must stay just that, a village, not a through route between one road and another! With regards to housing the cost of housing is being fuelled by the ability of those with the funds to purchase being allowed to make capital from being able to buy more property than they need.

VALP16-09-04-00755 Joyce Docherty Other Comments - These representations reflect those agreed at a well-attended public meeting of Cheddington residents on 10th August 2016. VALP16-09-04-00756 Andrew Docherty Other Comments - These representations reflect those agreed at a well-attended public meeting of Cheddington residents on 10th August, as reported in the Village Newsletter (attached).

If the cover statement 'Our plan is Your plan' is to be more than hyperbole, decisions taken about such matters as appropriate site allocations, should be a matter for the residents and the businesses of AVDC. VALP16-09-04-00762 Gary Powell (AVDC) Other Comments - The Draft VALP is an outstanding document that clearly represents many hours of conscientious work. It represents an optimistic and forward-looking vision for Aylesbury. VALP16-09-04-00763 Steven Kay Other Comments - I think that the land around Cheddington Station is ripe for development as a small Eco Settlement with support for easy pedestrian and cycle access to the Station. I am surprised that the area around the Station has not been more developed in the past. VALP16-09-04-00765 David Richards Other Comments - I am completely disgusted by this consultation process. I have now filled the comment sections in twice, and the system has lost my comments or most of them on both occasions. VALP16-09-04-00774 Caroline Liggett Other Comments - The number of houses proposed for Haddenham is much too high, and the infrastructure of the village will not cope. Following the excellent information provided by Haddenham Parish Council, I cannot see this as a positive development to the heritage and community of the village. We have already seen the erosion of agricultural areas with housing and industrial units, this further growth to our village's landscape is irresponsible and badly thought through. VALP16-09-04-00776 Andrew Norfolk Other Comments - This form is very confusing to fill in and as a consequence I would expect a very poor turnout of people who will actually bother to fill it in . The things that really matter to people are where these so called new housing is going to be built and what it means to there village moving forward In our village we are told we need 80 units which is ridiculous but are parish council as been asked to identify a site that the majority of our residents prefer this site is GU009 on the map for Grendon underwood and would keep the linear layout and while out the need for backland building

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 79 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00777 Peter Lynch Other Comments - 1. The evidence presented showed a massive oversupply of employment land. I did not find any serious examination of the option of re-using that land other than the mixed use redevelopment of the town centre. Use of green field land should be the last resort.

2. Airfield is a site of national significance as the home of the LAA as well as being a significant local high skill employer. Turweston and the other airfields in the district should be left alaone. VALP16-09-04-00780 Linda Fisher Other Comments - i am opposed to the building of new Homes that will add noise and traffic pollution and fundamentally change haddenham. I have not seen any ideas about how to mitigate against this, no ideas as to how to stop the core/central part of the village becoming a rat race. Housing density is worse than in wycombe and yet this is fundamentally a village. I recognize that people need to live somewhere but quite frankly as they have realized in the US, we are not building the right sort of homes in the right places with the right travel costs and infrastructure. I will be very disappointed if there are no clear plans on traffic management etc

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 80 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00781 Michael Curry Other Comments - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan – Consultation.

We have two comments to make with regard to the published draft Local Plan.

Firstly the target housing provision is unsustainable with the plan containing insufficient investment in encouraging local employment and providing the necessary infrastructure to sustain the growth, especially in transport.

Whilst land allocations for employment have been made in theory there is insufficient detail on how the sites will be filled and jobs created in practice. Detail on how the allocations will be used to meet the profile of future needs is sparse. Without this such designated land get released for further residential development once the dust of a new Local Plan has settled.

The Aylesbury Vale road network is already suffering two severe problems. The state of the rural roads is appalling and Bucks County Council struggles to keep the major routes acceptable. They have insufficient funding to achieve any improvement and the funding that they do have is threatened by further economic restraint.

The journey across Aylesbury on the A41 was quoted in a national newspaper as one of the five most congested journeys in the country in terms of the ratio between the journey time at peak time and the journey time normally. There is no detail on how the proposed road improvements will be able to cope with the increased demand from the proposed housing growth e.g. the school run and the journey to work (The viability of providing local employment opportunities where alternative means of transport would be feasible has already been questioned).

Hence any new investment in the highways will not be maintained and the traffic will get from one bottleneck to the next a bit quicker for a while until everything grinds to a halt. Frustrated motorists will look for rat runs through urban residential areas or the small local villages hastening the deterioration of the rural roads.

Our second comment is specific to the proposed development in Wingrave, specifically proposed site WGR001 Land off Church Street. This site was rejected in the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, soon to go to referendum. A planning application in the adjacent field was recently rejected by ADVC and the decision upheld on appeal (15/01884/AOP). The Planning Inspector was particularly damning of the application in terms of the danger to pedestrians and road users. It is that this allocation should be included in the Local Plan when the Council’s own officers have already deemed the area as unsuitable for development – a decision supported by the Planning Inspectorate – is inconceivable. There are alternative sites that are not dangerous and do less harm to the countryside.

Michael & Ann Curry 23 Church Street Wingrave, Aylesbury Bucks, HP22 4PE

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 81 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00784 Paul Tattam Other Comments - 1)A wrong strategy

In the Issues & Options consultation, the vast majority of comments clearly asked AVDC to consider a strategy for growth other than placing a vast amount of development to the South of Aylesbury, which clearly creates coalescence 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 so many people.

2)Housing numbers

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.

3)Provision of a new settlement

The VALP needs to genuinely consider locations for a new settlement, not Haddenham or Winslow, with the potential for good infrastructure links to the M40 and East- West rail. One or two new settlements could significantly take the pressure off much of the housing growth ‘shoehorned’ in around Aylesbury.

4)Major information gaps in the Draft Plan

In any case, 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.

5)A woefully incomplete and flawed Transport Strategy

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 82 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment The council is inviting comments on the Aylesbury Transport Strategy. Yet the only information on the Aylesbury Transport strategy is a very top line overview with inadequate detail to make development decisions for future generations. The basic premise of the model effectively inflates the traffic situation in the “Do Minimum” scenario and thus underestimates the true impact of the council’s proposals. Yet, even given that the model that underestimates traffic flows AVDC’s plan will have a severe impact on the road system. AVDC’s own consultants conclude that “it is unlikely that the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues in its current form”. The model underestimates the traffic flows around Aylesbury by typically 5% in peak periods - a significant error. Such a crucial piece of work demands that an appropriate and accurate model should be used. The council, of course, is well aware of the importance of this work, given that it has recently experienced a significant adverse Secretary of State decision, which cited traffic as a major issue in Aylesbury Town. It is also clear that the planned development would significantly worsen congestion on the A41 Tring Road, the A413 Wendover Road and in particular the Gyratory system in Aylesbury. The model does not address the fact that there is very little long distance traffic to bypass Aylesbury. The Jacobs traffic report demonstrates this, as do the limited Road Side Interviews that have been produced. What little transport information that is published with the plan clearly shows that the thinking behind the orbital link road strategy around the south of Aylesbury is seriously flawed. The council should at the very least publish the information, which prompted AVDC and BCC to pursue an “Orbital Strategy”.

6) Flaws in the Council’s Policies

Many of the council’s own polices conflict with the strategy: • The VALP facilitates an overarching strategy that leads to coalescence between Aylesbury and Weston Turville, and Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville. Thus directly conflicting Policy S3.

• The strategy to put mass development to the South of Aylesbury shows significant increases in traffic at key Air Quality Management Areas, especially at the gyratory system in the town. This will further worsen the air quality and associated health risks. Conflicting Policy NE5.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 83 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment • There is no Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The Council has no idea if the required infrastructure to deliver an Aylesbury Garden Town can be delivered, as it is not yet within the VALP documents. Conflicting Policy C4.

Many policies are written in a way that would allow them to be disputed. They need to be much more explicit. For example • Policies D5 and D6 state that housing numbers for Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville, Bierton and Aston Clinton are included in Aylesbury numbers and thus no additional housing requirement is needed in these villages. Policies D5 and D6 merely state that development “will not normally be permitted”. This wording needs to be changed to say that development will be resisted in all circumstances. Sites in other areas need to be considered first in the event of the plan “not being delivered at the anticipated rate”

• Policy D1 seeks to put 15,845 new houses mainly to the South of Aylesbury but claims that this will be delivered to “maximise the positive and minimize the negative impacts of development on existing communities”. This is a meaningless phrase. Further, D1 states, “All development should contribute to meeting the Aylesbury Transport Strategy”. This needs to be changed to “will contribute to the Aylesbury Transport Strategy” otherwise it will be rejected.

7) Areas of Attractive Landscape

Particularly sensitive or highly valued landscapes between Aylesbury and the villages should be specifically protected particularly Hampden Fields and the area of West End ditch that runs between Weston Turville and Bedgrove. The amount of development proposed in the plan (HELAA) for Hampden Fields is wholly inappropriate in this context and strongly resisted.

8) Flooding

The Sustainability Appraisal shows serious issues of flooding on the Woodlands site. This brings the whole strategy to develop Woodlands into question and especially the alignment of the road through the site. Summary Overall, the VALP is flawed and incomplete in some key areas fundamental to good planning, principally traffic and infrastructure. This renders the current consultation meaningless. Also, the weakness of the policies contained in the draft Plan strongly suggests no more than another post-rationalised attempt to put housing where the council wants it. This does not align with the claimed desire for ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’.

What should happen now? Accordingly, the VALP plan process should be paused until genuine options have been considered based on appropriate evidence especially a full and publicly consulted Aylesbury Transport Strategy. There must be a better plan and we want to work with AVDC to construct it.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 84 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00785 Jayne Evans Other Comments - I am objecting to large areas of new housing in rural villages and towns where the occupants of the housing will need to commute to work and the transport infrastructure road or rail, is not in place. This will mean congestion when everyone will be unable to travel to work or school. The roads are already heavily congested at rush hour and this beginning earlier and earlier.

VALP16-09-04-00787 John Bromley Other Comments - draft proposals for the routing of a east west improvement to the existing A421 adjacent to the proposed East- West rail line will split the town of Winslow into two against the wishes of the agreed Winslow Neighbourhood Plan. VALP16-09-04-00789 Angie Ravn-Aagaard Other Comments - Bletchley Park Area Residents Association (BPARA), has been representing the interests of households in West (Bletchley Park Area Bletchley in the vicinity of Bletchley Park for 26 years - it also supported the preservation of the now renowned Bletchley Park. Residents Association) BPARA is also member of the Salden Chase sub-committee set up by WBC to oppose that development 5 years ago, and its reincarnation under the name of SWMK Consortium. More recently, BPARA has been a member of COBRA which represents the views of many residents in Bletchley, Fenny Stratford & Newton Leys. BPARA is also a member of the Eaton Leys Development Working Group. BPARA is not opposed to new housing developments, but we must have 'I before E' (Infrastructure before Expansion). The Draft Local Plan and development on sites adjacent to Milton Keynes - this has been drafted to fit with developments already being driven by developers who appear to have no scruples when it comes to building their houses and industrial units on Milton Keynes' doorstep, and tapping into services within Milton Keynes, which in turn absolves Aylesbury Vale from having to provide the necessary infrastructure to support these developments. For instance: a. there is no indication how healthcare will funded, nor any reference to consultation with NHS England - Bletchley GP surgeries are closed to new patients, MK Hospital struggles to cope with an increasing Milton Keynes population: b. there is no indication how extra secondary school places will be funded, and of course c. Bletchley & MK roads are already congested. The Draft Local Plan looks like a 'wish list' and not a properly researched, strategic local plan, and must align with Plan MK, currently being drafted. Consequently, the proposals concerning land adjacent to Milton Keyne s should be removed or worded as a mere possibility for consideration at a later stage. VALP16-09-04-00790 rachel baker Other Comments - New housing badly needed for local, younger people to make village sustainable. The village is fast becoming a ghetto for the middle class, wealthy elderly. Currently only 25% of children in the local school live in the village with the remaining 75% being driven in each day from the outlying area resulting in increased traffic and parking problems, making it more dangerous for the local children who do walk to school and inconvenient for residents. The current facilities in the village are poor (e.g. village hall & pavilion) and the additional income from the council tax Ickford precept from additional housing could be used to modernise these facilities and improve drainage.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 85 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-04-00792 John Griffiths Other Comments - I have severe concerns about the level of development of new housing provision there is in the plan. The 21,000 homes required in 15 years alone is huge, let alone the additional 12,000 required from neighbouring districts.

AVDC is a rural and very beautiful part of the country, and simply accepting this level of housing will have a huge effect on the standard of living of many people in the district.

For Haddenham, the flat land, close to a well-connected train station may seem very tempting to build lots of new houses, but attempts to build a new settlement here would cause many issues, including: - ruination of a historic village and heritage character - traffic chaos, because the village roads are not designed for significant additional housing - loss of high grade agricultural land - destroying high quality rural views of the chilterns - impacts on Thame - lack of infrastructure and services in Haddenham. VALP16-09-04-00793 Jonathan Seabrook Other Comments - I also support the comments and feedback submitted by The Wendover Society.

VALP16-09-04-00794 Barry Martindale Other Comments - please include maps of proposals in the Plan rather than in the evidence section.

VALP16-09-04-00797 Emily Godfrey (River Other Comments - The water environment is severely neglected in this plan. There is no mention of minimum distance from Thame Conservation watercourses for planned developments and no plans in place to make improvements specifically to our rivers (although there are Trust) mentions of techniques that could be used). Highlighting the issues of sewage treatment, fly-tipping in water courses and dealing with surface water run off should all be featured in the plan with regard to specific river environments. Protecting and creating pristine freshwater environments (ponds in particular) should also be considered as river water quality will, with no doubt, decline further due to an increase in sewage input. We would also like to see that local partners, such as ourselves, are included in deciding where potential environmental improvement works can take place.

We would recommend that in order to address these recommendations that there is a section that is dedicated specifically to water. This could focus on a range of issues but allow water to have more of a focus.We are happy to liaise further on this if it helps.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 86 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00800 Margret Smith Other Comments - Cheddington Parish Council’s Response to the VALP Consultation Document (Cheddington PC) Cheddington Parish Council (CPC) is concerned that Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) appears to have accepted a policy that has resulted in the “unmet needs” of adjacent Districts all being transferred into Aylesbury Vale (AV) , without any reciprocity for the outward transfer of AV’s unmet needs into adjacent areas, and have adopted this as a fundamental assumption for preparing this Local Plan. This has increased AVDC’s housing requirement by over 50% over its own “Objectively Assessed” needs. It is difficult to find any rigorous analysis by AVDC to justify this policy and the consequent extent of inward transfer of housing needs; there is no evidence of the extent to which AVDC has robustly challenged the size of these unmet needs, or that they have ensured that the other Districts have been using assumptions consistent and compatible with AVDC’s in making their assessments.CPC would therefore encourage AVDC in challenging the level of unmet need to be met from surrounding authorities.

CPC would point out that the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) has been adopted with the village supporting the view that the development in Cheddington should be only on those sites designated by the CNP. 100+ houses are proposed in the CNP. CPC would point out that only PART of the site that is shown in the VALP been designated for development in the CNP and therefore there is ample room on this site to accommodate the extra houses outlined in the VALP. In any event CPC believes that any future housing requirements should be identified via formal review of the current Neighbourhood Plan /development of the next one. This being the case CPC would therefore suggest that the inclusion of Croft Meadow (or any other site) in the VALP, as reserve site is unnecessary at this time and should therefore be removed.

VALP16-09-05-00802 Ruth Hewitt (Admiral Other Comments - Additional housing needs to be placed in 'town' areas. More housing in village locations makes the village a town Costumes) with no facilities. Villages have poor reception, broadband, electricity cuts in bad weather and poor freeview TV A good infrastructure of roads and facilities needs to be in place BEFORE more housing and traffic. VALP16-09-05-00806 Jeff_ Deacon Other Comments - This "consultation", like similar exercises by developers, is only interested in imposing the authors' wishes on the unfortunates who get in their way. There is no evidence that the people of my village (or indeed any other) wished for this policy. Nothing other than top down Statist Central Planning. VALP16-09-05-00807 Angela Truesdale Other Comments - This has been a very difficult consultation questionnaire to complete and I can imagine that it has put off a lot of residents who do not have the skills. Although I can appreciate that the quality of the data needs specific comments against specific areas there must be an easier format. VALP16-09-05-00808 John Mayhead Other Comments - A, Presentation of plan The supporting detail available on the internet is obviously comprehensive but the plan as presented at the local road show and in the summary document handed out does not explain sufficiently, in my view, the reasoning and justification for the range of proposals presented. The road show meeting was unsatisfactory in that it concentrated on the more macro issues facing AVDC and had insufficient detail as to how the specific location (in my case Wendover) could be affected. The attitude of the AVDC staff, albeit friendly seemed to be ‘my job is just to identify potential sites and I don’t care about issues of infrastructure or the effect on the existing community’. This was disappointing as obviously as a resident of an affected area the issues of how the large number of new homes was to be served is of great importance.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 87 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00809 Fred Martin Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field sites, which are significantly more suitable for development. VALP16-09-05-00810 ken brown Other Comments - I believe Cuddington should not be upgraded to medium village for the criteria given. The population and infrastructure of the village has not been taken into account. What if the Post Office was to close will then be down graded to a small village. The criteria for grading villages should consider more factors before allocating a village status. The main roads into Cuddington are not wide enough to allow constant traffic flows.

Also Cuddington should be linked to Haddenham Village there is no safe way of getting to Haddenham, no bus service, no pedestrian walk ways, no street lighting.

It is clear that Haddenham is a small village with minimum facilities and certainly not enough facilities to include it as a medium size village.

It is the intention of building a large number of dwelling in the Aylesbury Vale District on farm land. I do believe that buildings should not be built on grade 1 farmland.

ADVC should not be taking on other Districts commitment to providing their housing quotas. VALP16-09-05-00817 Sam Weeden Other Comments - I have tried to add my comments using the online form but I don't find your website very easy to use.

VALP16-09-05-00818 Sara Jones (Delta Other Comments - Appendix A Planning on behalf of Land east of Buckingham Road GAW002 - Support is given to the proposed allocation of this site for residential development. The University of Objection however is raised to the level of housing proposed on this site. It is currently identified as suitable for accommodating 10 Buckingham) dwellings but is capable of a yield of around 40, as shown on the attached plan, to assist in meeting the Council's housing requirement. VALP16-09-05-00819 Arthur Reed Other Comments - I regard the draft proposals for vast housing developments south of Aylesbury totally unacceptable. They would totally destroy the character of the existing villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville as the proposed developments are out of all proportion to the surrounding long established communities. They would destroy the valuable countryside between the villages and Aylesbury which currently provides a convenient area for walking in the various footpaths. Retention of the footpaths without preserving the surrounding countryside is not a solution. Such large developments will have a dire impact on the traffic in the surrounding areas. Massive congestion will result which in turn will increase pollution and noise. As an example Station Road in Stoke Mandeville already suffers queues over most of its length in both directions at peak times. Further development should not be considered unless and until the current traffic problems are mitigated.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 88 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00820 Christine Yates (EDaN Other Comments - I am in agreement with your comments to keep our village's beautiful views. I only hope you will stand by this. (Edlesborough, Dagnall Many of the sites are totally unsuitable which have been put forward and you have addressed these issues. Please do not let 106 & Northall) community issues cloud these sensible assessments and keep our village housing allocations to a very minimum. projects) We believe the total housing allocation is far too large. We are NOT a large village!! VALP16-09-05-00821 Carol McCullock Other Comments - Hi,

First of all I would like to state that I appreciate VADC are in a 'no win' situation and will never be able to please everyone.

All I ask is that you look at the already overcrowded roads, retail parks, schools etc.

Not so long ago I only used to dread going into Aylesbury at Christmas time as it became so busy. Now it is like that all the time.

You have to 'pick' your time to drive into Aylesbury otherwise you are looking at sitting in traffic 3 miles out, before you reach the jams in the town itself.

The surrounding villages are just as busy with their infrastructure already stretched to the limit.

The area cannot take an increase in population, it will already struggle with the natural increase from the existing residents.

I work in London (and have lived there), if development carries on at the current rate there will be very little difference between the two; no more friendly communities, increase in crime and anti social behaviour. At least London's schools/shops are more equipped to deal with it's population, sadly it's roads aren't and never will be. This is a prime example that if you provide more roads (M25), they are victims of their own success.

We don't even have the infrastructure to cope.

Why can't a new town be built elsewhere? I appreciate you are being pressured by government and In no way am I suggesting that I have the answers but I can not see how adding to the existing problems will benefit anyone that will be affected?

VALP16-09-05-00825 elizabeth evans Other Comments - I am totally against any further building in Aylesbury especially the Hampdens Field. There has been no extra provision for NHS with our hospital at breaking point along with doctors surgeries. It is very difficult to get appointments now without all these extra people moving in.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 89 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00827 Jenny Armitstead Other Comments - We have been redesignated as a medium size village due to our amenities which have not changed since we were designated a small village.We have a village shop,which was saved by the local residents,it is a community shop.This was supported by AV and now we are being penalised as we had the drive and energy to save our shop.The shop is only viable as the rent is reduced to encourage the leaseholder to stay there.The school is not able to expand and is oversubscribed,just 25% of pupils attend the school,the remainder come from Worminghall 25%,Shabbington,Oakley,Long Crendon.we can no longer expand and take any increase in numbers.We are all designated a medium village as we have a bus service,it is only a service - not viable - when secondary pupils are transported to Aylesbury in the morning and afternoon.This is not a bus service and would not be acknowledged as such under scrutiny.We also have two businesses: one is made up of self employed and is not generating local employment .We are not a thriving community but have reached our viable size with the facilities we have and which are shared by all the other surrounding villages.Why should we be penalised for these facilities by being designated a medium village when they still remain a small village as they have not fought and financially provided for these facilities?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 90 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00830 Manlet Group Holdings Other Comments - 10.1Appendix A of the draft VALP includes a Potential Housing Allocation for Land East and South of Croft Meadows (ref. CHE001). The draft VALP suggests that the site has the potential for 58 dwellings. 10.2The Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) May 2016 assessed CHE001. The HELAA stated that “the area flanking the mainline railway on the eastern side is unsuitable for development due to the impact of the local amenity from noise and visual intrusion of the railway. The western part of the site is suitable for housing (at a potential density of around 35 dph) providing a suitable green buffer between the development and railway line with a link to the recreation ground is designed. Any development would need to take into account the impact on long distance views of Ivinghoe Beacon and highway issues due to limited site frontage.” 10.3The HELAA considered that CHE001 would be part suitable for housing development and achievable and that it could provide up to 58 dwellings (40 dwellings in 1 – 5 years and a further 18 in 6 – 15 years). 10.4The HELAA considered 12 sites in Cheddington village and overall considered only two suitable for housing (CHE005 and CHE006) and one part suitable for housing (CHE001). 10.5CHE005 & CHE006 are already allocated for residential development in the Cheddington Neighbourhood Plan and a planning application has recently been submitted for residential development on these sites (ref. 16/02806/AOP). 10.6The remaining nine sites were considered unsuitable for housing (see Appendix 3). CHE001 (Land East and South of Croft Meadows) Assessment 10.7Whilst a buffer has been provided between CHE001 and the railway line, it should be recognised that the mainline tracks are elevated and therefore a significant buffer and noise mitigation would be essential to protect future residents from train noise. Indeed, given the elevated nature of the mainline tracks and the speed of some trains along this route, it is unlikely that sufficient mitigation would be possible. In the absence of a proper noise assessment, the Council’s assessment of CHE001 is therefore flawed. 10.8CHE001 is located to the south of the village and therefore development would bring more traffic through the village, increasing congestion. Land east and south of Croft Meadows is also located at one of the furthest points in the village from the railway station, more than 20 minutes’ walk from the station. CHE001 is also located significantly further from the main employment area of Cheddington (Mansworth Airfield) than the other sites assessed. This site is therefore likely to require more trips by car, travelling through the village in order to travel to work/commute. 10.9In addition, it is understood that there is currently no point of access to CHE001 and therefore the certainty of delivery on this site is questioned. CHE003 and CHE011 Assessment 10.10Land at Station Road, Cheddington is a suitable development site and should be considered as the Council’s preferred housing site. 10.11The site is located to the north of the village at the junction of Mentmore Road, Station Road, and Long Marston Road.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 91 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00831 Isabel Malein Other Comments - I'm writing to voice my dismay at the news that our village is being targeted for huge housing development by AVDC. As it is we are only just managing to absorb the new housing developments at Pegasus Way and by the station. Our schools, doctors and shops are not geared to the proposed scale of development. Our village roads are becoming further congested and we wish to keep Haddenham as a village development. It lacks the facilities for town style development. Where is the road infrastructure to cope with the influx of cars and traffic generated by the construction of new housing developments? Our roads are too narrow and already congested. Please note my firm rejection of the housing plan for houses at the top of Churchway and along Aston Road. Yours faithfully, VALP16-09-05-00832 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - The above comments are submitted in the context of the site shown outlined in red on the attached plan and Collinge Planning which is considered suitable and appropriate to accommodate a proportion of the anticipated growth for Granborough Consultancy Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00835 John Bond Other Comments - We have been living in Haddenham since 1987 and we think it is an excellent place to live. We brought up our children here and we are now in retirement here. The attraction of the village is that it is surrounded by beautiful countryside, it has excellent facilities and the people here are very friendly. We also run a self- catering holiday cottage here and our visitors confirm to us with every booking that it is an excellent place to spend time. One other attraction of Haddenham is the public transport: a very good bus and train service. VALP16-09-05-00836 G and J Garratt Other Comments - We wish to comment as follows: 1.We understand and accept that there is a duty to co-operate with surrounding district councils. However, for this process to be fair, the planning criteria must be common across the whole area in particular, housing density and allowance for tree cover. We understand that Wycombe are using 12 houses per hectare whereas Aylesbury are using 30. This is totally unacceptable. 2.Other councils appear not to be considering releasing green belt sites but Haddenham is expected to release prime agricultural land which will become more essential for the country following Brexit. 3.Much is made of Haddenham and Thame Parkway as an attraction. However, neither the station or indeed Chiltern Rail can hardly cope now with passenger numbers. This will be exacerbated by developments in both Bicester and Banbury areas. The whole rail system will need significant upgrading before any housing development should be considered. 4.In all these development proposals, they all concentrate on housing numbers. There is no mention of providing facilities such as schools, health centres, shops, roads etc. or even employment. 5.Haddenham should NOT be a strategic settlement. It is a village which cannot be transformed into a town. It does not have a suitable centre essential for any substantial development. Haddenham has a large conservation area with 120 listed buildings many constructed of wychert which is unique to this area and should not be lost.

We trust that you will take these constructive comments into consideration.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 92 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00840 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - The comments set out above are made in the context of the area of land shown outlined in red on the attached Collinge Planning plan (Madges Farm Phase 2). There is currently an application for outline planning permission for residential development and Consultancy Ltd) associated facilities on the land to the south of the site and fronting Chearsley Road (and which is identified as a suitable for development in the draft plan). The proposed site would be a continuation of Phase 1 and would deliver all, or a significant proportion, of the additional housing requirements for the village as set out in the Draft Plan. VALP16-09-05-00841 Sara Jones (Delta Other Comments - Appendix A Planning on behalf of Crevichon Properties Land at Buckingham road Winslow should be allocated for residential development Ltd) VALP16-09-05-00842 Mrs Caroline Aston Other Comments - There is no evidence that the proposal for 600 houses would be deliverable and satisfy the criteria in the plan

VALP16-09-05-00847 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - This submission is made in the context of the extent of land shown outlined in red on the attached plan. This Collinge Planning land, which forms part of allocation HAD007 in the draft Plan, is available and can (and is being) brought forward for development Consultancy Ltd) independently of the remainder of the allocation on HAD007 and would deliver a sustainable and appropriate form of development.

VALP16-09-05-00848 Frank Macey Other Comments - As a resident of Ickford I am concerned about the reclassification of Ickford & the implications for housing developments. Your quantitative assessment of facilities omits other factors which would make developments with 50+ houses very problematic. * we do have a shop but it is maintained by resident subsidy which may not be permanent * we do have a school but is already at capacity * drainage & sewerage struggle even with the present population * flooding is still a regular risk Of the sites proposed SHLICK 006 would have very narrow access for the cars etc of 50 homes & SHLICK 005 is outside the village limits & as such is unacceptable given current AVDC policy to maintain the spacing between villages.

VALP16-09-05-00849 Ian and Sue Harper Other Comments - If all these proposals go ahead, the whole area from Aylesbury to Thame to Princes Risborough will become one huge building site – is this really what we want? We say NO. We feel it was disingenuous of AVDC to limit the consultation period to two months in summer when many people would be on holiday or looking after children on their summer break, and not allowing them time to read many long and complicated documents.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 93 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00850 Brenda and John Other Comments - Dear sirs, Chamberlain. We agree that a local plan is vital for the planning of new development in the vale of Aylesbury, but we feel we need to express our concern that Newton longville is not the place to put it.

Having lived in this village for 40+ years it has been terrible to see the amount of traffic increase that has occurred. This village is now a horrendous rat run from the A421 through to the Stoke Hammond bypass and as we live 100 yards from the village cross roads on Stoke Road we can personally testify to the thousands of cars and lorries that now thunder past our house and the accidents they cause.

This village wants to stay a village. We do not want to become a small town or a satellite of Milton Keynes.

From what we have read it seems that the south of the county is dodging its responsibilities to take more housing by using green belt areas as an excuse for not having their fare share of development.

All villages want to protect their boundaries but as we are so close to Milton Keynes the traffic problems ruining this village are more significant than in other villages.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 94 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00853 Suzanne Lindsey Other Comments - Whaddon P.C. repeat here exactly what we said at the commencement of this consultation response, just in (Whaddon Parish case we have put this section in the wrong location! Council) Thank you for considering the WPC response and councillors and residents that have helped formulate this response hope that VALP officers will take all points made, carefully into account as they move forward with the next stage of plan preparation.

1 BACKGROUND

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.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 95 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 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.

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. PLEASE NOTE, that generally, those items in italics are direct quotes taken from the VALP document.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 96 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00856 S Raven Other Comments - Evidence Documents (Continued) - Sustainability Appraisal Nash site ref NSH003 We wish to comment on reasons cited for certain of the assessments for this site and respectfully submit that as a result consideration be given to reducing the following impact ratings to negligible (0): •Cultural heritage – the site’s southern boundary abuts the Nash central Conservation Area. However, the part of the Conservation Area abutting is all recent new housing. Although this has been constructed to be in keeping with the main Conservation Area along the Stratford Road to its south, it is of no intrinsic architectural or historic interest itself. The site is screened by this new housing from any historic buildings along the Stratford Road so does not affect their setting. It is a question whether there is justifiable reason for the Conservation Area to encompass this new housing and whether the bounds should be reviewed. •Landscape – the site is set low and substantially enclosed within the built form of the village. Its location should not mean that development would alter the Whaddon Chase LLA to the east of the village since it is screened from any direct view by the built environment and vegetation. There are no key views or vistas across the site according to the Nash Conservation Area Review (AVDC 2007). •Biodiversity – the hedgerow along the western side of the site that is specifically identified is not in the ownership of the site and so would not be removed or destroyed. It is in any case very sparse and almost non-existent, therefore of low intrinsic value as a wildlife corridor. •Natural Resources - the land is in an area of Grade 3 agricultural land but while there has been no formal land quality assessment of the site, it is a small area (0.45ha) of enclosed improved pasture used only for occasional grazing in recent years and prior to that since the 1950s as a horse paddock. It therefore does not constitute a loss of Grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land.

VALP16-09-05-00857 Cho Wong Other Comments - 1.5 It is alleged that the Plan is a result of ADVC trying to help Wycombe District Council because WDC themselves could not or unwilling to come up with suitable plans to fulfil their own quotas or obligations. VALP16-09-05-00859 Dave watkins Other Comments - My comments about the Draft VALP future housing plan. My concern is only the density of the housing proposed. I do believe that there is a serious trend of building houses in this country so small and so close to each other and with a density that stifles people. The small patches of land allocated to each house does not allow anybody to really live in these places for the long term.

The housing estate on the East of Alylesbury (Buckingham Park) as an example:- There is very little space outside the 4 wall of the houses. No place to kick a ball. No encouragement due to the limited space to allow people to take pride in developing a garden. No place for visitors to park without turning the street into a car park.

I object to the poor quality of housing estate design. Better to take up more land area than cage people / families up in such built up designs. Yes we need the housing but don’t build slums of the future.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 97 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00863 David Peck Other Comments - 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.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 98 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00867 Susan Peck Other Comments - 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 Other Comments - This submission is made in the context of the extent of land shown outlined in red on the attached plan. This Collinge Planning land, which forms part of allocation HAD007 in the draft Plan, is available and can be brought forward for development independently Consultancy Ltd) of the remainder of the allocation on HAD007 and would deliver a sustainable and appropriate form of development that would not prejudice the ability to develop other component parts of allocation HAD007

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 99 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00869 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - This submission is made in the context of the extent of land shown outlined in red on the attached plan. This Collinge Planning land, which forms part of allocation HAD007 in the draft Plan, is available and can be brought forward for development independently Consultancy Ltd) of the remainder of the allocation on HAD007 and would deliver a sustainable and appropriate form of development that would not prejudice the ability to develop other component parts of allocation HAD007. The site has been examined and there are no technical or other constraints to the site coming forward for development. VALP16-09-05-00870 Michael Yates Other Comments - Edlesborough is not a large village as stated within plan, although I accept that some housing is required within the village but is should be houses of a smaller type for future downsizing, retirement and young people, The school is vastly overused and attentional pupils will create further congestion to the village high street due to parking, the local utility are stretched to there limit at present. The propose site opposite the school EDL009 will create problems to access to high street a accident to happen for school kids. VALP16-09-05-00871 Mary Hunt (Aylesbury Other Comments - Since much of this plan is about the infrastructure that will be provided we would like to see Buckinghamshire Vale Green Party) County Councillors and employees at the next consultation so that we can believe that the appropriate infrastructure will, in fact, be delivered in a timely fashion.

We have made many points, some relate to the County Council infrastructure, but since AVDC is co-ordinating this plan we ask them to take notice.

We believe that where pulic land is used for the provision of housing, it should either remain in public ownership or be transferred to a Community Land Trust to preserve it as a community-owned asset. Where any public land or homes are transferred to a co- operative, a legally binding demutualisation clause should be written into the contract to ensure as far as possible that they aren't subsequently privatised. VALP16-09-05-00873 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - This submission is made in the context of the attached site (land off Kestrel Way, Watermead, Aylesbury) which Collinge Planning represents a logical, small-scale extension to the existing settlement form, in a highly sustainable location, and without any physical, Consultancy Ltd) technical or other planning constraint to the development of the site. Indeed, the site is available and deliverable.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 100 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00874 Philip Morley Other Comments - On a general note, government policy is fundamentally flawed - it fails to encourage employment growth outside the south , leaving the former industrial sites in the north of England derelict with low employment opportunities. Meanwhile, in the south east, we merrily build over the already limited green spaces.

Wendover is situated right on the edge of the AONB, and this limits the locations available for development. Whilst it may be frustrating to AVDC that development sites are limited, this is not an excuse to re-classify Green Belt land. Where does this stop? Also, the situation in Aylesbury Vale (and particularly Wendover) is exacerbated by the fact that no housing can be built within the AONB itself. These additional housing requirements should be distributed way beyond Aylesbury Vale.

Wendover is labelled as a Strategic Development. This terminology loses the true character of Wendover - which should accurately be considered to be a small market town. Whilst it is unfortunately clear that more houses are required in the UK, and in Aylesbury Vale, this is a scale of development which simply goes too far. Wendover has already increased in size significantly as former RAF land has been sold off, but the facilities have not kept pace. The town population grew by approximately 10% between 2001 and 2011, with a development that already seems large in scale. A 25% increase in housing stock is nothing short of outrageous.

The Local Plan appears to simply be an exercise in identifying any suitable (or in some cases less than suitable) sites for housing development. Developments of this scale need early consideration of the wider infrastructure needed to support the development - roads, bus provision, train provision, schools, hospitals, GPs, sports facilities, parkland, shops etc. The current Local Plan only pays lip service to these, and takes no account of the relative locations of employment and housing - leading to unsustainable transport.

Finally, any significant construction works in Wendover during the period to 2033 will probably coincide with the construction of HS2. As such, construction should consider the cumulative environmental impact of the development and HS2, in particular with regard to noise, dust, lorry movements etc.

VALP16-09-05-00878 Jonathan Pawsey Other Comments - see related attachment from Jonathan Pawsey & Karen Ellis

VALP16-09-05-00880 Jane Gaafar Other Comments - My comments on the VALP draft consultation centre on the violability, desirability and necessity of the "new settlement". Comments made on some sections also impact on other sections. None of us are 100% happy about housing growth but accept it in proportion. The "new settlement" seems to break all rules of proportionality and appears to be a last-minute addition to soak up the dubious "unmet needs" of neighboroughing councils.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 101 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00885 David FORRWARD Other Comments - I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the Local Plan for the following reasons:

1.The increase in traffic resulting from the proposed development,together with ensuing gridlock and congestion at all times of the day, have not been adequately considered; the estimates and calculations used in the plan appear to be seriously flawed.

.The number of houses planned is far too high in the light of other developments that are being considered and already under way.

3.The land between villages is extremely important, not only for the preservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, but also for the health and wellbeing of the inhabitants of the area

4.There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft plan. There could well be a seriously increased danger of flooding, both to new and to existing housing as a result of open land being replaced by housing.

5.The adequate provision of hospitals and schools has not been sufficiently covered.

I would suggest that the process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

VALP16-09-05-00844 Cara Marshall Other Comments - Environment Bank – about us (Environment Bank) Environment Bank is a private company working to broker biodiversity compensation agreements for developers and landowners. We act as impartial advisers to Local Planning Authorities and are experts in biodiversity impact assessment and No Net Loss (NNL) strategies. We have partnerships and support relationships with over 25 LPAs across 15 counties - providing advice on local policies, planning guidance and strategies, together with support in implementation and individual planning cases. We have seen biodiversity No Net Loss, Net Gain and offset policies be adopted in Local Plans across the country. Working on individual developments on behalf of developers and planning authorities we calculate the biodiversity impacts and enhancements of development proposals using approved Government metrics, determining residual biodiversity losses, if any, and proposing offsite compensation solutions. Our ecological experts then match a developer’s compensation requirement with sites put forward by landowners and conservationists who undertake biodiversity enhancements on their land to generate conservation credits available as compensation. Compensation schemes must be the right type of site, of the right size, in the right place, at the right time, for the right cost. Credits are sold in exchange for the creation or enhancement of habitats, generating biodiversity gain. Thereafter, legal and fiscal systems assure planning authorities that such biodiversity compensation measures have been arranged independently and delivery will be overseen and guaranteed in the long-term, providing net biodiversity gain across a district.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 102 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00888 Josephine Bromley Other Comments - Draft proposals for the routing of a east west improvement to the existing A421 adjacent to the proposed East-West rail line will split the town of Winslow into two against the wishes of the agreed Winslow Neighbourhood Plan.

As a non-driver the plan does not pay attention to the needs of the residents who have to rely on public transport services either provided by commercial concerns or by local authority. VALP16-09-05-00889 Paul Oxford Other Comments - My Objections to the Garden Village are,

The size of the proposal being greater in housing than Thame and Haddenham combined would be a complete mistake for the impact on the Vale The view as seen from the Chilterns would be an eyesore.

The road system in that area is not compatible with such a development,as there would be at least an additional 1000 extra cars.

For what would be a small town,Schools, Medical Centre, Shops would be needed.

VALP16-09-05-00891 Jacqui Bergonzi Other Comments - I am writing with reference to the proposed development in Marsworth.

I would like register my concern and objection to the development based on the following: 1. Being a person who has been born and bred in the village and local community. It will very much change the whole dynamic of the unique and special village community we have in Marsworth 2. The infrastructure in the village is not sufficient to cope with increase in population be it from a facility perspective or safety to due to increase in cars etc. With potentially another circa 200 extra people coming. 3. I believe also that this unique farmland should be kept as it is.

Ultimately this proposal would seem to make a mockery of the definition of a small and medium village. Marsworth is very much a small village by definition. The exiting planning applications with the council and the recent Marsworth wharf development would push the houses built or applied to be built above the 5% criteria even above the 19% for medium.

Based on the this alone the application should be rejected. Marsworth is a unique and special place and as such should be cherished and protected. VALP16-09-05-00892 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - This submission is made in the context of the attached site (land on western edge of Berryfields, Aylesbury) Collinge Planning which represents a logical, small-scale extension to the existing development area, in a highly sustainable location, and without any Consultancy Ltd) physical, technical or other planning constraint to the development of the site. Indeed, the site is available and deliverable, with access rights through the adjoining development. The site - which should be excluded from the Green Infrastructure proposals for Aylesbury Town - would be suitable for either commercial or residential development or a combination of both.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 103 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00893 Brian Tattam Other Comments - Further to my visit to the Weston Turville Consultation recently, I would like to add my comments to The Hampden Fields Action Group resume, which I support 100%.

At the above mentioned consultation, I questioned the Council Representative re all of the developments which were proposed. I asked the question 'who is co-ordinating all of the proposed building work, assessing traffic demands (how many more vehicle would be generated), the assumed water dissipation from the flood plains affected? Basically, in a nutshell, it was nobody!!! The developers are working in silo's with no regards for each other.

This a recipe for disaster. Has anybody seen the queuing traffic into Aylesbury from the South, coupled to the disastrous way the traffic lights work at both Broughton and Oakfield junctions, with the hatched area (box junction) at the Broughton junction having no legal meaning whatsoever. If it did traffic would come to a complete stand still!

Why was the new road along Stocklake not a dual carriageway through to the connecting road from Aston Clinton to Bierton (Hulcott)?

Until such time as a major road infrastructure is created for Aylesbury, all of these developments will spell traffic disaster for Aylesbury.

Please,get round a table and plan it, not ad hoc it!

As the Hampden Fields Action Group say, 'the process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure'.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 104 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00894 Alexander Allcock- Other Comments - General points. Rouse We keep hearing the same old guff about the “need” to deliver hundreds of thousands of additional homes each year. The simple fact is, there is no crisis. Let me repeat that – there is no crisis. If there were a crisis, we’d be seeing lots and lots of people in tents/cardboard boxes. Now, I accept there is another issue, that of homelessness, however the type of new housing proposed by VALP simply wouldn’t touch that problem. I believe I have previously drawn parallels between housing and roads – it seems completely non-sensical that the policy on housing is to attempt to “build out of trouble” (it never works, by the way; there always seems to be a “need” for more) whereas the policy with roads is the opposite – just let the traffic build and build until everything grinds to a halt. This happens every morning and evening in Aylesbury – been there lately? I’ve suggested before that making better use of existing infrastructure is the way forward – simple, what you do is stagger school/working hours throughout the day such that there is no “rush hour”. The A413 in particular has fallen into chronic disrepair over the last two years so if I were in charge, I’d be sorting out basic infrastructure (like roads) before worrying about non-existent housing ‘problems’.

The Brexit vote in the EU Referendum sent a strong if unexpected message to Government which is that people are engaging in the democratic process of this country and that the status quo (as was) was not good enough. The same thinking applies here - a huge amount of work has gone into the Winslow Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) and it was voted on by the population and approved by a huge majority – virtually a wipeout for the opposition. I get the feeling that people keep chipping away at us and our neighbourhood in the hope that one day we will just give in – not going to happen. The point of the WNP was precisely to establish what the people/voters/constituents thought of that old devil called development. The answers were clear – try looking at them, and then see just how much at odds the latest piffle is with those answers. I don’t have to remind AVDC that it was at fault when the last set of neighbourhood plans went for a Burton, The WNP, just like the Brexit vote, represents our views as a community and nothing else will ‘do’.

Winslow and the Horwoods are not conurbations or suburbs; they are small places. People choose to live here because they wish to be in the countryside. If people want or need to live in a large town/city, they have other (less expensive) choices, eg Milton Keynes or Aylesbury. Winslow is a small town, and it’s how we like it.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 105 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment To do so much building around this area would destroy:

1 the habitat of many creatures that live in the countryside 2 the habitat of the people who live here already 2 any sense of ‘community’ in Winslow & The Horwoods 3 the crumbling, pitiful remains of the roads we have to try and negotiate every day – and don’t try telling me that the developers would do anything about them – they never do 4 democracy – see comments above 5 ultimately, the world – see below

What is the logical conclusion of eternal building to satisfy so-called “demand”? Try looking at the bigger picture – the world is a finite size but it seems that a large proportion of the human population has failed to grasp this basic concept. The problem is in fact one of too many people as opposed to too few houses. It’s a biggie, yes, but the sooner we all wake up and smell the coffee, the longer the human race will last. It’s as simple as that. No melodrama, just fact. Those who engaged in the democratic process and voted for Brexit certainly had this point, inter alia, in mind when they did so.

Let’s be clear about the message then – no, no, no to this ridiculous proposal of making Winslow/The Horwoods into the next ghetto. Instead, try getting to grips with the real issue, which is ‘too many people’. VALP16-09-05-00896 EMma POynter Smith Other Comments - We moved to Haddenham 3 years ago because we wanted to live in a village, I commute to Oxford daily and it already takes 15 minutes to get to Thame due to the amount of traffic, there is not the road infrastructure to support these plans, the parking at the station is terrible, the train companies should not be able to build parkways unless they provide FREE PARKING, an easy solution... There are not the local facilities, doctors surgeries or schools for this amount of housing, our children are already missing out, there are no room in local clubs like Cubs already! There will be less opportunity for them to win places in the grammar schools etc. A TERRIBLE IDEA ALTOGETHER VALP16-09-05-00897 tim dorsett Other Comments - While I understand that councils have been told to have this conversation what is the point if there is no coherent immigration policy VALP16-09-05-00898 Mrs Silvia Eames Other Comments - Finally the expectation of a detailed transport infrastructure is unfulfilled. (additional comments in attached form) VALP16-09-05-00900 Jennifer Kruppa Other Comments - Summary Overall, the VALP is flawed and incomplete in some key areas fundamental to good planning, principally traffic and infrastructure. This renders the current consultation meaningless. Also, the weakness of the policies contained in the draft Plan strongly suggests no more than another post-rationalised attempt to put housing where the council wants it. This does not align with the claimed desire for ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’.

What should happen now? Accordingly, the VALP plan process should be paused until genuine options have been considered based on appropriate evidence especially a full and publicly consulted Aylesbury Transport Strategy.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 106 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00904 Christopher Wayman Other Comments - additional comments in an attachment. The attachment document compares the policies of the Buckingham (Buckingham Town Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP) made in October 2015, with those of the Draft Vale of Local Plan (VALP) which is in the Council) process of being made. Following changes in Government planning policy, the initial VALP was rejected at the public examination stage for not taking into account unmet housing and employment needs from neighbouring authorities. At this time there is no VALP, and Buckinghamshire is currently expected to accommodate 33,000 new homes by 2033 (S2), all of which could be forced on the Vale of Aylesbury: 21,300 for AVDC’s own need, with a further 12,000 from Wycombe and the Chilterns, which are constrained by their green belts and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It also takes no account of unmet housing needs from neighbouring counties or unitary authorities. This worst-case scenario of the ‘dumping’ of 12,000 houses from South Bucks is being strongly contested by AVDC, on the grounds of redundant green belt sites and also on density, both of which it believes could accommodate much of Wycombe and the Chilterns’ 12,000 need. VALP16-09-05-00905 Angela and Victor Other Comments - Having 'lost the will to live' trying to fill in your on-line consultation form, (is it set up so that anyone without legal Bowman training will not understand and therefore not complete it?) I now write on behalf of myself and my husband (who was born in Haddenham 77 years ago and lived here ever since) to object to the large number of proposed dwellings.

This is a village NOT at town and, although we see the need to build houses, we also know that none will be affordable for youngsters born here, if the usual property developers in this area are given 'free rein' the rents and house prices will be too high.

Why are the dwellings per hectare proposed here more than in the Wycombe area? We know we already have the dreadful spectre of HS2 looming over the Chilterns, but this should not be a reason to push higher densities in villages.

Another point is that there are plenty of unused factory buildings in Aylesbury and High Wycome which could be converted into small flats, suitable for young people to rent until they earn enough to rent or buy a house.

We are not against progress and building new properties, just against the numbers proposed.

VALP16-09-05-00906 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - This submission is made in the context of the site shown outlined in red on the attached plan. Although 75% of Collinge Planning the site is covered by the proposed allocation (GUW010) the proposed allocation excludes the eastern portion of the site, which Consultancy Ltd) includes an existing pond. Planning permission has been granted for development of the blue land which includes re-locating the pond to the south of the red land, and thereby facilitates the potential of development on the whole of the red land. Accordingly, the boundaries of the allocation should be amend to reflect the red edge on the attached plan.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 107 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00908 Mr & Mrs W.R. Soley Other Comments - My wife and I are strongly opposed to this being considered in the Draft Aylesbury Local Plan for the following reasons;

I.It would completely destroy a beautiful area of the county and quickly become just another outer region of London, changing the character and way of life for the surrounding villages.

2. It would also have a disastrous effect on an area which has an abundance of wildlife such as the Barn Owl which is an endangered species.

3. The effect on the existing busy traffic system would also be disastrous.

4.It would also increase pressure on health centres, hospitals and schools, services that are already at breaking point.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 108 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00911 Brian Fattorini Other Comments - Sorry, your form is too convoluted and complex. Here is the information I wish to supply. I am not an employee of AVDC or getting paid to spend my time doing this. I do not have the time to dissect the letter I spent ages writing so that it now fits into the compartments created within this bureaucratic process.

Regarding the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Draft Plan for Summer 2016 Consultation.

1) The village of Haddenham is surrounded by high quality Grade 2 "Very Good" and Grade 3 "Good to Moderate" agricultural land, re Natural England http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/141047?category=5954148537204736 AVDC must take on the responsibility of protecting this invaluable land resource due to its scarcity in the area & once it is gone it is lost forever.

2) AVDC has a responsibility to protect the heritage conservation area of Haddenham village.

3) Developing in Haddenham solely because it has a train station would clearly turn a village into commuter town.

4) The infrastructure in and around the village of Haddenham cannot currently cope with the influx of commuter residents. Increasing the size of Haddenham will only attract more commuting residents who will still need to drive to the Haddenham & Thame Parkway station even if they live 'local' congesting the already busy village roads and streets.

5) I understand London Marylebone station is close to or at capacity in terms of the number of trains it can handle for the limited number of platforms. Has AVDC taken this into consideration?

6) Whether a local Neighbourhood Plan has been quashed or not it is important to understand that such a plan was created for a reason and in terms of the area marked as HAD007, for example, this was marked as part of 'Unsuitable 2013 SHLAA sites' in the Haddenham Neighbourhood Plan. http://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/page_downloads/Haddenham%20NP%20March%202016.pdf

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 109 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 7) Raw sewage is spread on agricultural fields around the village of Haddenham and can cause of illness (see *note), it also means doors and windows cannot be opened for days at a time because of the stench. Locatingn a new large concentrated population next to such an area might cause a public health problem.

(*note) The following called "Dogs" taken from http://www.haddenham.net/share-chat.html

Haddenhamer - 30th August 2016 4:58pm : Yes, both of my dogs have been unwell with D&V. One dog very bad had been walked only in the fields or roads in the village. Nearly took him to vet but starved him for 24 hours & syringe feed him water every hour. After 48 hours slightly improved but fed only rice & chicken for a week. Very nasty bug or something worse.

bumble - 25th August 2016 8:32pm : On Sunday 17th July our dog was very sick after only being on supervised lead walks around Haddenham. She spent two days in the animal hospital on anti sickness drugs along with others and it was found that she had gastritis which is presumed to be caused by something sinister she picked up in the village. She has since made a full recovery but we have heard of other local dogs in similar situations since.

Newby - 25th August 2016 4:47pm : Yes, heard this morning ***'s dog was poorly last night, he is ok now though, he had been running through the field where muck spreading had taken place, not sure whether that has any significance.

DottyDoris - 25th August 2016 8:23am : Posted on behalf of a local resident. Has anyone had any problems with their dogs who may have ingested something that has made them ill in or around Haddenham? VALP16-09-05-00913 Jake Collinge (Jake Other Comments - This submission is made in respect of the site edged in red on the attached plan. The site is adjacent to Collinge Planning SCD009, which benefits from planning permission and is otherwise well-related to the established settlement form. Inclusion of the Consultancy Ltd) site for residential purposes would go some way to meeting the residual housing requirements for the village on a site that is otherwise unconstrained in planning and technical terms. VALP16-09-05-00922 Stuart Parsons Other Comments - The land is made up of three titles in the Land Registry as follows: BM144568, BM138801 and BM226527. VALP16-09-05-00924 Geraldine Newman Other Comments - I would like to add my vote to the rejection of the proposed over development of Haddenham Village. It is a village and should remain one for the very reasons listed by the Parish Council together with all the practical ones making it entirely unsuitable for such huge development. There are roads and lanes that are narrow and very often leading to dead ends. Many now are congested with vehicles. The Thame Road, together with surrounding roads is already a parking lot for the Haddenham and Thame Parkway The local shopping parade and area outside the bakers is only used for parking – not shopping. The number of houses proposed would all bring at least one car per household causing undue pollution . It is also virtually impossible to obtain a doctors appointment within three weeks of applying to a practice clearly already over subscribled. VALP16-09-05-00927 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - Additional comments in attached document on behalf of Lands Improvement Holdings (LIH))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 110 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00929 Sue Severn (Berryfields Other Comments - The response to the Draft VALP from Stoke Hammond PC are attached as follows: Parish Council & Stoke Hammond Parish The numbering is for convenience and does not indicate AVDC questionnaire numbers: Council) 1. SH is shown as requiring 71 homes in the VALP, so far 2.5 times that have already received approval. 2. Housing needs for the forseeable future are fully met no further need should be allocated within the Parish. 3. The PC agrees in principle that the housing requirement is correct. 4. The PC is concerned about the loss of areas of attractive landscape. 5. AVDC is urged to vigorously interrogate the southern councils' green belt, brownfield sites and areas of outstanding natural beauty, as well as density to ensure that anything allocated to the north is absolute minimum. 6. Infrastructure - schools, doctors, roads, traffic management, quality of life affected by lack of any infrastructure in the Parish. 7. Leighton Buzzard: Nearest large town with station car park which is inadequate with insufficient space. Over development of rural areas close by results in these problems. 8. Traffic route to Milton Keynes: Once new M1 link road is created more traffic will use the bypass and A5 bypass. The whole Vale is affected by too much traffic. 9. Schools: High Ash School at Great Brickhill is lower and middle school for Stoke Hammond and St Michael's, Stewkley. These will be inadequate to provide places for any new development. 10. Specific housing for the elderly must include sheltered housing for rental as well as sale. 11. Travellers' sites: There are 2 unauthorised caravans at Fairview Farm, Stoke Hammond the plan suggests space for 3 caravans which would serve to formalise the 3 currently sited there.

VALP16-09-05-00930 Cllr Peter Brazier Other Comments - This plan and it's process is fundamentally flawed as the unmet need assessments of neighbouring districts and councils have not been properly conducted, challenged and settled. This entire plan relies on figures which are most likely wrong and furthermore could be wrong by significant amounts altering the entire scope of the plan. It should not be allowed to proceed when such fundamentals are not in place.

The process is undemocratic. It is disingenuous to suggest it is “your plan” when it is no such thing. The public will not get a vote on this plan. The VALP will have the power, as the Strategic Development Committee has, to override any made local development plans despite them requiring a vote via a referendum of local voters. It is perverse that the plan which the public were not allowed to vote on is able to override the one which the public were required to vote for.

Lastly, I am deeply concerned that there does not appear to be plans in place to suitably restore and strengthen the AVDC planning department and it’s processes to cope with this. It is currently evident that it is barely able to cope with current demands placed upon it. As it is a department which is making decisions which are not reversible it should be robust, completely efficient, transparent and accountable.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 111 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00936 Helen Delaitre (Chiltern, Other Comments - The delivery of this Local Plan will put significant pressure on the existing primary care infrastructure. However, Aylesbury Vale and the Aylesbury Vale, Milton Keynes and Chiltern CCGs welcome the opportunity to work with AVDC to determine more detailed health Milton Keynes Clinical infrastructure requirements as part of developing the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Please find attached further information. Commissioning Groups (NHS))

VALP16-09-05-00942 Keith Milmer Other Comments - 1. Scale of Development (Haddenham.net) Haddenham is a large village, and it maintains a friendly and closely connected culture. Large scale developments tend to destroy such cultures and ways of life. The scale of development proposed for Haddenham (especially if the 'new settlement' is implemented here) is utterly disproportionate. We are not a town. Our existing infrastructure in terms of shops, the village hall, sports & social facilities, road systems, etc., are grossly inadequate for such large housing growth. Haddenham's space constraints and the large conservation area would make the provision of adequate infrastructure utterly impossible. Traffic management and roadside parking (especially in relation to the railway station) are already intolerable and often downright dangerous. Major development of Haddenham, on the scale proposed in the VALP, is ill-conceived and should be seriously revised.

2. Railway & Road Limitations The VALP needs to sit alongside and integrate with the development plans of neighbouring authorities. It would appear that such authorities also regard Haddenham's railway station as a good reason to plan housing growth within commuting distance of Haddenham & Thame Parkway. The impact of commuter road traffic has to be factored in - the forecast modelling report by Jacobs (commissioned by Bucks County Council) indicates some truly scary and unacceptable travel times, should the scale of development proposed in the VALP go ahead. On the basis of housing growth at Haddenham proposed in the draft VALP, standing traffic backing up from the Thame roundabout on the A418 just west of Scotsgrove is predicted to reach well over 1,000 vehicles at peak times. Parking is already a very serious problem in Haddenham, causing major safety and social problems. Chiltern Railways has physical limits to the number of passengers it can carry, and these limits cannot be overcome simply because many hundreds (or thousands) of additional passengers wish to commute from Haddenham. It is absurd to see this railway station and road infrastructure as being capable of handling the growth in commuter numbers that would result from the housing growth at and immediately close to Haddenham, as mooted by the current draft VALP. Overcoming these constraints would require £multi-million investment way outside the scope of AVDC; and national Government funding at this level looks impossible for the foreseeable future.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 112 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00942 Keith Milmer 3. Justification for a 'New Settlement' (Haddenham.net) The need for a new settlement in the Vale of Aylesbury is predicated on AVDC's acceptance of the so-called "unmet housing need" of neighbouring areas - particularly High Wycombe and South Bucks. I wish to object to this in the strongest possible terms. It cannot be acceptable for one or more district councils in Buckinghamshire to plan for housing growth at much lower densities than AVDC and then to claim they have an "unmet housing need". Representatives of Haddenham Parish Council and Haddenham Village Society have calculated that Wycombe District Council has based at least part of its Local Plan on housing densities of just 12-15dph, whereas the draft VALP is based on housing densities of 30-35dph. I call upon AVDC to reject arguments of "unmet need" and insist that other areas of Buckinghamshire use the same housing densities in their Local Plans before they seek to foist unnecessary housing growth on the Vale of Aylesbury. I know from my own personal soundings and by attending several public meetings in Haddenham that this feeling is shared by a great number of Haddenham residents. We call upon AVDC to reject the justification for a new settlement.^ Please rely to: [email protected] VALP16-09-05-00944 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - Please find attached information. (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Hearn)) VALP16-09-05-00949 Stephanie Hart Other Comments - As a resident of Winslow, living at 5 Old Tan Yard Close, I feel it is imperative to add my strong objection to the proposal for 7000 new homes at Winslow. Winslow is an historic and picturesque town, and part of the heritage of the area. I absolutely understand the need to provide new homes for an ever increasing population, but cannot understand the necessity to expand on the proposed Winslow site, when Haddenhan for example would actually be more suitable, with better infrastructure, railway links already in place, and better road links to major motorways. Whilst a smaller amount of development in and around Winslow is inevitable and has to be accepted, surely we should take stringent steps to protect our heritage and conserve the beauty of this lovely ancient market town for all to visit and enjoy. VALP16-09-05-00954 Sandra Jenkins (AVDC) Other Comments - The Parishes have accepted that there needs to be more housing, but not the unsustainable number within the VALP. Following the Localism initiative from the Government they have already demonstrated in their Neighbourhood Plans the allocation of sites which are sustainable and appropriate to their locality. There is concern that there is a disparity in percentages between the village sizes. However, why is AVDC being asked to accept the (assumed) unmet needs from outside authorities. Strong pressure should be put on these authorities to locate more sites and information supplied on an evidential basis. The AVDC infrastructure, particularly transport, is very poor. Many of the areas outside the VALP have far better transport links which ensure connectivity and accessibility of employment, health and education. We do not have clarification in the VALP with regard to infrastructure issues. It is not guaranteed that necessary infrastructure will follow any development. Developers should be encouraged to deliver development for the lifetime needs of the whole community. VALP16-09-05-00959 Penny Pataky Other Comments - Please accept the attached letter as my Councils response to the VALP Draft Consultation Summer 2016 (Edlesborough Parish EPC Response to VALP 5.9.16 Council)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 113 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00964 Paul Ketteridge Other Comments - General I understand that your housing numbers that you have to provide across Aylesbury Vale have been dictated by the fact that South Bucks say they cannot take the number they were given. It is wrong that the north should be penalised by the south. VALP16-09-05-00966 Michelle Kidd (Area Other Comments - Water Resources Sustainable Places We are currently working with JBA Consulting and other partners to produce a Water Cycle Study (WCS) for the Aylesbury Vale Team The Environment District. The WCS will assess the likely impact of all proposed growth and development across all aspects of the water environment Agency) within the District and where necessary will detail necessary measures to ensure that environmental legislation will not be compromised. The WCS will serve as an evidence base to support the local plan and should suggest policies and measures to enable the delivery of all proposed development. We will proved comments on the WCS when the assessment is complete. Water efficiency policy Paragraphs 11.31 and 11.32 on page 202 of the local plan state that: "Water resources need to be safeguarded from the potentially negative impacts of development" The paragraphs should also make reference to meeting water framework directive (WFD) and sustainable development standards which we would welcome. However there is no mention of specific water efficiency targets or other water saving measures. There should be a policy on this within your local plan. Cont/d.. 6 All development should maximise water efficiency through the installation of high performance internal fittings, as well as rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling systems where viable. You could use a similar policy to the one that Wycombe District Council has used in their Delivery and Site Allocations plan. Adopted July 2013. The policy is DM18 carbon Reduction and Water Efficiency.

Paragraph 3.43 must be amended to include watercourses and their associated corridors as these are at the heart of green and blue infrastructure, linking them together.

We support this policy, but would suggest the inclusion of additional wording to read “subject to site specific considerations including biodiversity and environmental value”. Cont/d.. 7 Chapter 4.0 - Strategic Delivery With regard to paragraph 4.8, the 4th bullet point should mention watercourses specifically as these are a major part of the green infrastructure network. The 13th bullet point of 4.8 should be amended to read “Aylesbury’s most valued assets such as the historic old town, the River Thame and its tributaries….”

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 114 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00973 Julie Ward Other Comments - Strongly support the concept that rural / semi-rural areas that have accommodated the growth of Aylesbury. Should receive no further allocations and should be robustly protected from further growth. Support the concept that growth should be distributed throughout the Vale, as in protecting the identity of Parishes, such as Bierton with Broughton, Weston Turville and Stoke Mandevillie, in close proximity to Aylesbury, further major growth in and around Aylesbury that is not already included in this plan cannot and should not be accommodated. Bierton has around 800 or so dwellings and has accepted growth of 2450 dwellings and associated buildings already within the Kingsbrook approved development. The Kingsbrook development is roughly 3 times the size of the existing settlement within the Parish of Bierton with Broughton. I appreciate that areas such as Buckingham, Winslow and Haddenham may increase by as much as 50%, however, Bierton and Broughton have taken a growth allocation that increases the dwellings in our parish by around 300%. It is essential that larger areas more able to withstand development take their fair share and that areas already affected are protected. Although this plan will not be to the liking of others, I believe it does that and would therefore like to see it adopted for those reasons.

VALP16-09-05-00974 Nigel Ward Other Comments - Fully support the policy of distributing growth throughout the Vale. If a village the size of Bierton can accommodate growth of 300% for the need to expand Aylesbury, it should be fully protected from further growth and erosion of its' identity and other areas such as Bucking, Winslow and Haddenham must take their share. Aylesbury Vale must only accept unmet growth from other authorities where it an be robustly demonstrated that it cannot be met. VALP16-09-05-00975 Viral Desai (Barton Other Comments - Please see attached representation on behalf of A2 Dominion and Garden Cities for Land at Willmore on Behalf of A2 Dominion and Garden Cities LLP) VALP16-09-05-00977 John Brady Other Comments - I am an aviation consultant and submit comments related to the future of Haddenham Airfield citing airfield, sport and leisure policies set out in the NPPF, AVDC policies, Sport England policies and Government Aviation Policy Framework. I set these out in the uploaded document. VALP16-09-05-00978 Michael Gregory Other Comments - Housing allocation for Brill. (Michael Gregory, Taking into account the present village envelope and the protected open spaces within it i do not think it is at all possible to Architect) accommodate an additional 90 odd dwellings within Brill. To maintain the village setting you would need to add small groups of housing to those houses that are already beyond but still within walking distance of the village. This would presumably require a relaxation in planning guide lines. VALP16-09-05-00979 Barrie Johnson Other Comments - Grendon Underwood is a linear village and to keep this the same there is one site, land adjacent to Bridleway House SHLGUW009b that would more than adequately cover the VALP requirements. VALP16-09-05-00980 Jennifer Mitchell Other Comments - Strongly support a more even distribution of growth throughout the vale. Believe this draft plan is fair and achieves that. Do not want to take unmet need from other authorities, however accept this may be necessary, but must be robustly demonstrated and challenged by AVDC. VALP16-09-05-00981 Michael Crockett Other Comments - There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 115 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00984 Phillippa Martin-Moran Other Comments - I am writing to introduce ourselves as we now have an interest in Molly’s Folly/Molly’s Field, land west of Addison (Optimis Estates) Road, Steeple Claydon. We are committed to ensuring that this site it is developed in a timely manner. I am Director of Optimis Estates who has the interest in the land, and I am also Director of Optimis Consulting who will be running the planning. We would be happy to discuss our aims for the site in more detail with you and would welcome that opportunity at an early stage. We have produced an illustrative layout to demonstrate that it is possible to increase the development on the site whilst being away of the flooding and the landscape and views. We have noted that currently Steeple Claydon is short by 27 dwellings on the percentage growth method within the draft Local Plan. We believe that Molly’s Folly/Molly’s Field can assist. We are also aware of the issues around delivery of sites. Given the issues noted in the draft Local Plan of ensuring that delivery takes place quickly enough to ensure that Aylesbury Vale has a 5 Year Land Supply particularly when larger urban extensions and new settlements take longer to deliver, we think that our site can sustainably deliver units quickly and therefore we would like to encourage that the site is allocated for 100 units (incorporating the allocation for 38 dwellings and the ‘commitment’ of 22 dwellings). The site, taken as a whole, is of a size that it is deliverable by a single developer, without major up front infrastructure costs, and it can also contribute to the required infrastructure, including new affordable dwellings, starter homes, open space, retention of footpath and also potentially employment opportunities in addition to the 93 units shown within either B1, or through specialist housing by way of a care home or extra care dwellings. The site could easily accommodate 100 dwellings sustainably. Whilst we recognise that this would be in excess of the 22%, the key tests in the NPPF are sustainability, character and deliverability and this site fulfils those criteria. I hope to be able to meet with you to discuss the site in more detail.

VALP16-09-05-00985 Ricky Jeffrey Other Comments - These are comments of my own feelings not in reference to the valp. Being Haddenham born and bred,educated here and now have my own family and business based here I have seen many changes happen, some for the better and some for the not so better. I consider myself to be a forward thinker and very much a man that embraces the modern world. I fear the plan that has been put to the village is a plan that is short sited and unfair to the already over stretched and struggling facility's. This plan will not have a positive impact to the area in fact quite the opposite. It is a very irresponsible notion and has not been thought through. I except that there is a need for more housing and would not be so nieve as to think Haddenham won't or shouldn't embrace our share but please be realistic to the volumes of houses we can integrate into our already bursting at the seams village. It's not about short term solutions but long term stability. Avdc is already held in low regard try to make the right call on this!!..

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 116 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00987 Jonathan Glasspool Other Comments - Whilst I appreciate the council has legal obligations to deliver VALP within certain time constraints, to have a consultation period over the summer holidays on such a contentious and substantive topic is poor timing. Residents have had relatively very little time to discuss a range of developments that will substantially alter people's lives, their village, and the immediate countryside in which they live.

There is strong local feeling that AVDC is using the government's obligations on it to consult with other local authorities as crude means of pushing through unwelcome and insensitive developments that have hitherto been successfully opposed.

The weblink here: https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.780247,-0.923872,-151.54h,-9.48p,1z

shows the view of the conservation area and its protecting Wychert wall. What a pity if all this is lost. VALP16-09-05-00988 Sue Barber Other Comments - Did a mailing go to each household about the plan? A tick box question sheet would have bene useful to make comments. It's a very heavy document to read and have to keep referring to other supporting documents. A mobile consultation is limited. Could you not have considered permanent information boards in towns and villages showing people exactly what is proposed and how to comment. Local data from local councils on traffic from MVAS where they are in place needs to be collected and be considered when looking at land allocation. These signs provide detailed data on traffic numbers, times and speeds and give a clear indication where rat runs are being used and roads pushed to the limit. VALP16-09-05-00991 Ron Busby Other Comments - See attached letter

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 117 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-00993 Martin Jacobs (Quainton Other Comments - Quainton Village Society submits the following :- Village Society) 1) Housing Needs Forecasts At the recent VALP exhibition in Winslow, a Planning officer was overheard telling a concerned resident that it was not necessary to adjust the housing need forecasts in the light of the Brexit vote because immigration was not going to reduce from pre-Brexit expectations.

Whether this was a personal view or stemmed merely from a desire not to have to reconsider housing need post-Brexit, this view does not conform to the statements currently being reported from government nor does it conform to the demands of the majority of the electorate.

Whilst it may be that no better forecasts are currently available, it is essential that, before the final version of VALP is made available for comment early next year, the then latest population forecasts are used to further reduce the forecast housing need. If this is not done rigorously there is a very real danger of housing over-supply. This is because forecasts of this nature become self-fulfilling prophecies in that the figures become targets to be achieved rather than meeting a true need.

There would also appear to be a conflict of interests within AVDC. On the one hand there are those who wish for a Greater Aylesbury, with ever more housing and industry bringing in greater revenue and power to an enlarged AVDC and its Councillors and administrators.

On the other hand there are those who value the remaining rural areas of Aylesbury Vale and do not wish to see unnecessary or unsupportable development.

The former should not be allowed the greater voice in the Vale’s future.

2) Unmet needs On the positive side, it is good to see that AVDC are now robustly challenging the imposition of so-called ‘unmet needs’ from adjacent Districts. It is vital that this process should continue until these impositions are minimised.

3) Settlement status From a local standpoint, it is positive that common sense has prevailed in that Quainton’s ‘status’ as a village has been reduced from Large to Medium. VALP16-09-05-00994 Sue Busby Other Comments - See attached letter

VALP16-09-05-00998 Charlotte Beadle Other Comments - I do not support this draft plan for 33000 new homes in Aylesbury Vale.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 118 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01003 Fred Davey (ASLPDS) Other Comments - VALP Draft Consultation 2016 comments.

The Aylesbury Vale Aquatic & Sports Leisure Park Development scheme is by its very nature designed to relieve community of embedded, long term social issues. The decision making matrix for the project is headed by the question: “Will it allow humans to thrive?” On this basis, we trust in being able to reduce significant and expensive social support services provided by all levels of government and not just at the start but permanently.

For example: 1. Employment. The project will demand significant construction including relatively simple residential scale works through to complex engineering and sophisticated mechanical and electrical services. It will also require new software development and ongoing maintenance and upgrading. Large projects have an impact mainly during construction as thousands of workers move into the area (or commute) to undertake the works. If they commute, significant traffic issues can arise. If they live in Aylesbury Vale, the commute is eliminated and an educated, employed and prosperous population are retained. To aid in a permanent working population, we have devised a rotational demolition and construction cycle that ensures that workers are permanently in work. The cycle, after creating 4 separate staged zones in 2 to 3 year phases, begins to demolish and rebuild sectors of the project in 2 to 3 year phases, permanently refreshing the facility, it attractions and ensuring its relevance to the community. There is no greater damage than a large project can do to a community than having a significant workforce move away from a town after construction. The vacuum of jobs lets down the commercial sector immediately and the resultant stresses in community begin.

2. Mental Health. Allowing humans to thrive starts by reduces what have unfortunately become normal stressors from families. Stressors like financial paucity and lack of human contact or socialisation. The facility is designed to encourage significant interactions between visitors and that can be achieved at a high level or a low level. Many people want to watch activity while the world goes by and many wish to engage fully and be the activity. The facility allows this at many levels. Large sectors of the facility are landscaped gardens and free to access. Additionally, several activity centers will be open free to the public or very cheaply on days when normal visitation is expected to be low (such as Tuesdays). In these areas or on these days, the visitors with low economic means are able to access the facilities regularly and obtain benefit from the social ‘normalisation’ that we predict will occur. There are multiple studies in the UK and Australia that show a clear link between socialisation, financial strain and physical activity and we believe that the facilities we propose bring all of the necessary activities and opportunities together to create a place where people’s mental health is improved without actively seeking a mental health professional. It is part of our facility design to encourage mental health professionals to work closely with activity based opportunities inside the development to create a centre of excellence for stress recovery and mental health.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 119 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 3. Physical Health. Aquatics are a special area of activity inasmuch as they are the only activity which allows people from birth to near death to participate. There is no age group restricted. Toddler pools, zero depth water playgrounds, activity pools, wave pools, water slides, challenge pools, resort and leisure pools, spa pools, hydrotherapy and injected air pools, fitness swimming, water polo, competition swimming, swimming club meets, canoe polo, water volleyball, recreational swimming, all create fitness and health. The mere act of immersing yourself in chlorinated pool water weekly has shown (Studies done in Australia by the Fred Hollows Foundation) that all eye disease can be eradicated including glaucoma. Increased fitness creates immediate benefit to health and should have a resultant flow-on effect to workplaces as more healthy workers have fewer sick days and are more productive. The act of socialising in aquatic sport or doing aquarobic fitness classes allows people of all sizes to become fitter and to lose weight. We anticipate that allied health professionals will take the opportunity of aligning themselves with the aquatic health and fitness regimes that we propose to establish providing much needed medical support and programs. All of this health being generated by non-impact activity in water.

The three main areas of concern above will impact significantly upon the opportunities available for the community and we sincerely hope that Council understand the importance of designing and operating a facility that allow for such activity to occur. In just the area of mental depression, we hope to significantly reduce the need for treatment, which is a significant burden on the public purse. With employment, we trust that the permanent influx of well paid workers will add to the council’s rate base and also influence positively the small commercial enterprises in and around Aylesbury Vale as these new residents (or existing residents in the construction industry) spend their available money. For general health, we know that countless studies relate work effectiveness to physical health and this alone will impact on Aylesbury. The impact is a series of events and outcomes that are too complex to map and we trust that by observing the primary decision making mantra of “Will it allow humans to thrive?” that we will generate significant and ongoing savings to government in the areas of social welfare and community support.

VALP16-09-05-01004 Jane Atkin Other Comments - As a working mother I do not have the luxury of the time to read through the whole plan and comment on a section by section basis. I am therefore grateful to Haddenham Parish Council for their summary.

I am horrified at your proposal to effectively destroy everything which is valuable about Haddenham by more than doubling the population. I urge you to pay close attention to the submission from the Parish Council. I am particularly struck by the following points they make: - the housing densities proposed by High Wycombe. It is a town and high density living is far more appropriate there that in Aylesbury Vale - comments about traffic on the A418 are spot on. It would struggle to cope with more cars - comment about the combined effect of all the different councils' proposals for the M40/ Chiltern line corridor are valid

Haddenham is a special place with very strong village characteristics. This should be preserved and not destroyed.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 120 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01005 Andrew Phillips Other Comments - 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.

VALP16-09-05-01006 Kevin Higgs Other Comments - ossible themes you might wish to challenge in offering your comments to AVDC might include one or more of the following: The assessments of 'unmet needs' of neighbouring authorities The various impacts of growth proposals by such authorities e.g.. Princes Risborough, Chalgrove, etc The implications for highway infrastructure and likewise for rail infrastructure I have major concerns regarding the proposal to buold 5000 new homes within the boundaries of Haddenham village. I lived in tbis village for many years and have reservations that the proposal will not only lead to the loss of the important heritage of an historic village but also the fact that the proposed development eats up vast quantities of high quality agricultural land. Additionally I would challenge the assessments of 'unmet needs' of neighbouring authorities as well as the various impacts of growth proposals by nearby authorities e.g.. Princes Risborough, Chalgrove, etc

A developmemt of this scale also demands a huge investment in infrastructure which do not appear to be fully thougjt though, neither do the implications for highway infrastructure (traffic congestion, parkimg and environmental impact of the same. Likewise for rail and otjer public transport infrastructure, which again would need to see significant further investment in order to meet the demands of 5000 homes. In all respects the size of the proposed development far outweighs the ability for the village to cope and the infrastructure is simply not there. You should reconsider the size and scale of this proposal with urgency

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 121 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01007 Paul Hare Other Comments - I am writing to express my concerns over the proposed expansion of Ickford village by 50 dwellings, and ask what additional infrastructure is being planned to enable these proposals to be carried out without adversely affecting existing village life.

At the moment, the village school is absolutely full to bursting, and trying to navigate the T junction outside of its entrance at opening and closing times, whether on foot, by cycle or by motor vehicle is both difficult and extremely dangerous, due to the large number of vehicles being parked or abandoned close by. The village was never planned, and cannot cope, with such large numbers of motor vehicles, let alone a further large increase. Many of these vehicles enter the village via the small bridges at the Tiddington end of Ickford or via the small bridge by The Old Fisherman, which again are not built for excessive numbers.

As the village is built on a flood plain, it regularly has problems each year with flooding, and it is difficult to see how any large number of additional houses could be added without the accompanying detailed work on water dispersal and sewage systems. Is it known what work will need to be carried out on these systems in order to accommodate the proposed additional housing ?

As a resident of 23 years in the village I am keen to preserve its character and rural way of life for existing villagers, and hope that the above concerns will be taken into account when considering the number of houses that can be built, whilst maintaining quality of life for existing villagers and those of new residents.

VALP16-09-05-01008 John Mortimer Other Comments - It is important that gas is brought to the various developments. It is no longer acceptable for housing developments to have to rely on oil heating. This is particularly important for outlying developments, including WDA001 should it proceed. This development is so close to Tattemhoe, a few hundred metres, that it should be a simple matter to extend gas to WDA001. And serious consideration should be give at the same time to extending gas to other villages, including Whaddon in order for any new single dwellings to at least have the option of using gas. VALP16-09-05-01015 Graham Woodroffe Other Comments - The plan has been largely developed and presented without taking into account wider developments managed by other organisations. At a recent meeting in the theatre hosted by the CLA it became very clear that very little liaison takes place between bodies such as HS2, Bicester Development, Local builders, the Environment Agency, Energy and Water Services Suppliers, The Highways Agency and many others. How AVDC can hope to create a plan that does not recognise and take into account the cumulative effects of projects managed by these organisations completely escapes me. It is vital that before proceeding a full computer based modelling exercise is jointly undertaken to predict the impacts of each development and to integrate them into a meaningful strategic plan.

On a local issue for Wendover, I object in the strongest terms to the S4 proposal which seeks to allow development along the Tring Road from Wendover to the Veterinary Surgeons. This is totally in appropriate and would effectively merge our village with Halton. What is more I understand that HS2 has already expressed in acquiring this land to replace the current Cricket Pitch.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 122 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01016 Gordon Pell Other Comments - This plan is substantially flawed. If areas to the south of AV cannot accept or find space for additional housing, then the same should apply to AV. Some of "our" excess should be passed on to areas to the north and west of the Vale.

The designation of some settlements as large is flawed. Both Ivinghoe and Whitchurch should be redesignated as Small or at worst Medium villages. The fact that the current draft plan already stated that no suitable building land has been identified in Whitchurch, states quite clearly that this settlement has been mis-categorised and should not have the circa 60 new houses inflicted upon it.

VALP16-09-05-01018 Brian Fuller Other Comments - I wish to comment on the land to be identified for potential housing development in Grendon Underwood. I understand that the overwhelming opinion of the villagers of Grendon obtained through a recent consultation /meeting process is that the land at the eastern end of the village on the northern side of the village road should be used to provide sufficient housing to meet the VALP requirements. This would have the advantage of continuing the linear nature of the village while obviating the need for the current piecemeal "backland" development which is the subject of current planing applications.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 123 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01020 Rame Sunthareswaran Other Comments - My comments are specific to the potential development at Grendon Underwood to meet the residual requirement of 51 homes by 2033. There are a number of sites being considered but overwhelmingly GUW009 and then followed by GUW001 would be the obvious locations which won't detract from the current linear nature of the village. Both of these do extend both Grendon and Springhill but not unduely excessively. The only other large scale potential sites will extend the build line beyond the current linear nature of the village and will be more harmful to the historic nature of the village. Any potential development should have the following items considered prior to the granting of planning permission perhaps as part of any future section 106 agreements: 1) Education - sufficient capacity must be available in the school at Grendon for the current catchement and potential new residents 2) Transport - The existing T- junction between The Broadway and A41 is particularly harrowing with vision splays insufficient for the speeds of the traffic on the A41. This particular junction needs improving. The road through Grendon can be particularly busy especially around the start and end of School. Perhaps some encouragement to explore other options and implement them. Most of the current residents work quite far from the village and the existing road network in Aylesbury Vale is poor. The advent of HS2 may offer the opportunity to improve the road network around the proposed rail track. Would an accompanying road to HS2 be a good idea? 3)Flooding risk - the land around Grendon is predominantly clay and any back fill type development will be on areas prone to flooding. Controlling development in one area allows the risks to be mitigated. 4)Environmental impact - there are several ponds and large areas of natural habitat which will be affected by development at other sites whereas the field at GUW009 has less natural diversity. 5)Historic effect - Grendon is a linear village and has several areas of architectural importance and has a number of conservation areas with TPO's. Development near these areas does have some impact on the surrounding areas and so future development should have minimal impact on the visual amenity and character of the village. 6) Any future development should be assessed as part of a neighbourhood development order which the parish council is seeking to create.

I trust these are sufficient reasons to consider that the site GUW009 should be the preferred location for future development at Grendon Underwood to satisfy the need for extra house for the future with minimal impact.

VALP16-09-05-01023 Stephen Rawlinson Other Comments - Why does there appear to be a prevalence to proposing greenfield sites for development of housing provision rather than brownfield sites? VALP16-09-05-01026 Hilary Napolitan Other Comments - I think that the housing plans are ambitious. I struggle to see how many new homes are needed.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 124 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01028 Warren Whyte (AVDC) Other Comments - Buckingham: Concern that there isn't sufficient policy context for the town centre to deal with not only with Buckingham's growth, but the surrounding area that it will serve as a service centre too. Lack of town centre parking (shoppers and workers), retail space for modern retailers, transport pinch points etc. While it is expected that the Neighbourhood Plan policies for the town centre will be respected, these are based on smaller growth and without consideration of growth in the surrounding areas.

Maids Moreton: Given its relationship with Buckingham, there should be some policy flexibility for infrastructure provision to be shared in both parishes if housing is located in MM, it is inevitable that services in Buckingham will be used. And if for some reason more houses in MM are found, these should count against Buckingham's numbers.

Dadford & Akeley: there is concern about the impact of growing traffic to the villages and the loss of amenity to the residents. Further development in and around Silverstone should contribute to improving the amenity for residents in these villages, especially for pedestrians.

VALP16-09-05-01032 Helen Cleaveley Other Comments - Very good to see the VALP underway. Please continue to support Neighbourhood Plans.

VALP16-09-05-01034 margaret morris Other Comments - Having looked at the options for expanding Winslow if it is chosen over Haddenham, I do think that the options to greatly extend Winslow with the idea of having a town/A421 bypass is a great idea. That way the character of Winslow High Street would be preserved and at the same time having an A421 bypass would improve traffic flow around the Buckingham area, just seems like a great solution to me. VALP16-09-05-01035 Patricia Owen Other Comments - How Edlesborough can be classified as a large village like Stoke Mandeville, for example, is mind boggling. It's a rural country village. We have a thoroughly overstretched doctors surgery with hardly any parking and a couple of shops and next to no bus service. There is no pub or any other kind of social meeting place within walking distance. The huge increase in housing suggested by VALP is a travesty. I cannot believe we may have to take 12,000 from S Bucks/Chiltern when the densities they have are less than half of what we are expected to take. It's extremely unfair. I feel Milton Keynes could grow more, and the new town be bigger. Villages across Bucks will lose their identity due to these allocations and it's very saddening. I'm also deeply concerned about your plans to change the Greenbelt. Very worrying.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 125 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01036 Robert & Patricia Curtis Other Comments - Dear Sir/Madam, We would like voice our strong opposition to the proposed 6,000 new homes in the guise of a new settlement in the rural setting of the Winslow area. We are fortunate to have Milton Keynes for an area of urban sprawl and surely we do not want Winslow and the Horwoods to be part of Milton Keynes expansion. Without the extra houses imposed by Government from areas unable to fulfil their building quota we would not be in this position. If the imposed housing is reduced 'the need' for a new settlement evaporates. North Bucks has the least amount of suitable infrastructure because of it's rural setting making it the most cost prohibitive site imaginable without the road and proposed rail links to make it a sensible choice.

We realise without a local plan we are all in an awkward position but the current proposals are a lurch from one extreme to another. Local communities have chosen to live in small towns and villages and successfully support their communities making the countryside great for all who visit the area. We would like our Grandchildren and their offspring to grow up in a rural setting.

May we suggest each village and town from North Marston to to Padbury to Swanbourne to the Claydons and the Horwoods be encouraged to build 5% growth of new houses to their villages and towns. This would give a significant amount of new homes for the area without swamping communities.

Yours sincerely

Robert and Patricia Curtis

VALP16-09-05-01037 Janette Eustace Other Comments - Stewkley Parish Council wholeheartedly endorse the comments included in the attached document, submitted (Stewkley Parish by NBPPC Council) VALP16-09-05-01038 Tim Shaw Other Comments - There isn't much evidence of co-operative thinking in these plans. Various authorities (SODC, AVDC) are, for example, using the existence of Haddenham and Thame Parkway station to support their own arguments for development but the COMBINED impact of the proposals is not being considered. The parking issue from those avoiding parking charges at the above named station is already out of hand and there is no obvious solution which does not inconvenience local residents further.

I have already made representations to WDC regarding their low housing densities in their own draft plans and I understand AVDC is also pushing for this to be re-assessed.

Large towns can grow larger without fundamentally changing their character. Growing villages like Haddenham by 20 or 30% in size will always have a detrimental affect on the existing community - changing its character out of all recognition and this must be always be a poor choice.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 126 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01039 Matthew Smethurst Other Comments - I wish to dispute Avdc 's classification of Whitchurch as a larger village. We have one pub a petrol station/ expensive mini market and a farm shop. The doctors surgery which serves all the surrounding villages is under resources and it can take six weeks to get a non emergency appointment. The school is over subscribed. Public transport is poor and traffic into Aylesbury appalling wit the traffic frequently backing up to hard wick in morning rush hour. Avdc have not identified any suitable development sites and the requirement for 80 plus new houses is unrealistic without destroying the rural nature of the community and ruining an area of attractive landscape. We are constantly under siege form unscrupulous landowners and developers looking to exploit the lack of a local plan and the village urgently needs protection not encouragement to developers.

VALP16-09-05-01043 James Chandler (BT) Other Comments - 1) Running consultation over summer hoildays feels underhand, and therefore designed to minimise responses. The volume of documents to work through is significant - and requires a great deal of understanding of the technical language used. It is not plain english. 2) As a parish that adjoins impacted area of potential proposed Haddenham extension, I feel there should have been more publicity to ensure transparency of consultation - and not to be made aware of plans from a conversation at the eleventh hour. 3) The New Settlement Scoping Study makes note in section 6 of the junction of the A418 / A4129 with and without development. It is not clear how the impact might be mitigated - rather than "there will be an impact" - this needs to be stated. 4) Haddenham development is clearly preferred because of existing rail links into London. Scoping document assesses the road capacity of junctions but there is no evidence of train capacity. Trains are already overcrowded at peak times. 5) A4129 road into Longwick is already extremely busy. The Countywide Local Plan Modelling Support_Final_Draft_060716 document already references Princes Risborough in section 5.2.2.1 whereby it states the "the junction of the A4010 – Aylesbury Road and the A4129" where by the Longwick Road arm of the junction will be at capacity by 2021 - implicating the flow from Longwick will also be at capacity before any significant development in the near future. I cannot see how the impact of traffic from Haddenham development is addressed and the impact further afield in parish of Longwick and Ilmer.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 127 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-05-01044 Clara Chandler Other Comments - 1)Running a consultation over the summer period feels underhand and as if it's been designed to minimise responses 2) As a resident of an immediately adjoining parish, albeit in a neighbouring district, why weren't we informed or consulted directly? If AVDC are trying to present a modern, connected, forward thinking approach to planning and development this is an obvious omission, basic error. 3) Designing a response form that is so complicated also feels like it has been done to minimise response rates from the general population.

4) Proposed development at Haddenham or indeed a Garden Village at Aston Sandford: a) it is a big mistake to assume that because there is a train station (Haddenham and Thame Parkway -Chiltern Line) that any proposed development would have "preferable accessibility" Where is the evidence of capacity on the Chiltern Line into London? I think you will find that demand for seats already exceeds supply. b) How would the approx 14000 cars (2 per household, 7000 homes) be expected to be handled? The A4129 from Thame to P Risborough is already busy and travels through the village of Longwick... There is only one pedestrian crossing in this village. c) The visual impact of 7000 homes on the conservation area at Aston Sandford never mind the wider AONB... This settlement would be a scare on the landscape when viewed from the Hills eg at Whiteleaf. d) Pressure on schools, health centres... Building new facilities is all very well but Aylesbury Vale schools are already struggling to recruit teachers and surgery a doctors...

VALP16-09-06-01051 Philippa Aldridge Other Comments - After an extremely busy summer I have just logged on to the AVDC website to fill in the consultation response form and am horrified to see the size of the form. It seems like it has been designed to put people off of attempting to fill it in and therefore limiting the number of negative responses AVDC will get to their proposals. VALP16-09-06-01052 Ian Ralls Other Comments - I am writing to object to the plans to build on the Hampden Fields Development in Aylesbury, The draft Vale of Aylesbury Plan.

Primarily I don't believe that enough consideration has been given to the surrounding infrastructure and community; roads, hospital places, transport links, secondary schools. All of which vitally important in the provision of housing on this scale.

The number of houses being considered for this development is a serious concern and needs appropriate consideration around many more factors than have been thus far.

This proposal has been turned down once already I believe and the reasons for opposing do still all remain and have not gone away since the last assessment.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 128 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-06-01061 Rachel Browne Other Comments - ▪ It appears that there are question marks over the extent to which neighbouring authorities are assessing their own housing needs. For example, it seems that Wycombe District Council is applying very low densities and thereby failing to maximise its own sites for principal settlement. This raises the question whether a new settlement is needed at all? ▪ The Plan does not take into account the impact of other proposals for housing growth in neighbouring areas. For example, the Plan appears to ignore proposals for substantial development north of Princes Risborough(just outside the Vale boundary) and for similar proposals for new settlements in South Oxfordshire. Again, it seems questionable whether the existing infrastructure (in particular, rail and transport links and existing shopping, educational and social facilities) can cope with development on this scale. This is further exacerbated by the construction of HS2 and seems to indicate a lack of "joined-up" planning. ▪ The Plan would seriously damage the heritage of Haddenham as a village. Haddenham does not have the central focus nor the service core traditionally found in a high street, such as Winslow. Similarly, the Plan would result in the loss of agricultural land which is in the top "best and most versatile". ▪ It seems uncertain, in any case, that such housing growth on this scale is deliverable within the indicative timetable. Finally, it is unfortunate that the consultation process was launched over the summer holidays at a time when many will be away on summer holidays and therefore unable to fully engage.

VALP16-09-07-01083 Elizabeth J. Shorthouse Other Comments - Additional comments addressed to South Oxon District Council.

VALP16-09-07-01084 Mr and Mrs Foulkes Other Comments - I am writing with reference to the above site and the ongoing concern regarding the possible conversion from a temporary to a permanent facility.

I am in full support to the suggestions made regarding traveller sites. I would ask that the policy reflects that future temporary unsuitable sites will not be granted permanent permissions and for this to be strongly outlined in the wording within the VALP to ensure there will be no permanent permissions granted in the future. We need to move forward with clarity and reassurance, in the knowledge that, after the 3-year temporary period has expired, the site at Worminghall Road will be closed.

VALP16-09-07-01086 Paddy Ford Other Comments - It is with great dismay that we read of the proposal to build thousands of homes around the village of Haddenham. Haddenham is at present a lovely community and has already seen quite a number of new homes built in it. Surely to go ahead with such a building proposal would totally destroy the village as it is at present. Many roads, Thame Road and Aston Road for example, already have heavy traffic on them at certain times of the day and they both see their fair share of speeding cars and vans.

To go ahead with such developments would turn Haddenham from a lovely village into a sprawling mess of estates and cars.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 129 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01092 Michael Powell Other Comments - Having visited the recent Winslow presentation of the VALP and offered earlier detailed comments to the recurrant Enquiries, may I comment once more about the options and alternatives that are under consideration.

The Winsow Neighbourhood plan, in conjunction with the VALP, has significant local support and genuinely does just that. Like all plans, it needs to be mobile, and reviewed regularly in the light of the changes that society faces. There are some objectives and targets that don't vary, and must be respected. It is imperative to maintain a balance between residential growth, the potential to "add value" ie to generate "work" and produce saleable material. For this to happen the infrastucture needs adequate roads, transport facilities and the infrastucture of services (schools. medical,and social) to meet the needs of a growing community. Which brings home to one the importance of the plans having a reasonable time scale which is financially realistic and practically applicable.

Over the years, it has been done successfully in Milton Keynes. Are there lessons to be learned from there?

VALP16-09-07-01096 Colin Nicholls Other Comments - I am writing to express my support for the views of Haddenham Parish Council, that it is not right to pass on Wycombe Councils housing requirements onto Haddenham. Wycombe should be building at greater density per hectare in order to meet its needs.I strongly object to the community of Haddenham and its countryside being sacrificed to further housing, above and beyond what has already been allocated. VALP16-09-07-01103 Angela Savage Other Comments - We also have had problems in the past due to inadequate sewage, and a great deal of traffic and parking problems. I am a widow, who does not drive and finds our bus service has diminished over the years and is about to again. I would urge the planning department to consider these points.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 130 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01108 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Draft Consultation: on behalf of Oakminister Representations on Behalf of Oakminster Homes Ltd Homes Ltd) Land south of Upton Road, Dinton Savills is instructed by Oakminster Homes Ltd to submit representations in response to the current consultation period concerning the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Draft Local Plan. This representation is made in relation to our client’s land interest to the south of Upton Road, Dinton. A plan to highlight this specific interest is enclosed. This representation relates to the proposed settlement hierarchy, the categorisation of Dinton as a ‘Smaller Village’, and the availability of our client’s land to deliver residential development. Background Our client’s land interest to the south of Upton Road, Dinton extends to an area of circa 0.7ha and comprises an existing paddock. The site is bordered on three sides by existing residential development to the east, south, and west. The site falls outside, though abuts the Dinton and Conservation Area. The site takes direct access to the local highway via frontage to Upton Road. A red line plan of the site accompanies this correspondence. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The three dimensions to sustainable development require the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. For plan making, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, requires that: Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: o Any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework (taken as a whole); or o Specific polices in the framework indicate development should be restricted. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF outlines that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Residential development in such settlements can make a significant contribution to the maintenance and continuing provision of local services 5 September 2016 L 160902 JY VALP Reps - Dinton

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 131 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Correspondence sent by email to: [email protected] a Page 2 and facilities for community use, as necessary by Section 3 of the NPPF: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy. Draft VALP Consultation Document Housing Growth and Delivery Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. As such it is important that AVDC establishes the appropriate level of housing need to be met within its administrative boundary as soon as is possible, whilst fulfilling the ‘duty to co-operate’ with those Districts which comprise the wider Housing Market Area. This would in turn accord with the principle of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF which requires that local planning authorities ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area...identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period’. AVDC acknowledges that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. On adoption of the Local Plan, the VALP will need to ensure that a five year housing land supply can be soundly reported. Failure to do so risks that VALP being found ‘unsound’ through the examination process.

Proposed site Our client’s land interest, as identified by the accompanying site plan, extends to circa 0.7ha at Dinton. The site currently comprises existing paddock. The site abuts existing residential development east, south, and west. Development in this location could be sensitively designed to respond appropriately to adjoining heritage assets without causing undue harm to the character or setting of this local context. The site is well located within the settlement, and represents a logical extension to the built form of Dinton. Adequate access could be obtained via Upton Road. A red line plan identifying the site accompanies this correspondence. We trust that this correspondence sets out our client’s position and would be grateful to be kept informed of the Council’s progress with the VALP.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 132 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01109 John Hamilton (Nash Other Comments - In general, the plan as presented is unprofessional. There is no publication date and no version control. There Parish) are already at least two versions in circulation and it is not clear which is the later. Throughout there is confusion of dates with little or no attempt to relate facts to a common start point. We have attempted to highlight some of these confusions later in this paper. Similarly, throughout, most numbers, be it population, houses or jobs concentrates on the changes suggested rather than the actual physical numbers. Using actual numbers would make clear what the targets are, but the whole VALP appears to be angled at preventing clarity. The report has to give the starting point in house numbers at April 2013 for each parish and settlement to give the figures for increases some meaning. This will also give clarity of the targets and prevent a constant haggling over the next 25 years over whether communities are meeting their quota because the start point was not defined.

An example of lack of clarity is in the Foreword which states ‘Between now and 2033..‘ without any indication of when now is. There is a significant difference between adding 33,000 houses to the stock in 2013, which we assume is ‘now’ as the plan purports to be for 20 years, and adding 33,000 houses to the stock in 2017.

Paragraph 1.9 states that 21,300 houses will be needed by 2033, and 1.13 that 12,000 may be added to that figure for the unmet need from other districts but it is not until 1.49 that these figures are placed in any context. Paragraph 1.49 states that the housing stock in 2016 as 78,591, which is hardly relevant as the plan should start in 2013, but 1.52 gives a figure for current building rates so a stock of 75,210 might reasonably make a baseline for 2013. It could then be pointed out that if the current rate was sustained for 30 years the stock would be 112,401, an increase of 33,810.

Adding the need for the Vale, 21,300, gives a target figure of 96,510 by 2033. Anything above this will help adjacent districts but should be accounted separately otherwise the requirement for a 5 year supply will be a continual problem. 21,300 represents a 28.5% increase in housing stock: 33,000 a 43.9% increase.

It is unfair, and the HPPF emphasises fairness, to place on the Vale a requirement for extra housing which is nearly as great as the needs of the Vale itself. In effect the neighbours are claiming that they are full thus setting a precedent for any future plans when the Vale will be expected to meet all of their needs. The actual need for the adjacent districts is apparently 28,650 so it is proposed that the Vale should take a major share of this.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 133 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Under Sustainable strategy for growth and its distribution the draft Plan states at paragraph 3.5 that ‘the development strategy seeks to deliver the Local Plan’s vision and objectives to meet the wider needs of places and communities within the district.' Paragraph 3.6 states that ‘the Local Plan strategy and its vision, objectives and policies have been shaped by a number of factors including:

• The identification of the strategic housing market area and functional economic market area within which Aylesbury Vale sits. • The identification of employment, housing and retail needs for the district. • Infrastructure capacity and constraints, in particular wastewater, roads and transport.’

While the draft Plan identifies housing needs for the District as well as that of other Districts it provides little evidence of meeting the wider needs of communities in the north of the District. Nor does it show any substantive evidence of meeting employment and retail needs again in the north. As a result the draft Plan allows for too much unsustainable development in the north of the District. It is unsustainable owing to the fact that it is unsupported by corresponding employment and retail support and because of the likely adverse impact such additional housing will have on the local road system, see below. Such extensive development in the north is also likely to have an adverse environmental impact on the local area..

‘Infrastructure capacity and constraints, in particular wastewater, roads and transport’ are mentioned but no explanation as to how main roads in the north, particularly the A421 and to a less extent the A413, will cope with the considerable additional traffic arising from significant development around Winslow, Buckingham, Milton Keynes and in addition the proposed new town outside Winslow, if built. The A421 is a single lane major road which suffers from heavy congestion during peak hours.

As Milton Keynes seem to have abandoned the grid road system the entries are limited. A new development at Whaddon will have to access the system via the western estates. The A421 and A422 towards Milton Keynes are already congested and the development on the Newton Longeville road will have priority on the roundabouts causing further tailbacks.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 134 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01112 Michael Edmonds. Other Comments - Firstly may I thank you and your team for your hard work and enterprise in getting us to this stage of the Plan. An unenviable task. As a an elected member with a keen interest in the Planning procedure and as a member for the Haddenham & Stone I obviously have an interest in that locality. I aim my comments across the Vale and try to not be a Nimby, although I do have strong views on landscaping issues affecting the Haddenham Ridge. So will comment as follows.

Unmet Needs. I understand that our Council has a duty to co-operate with our neighbouring authorities. It does not have a duty to agree with them and the random figures that they are putting forward. The Draft Plan should state and echo the words of the Cabinet Member, (Mrs Paternoster) that we will vigorously challenge and examine the figures put forward by our neighbours.

Allocation of proposed new sites. Numerous sites of varying sizes are put forward in the Draft Plan which appear to unfairly distributed making roughly the bottom third of the district densely overdeveloped. I would suggest we need to look more closely at the Northern part of the District and spread the load more fairly. There is more than one railway line in the district and most have scope for expansion. The Haddenham line does not, it is vastly oversubscribed.

Call for Sites. This is an ongoing process so I would suggest there will be an ideal opportunity to look again at the proposed allocation of sites. You will be aware that we are still receiving fresh submissions in the call for sites. We have also received numerous planning applications for quite large developments, 14 in July, and at the last count 12 in August, we will need to look at all these when we are looking at our final suggested allocations. I would question also the omission from the Draft of the Fleet Marston site, I am aware of all the arguments, but things have moved on in the last 2/3 years and this site could provide 3000 dwellings plus. Sustainable, has it’s own railway and sits on the A41 with easy access to Aylesbury and Bicester and onto the M40.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 135 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01113 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Draft Consultation: Representations on Behalf of P I & N Healy Land at on behalf of P I & N Road, Stone Healy) Savills is instructed by P I & N Healy to submit representations in response to the current consultation period concerning the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Draft Local Plan. This representation is made in relation to our clients’ interest at land south of Eythrope Road, Stone. A plan to highlight this specific interest is enclosed. This representation relates to the proposed settlement hierarchy, the categorisation of Stone as a ‘Larger Village’, and the availability of our clients’ land to deliver residential development. Background Our clients’ land interest south of Eythrope Road at Stone extends to an area of approximately 4.9 ha. The site comprises a former sandpit site. The Grade II listed Dolphin Cottage lies to the north west of the site. The Stone SSSI is located to the north-western boundary of the site. We understand that the site is not subject to further policy designations. The site takes access from Eythrope Road to the north of the site. A red line plan of the site accompanies this correspondence. The site has previously been subject to assessment under HELAA site reference STO012. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The three dimensions to sustainable development require the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. For plan making, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, requires that: Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: o Any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework (taken as a whole); or o Specific polices in the framework indicate development should be restricted. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF identifies that in order to significantly boost the supply of housing local authorities should: Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (move forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic choice and completion on the market for land. Draft VALP Consultation Document Housing Growth and Delivery Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 136 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01114 Alan Divall (West Waddy Other Comments - Issues and options response and site plan in attached file (on behalf of JA Pye QUA002)) We write on behalf of your client JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd who control land to the rear of 151 Station Road, Quainton. The site (AVDC reference QUA002) has the potential to accommodate between 60 to 80 new dwellings. We previously wrote to the Council in December 2015 with our comments relating to this land through your Draft Local Plan Issues and Option Consultation. We set out in those representations confirmation that our client’s land is available and deliverable and its development would represent sustainable development. I have attached again for reference to this letter those representations submitted in December 2015 and our client considers that the points raised are still pertinent to this Draft Local Plan consultation.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 137 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01115 Leo Scarfe (Iceni (On Other Comments - DRAFT VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION REPRESENTATION SUBMISSION | LAND behalf of Cogent Land & WEST OF NEWTON LONGVILLE Barratt & David Wilson On behalf of our client, Cogent Land LLP (CL) and Barratt & David Wilson Homes (East Region), we hereby make representations Homes) on the development potential of the land to the west of Newton Longville (as identified on the enclosed plan at Appendix 1) (‘the site’), to Aylesbury Vale District Council’s (AVDC) Draft Local Plan Consultation (‘the plan’). a. The Site and Surrounding Context The site, which is currently used as agricultural land and approximately 50ha in size, is located towards the administrative northern boundary of the Aylesbury Vale district. The site is bordered by Whaddon Road to the north east. The Bletchley - Bicester railway line, extends along the north western boundary of the site. The site is also located approximately 1 mile to the south west of Newton Longville. Newton Longville is a village located approximately 2 miles to the south west of Bletchley and comprises a mix of dwelling types and sizes. The village is predominantly residential but boasts a range of community facilities, including a village hall; two churches; a post office; and a primary school. The closest train station to Newton Longville is located within Bletchley. The village is currently served by limited transport infrastructure. However, it is considered that to ensure successful promotion of the site and to enhance the sustainability credentials of it, the provision of a new multi-model transport hub would need to be provided in the medium to long-term. The administrative boundary of Milton Keynes is located just beyond the site to the north. It is therefore necessary to take into account the planning and political context of both local planning authorities (LPA) in considering the development potential, and promotional timeline, of the site. b. The Planning Framework In preparing a new Local Plan, AVDC has a duty to ensure that its evidence base accords with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012). As officers will be well aware, the NPPF sets out the government’s policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. Local plans must be in conformity with the policies within the framework. In particular, paragraph 182 of the NPPF advises that for a local plan to be sound, it must be: 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 where it is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 138 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 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. Furthermore, the NPPF requires local plans, inter alia, to: widen the choice of high quality homes [paragraph 9]; positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of the area [paragraph 14]; contain sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change [paragraph 14]; be based upon and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development, with clear policies that will guide how the presumption in favour should apply locally [paragraph 15]; respond positively to wider opportunities for growth [paragraph 17]; set out a clear strategy for allocation sufficient land which is suitable for development in the area [paragraph 17]; boost significantly the supply of housing [paragraph 47]; meet the full objectively assessed housing needs of the housing market area and identify key sites that are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period [paragraph 47]; plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups [paragraph 50]; set out the strategic policies for the area, including policies to deliver the homes and jobs needed in the area [paragraph 156 & 178]; be drawn up over an appropriate time scale, preferably a 15-year time horizon taken into account of longer term requirements, and be kept up to date [paragraph 157]; identify and where development would be inappropriate due to environmental or historic significance [paragraph 157]; and be deliverable and viable [paragraph 173]. In light of these requirements, it is inevitable that a number of complex questions will be asked of the plan, with particular emphasis likely to be on the: extent of development needs in the district; strategic distribution of development in relation to existing and proposed infrastructure provision in the district;

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 139 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 3 extent of the evidence necessary to demonstrate that the plan will deliver sustainable development; and the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities. For the reasons set out in these representations, it is considered that the allocation of the ‘site’ for residential development will go a long way in helping AVDC to answer some of these questions. c. Relevant Planning Policy Considerations In January 2016, AVDC published a statement setting out its five-year housing land supply position. Paragraphs 47-49 of the NPPF make it clear that LPAs are required to identify and keep up-to-date a deliverable five-year housing land supply against their housing requirements. Where an authority is not able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development in line with the NPPF (paragraph 14). The January statement, which has been prepared using the Full Objectively Assessed Need (FOAN) identified in the Central Buckinghamshire Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA)(October 2015), concludes that AVDC will be required to provide an additional 5,325 new dwellings within the next five years. As a result, AVDC can only account for a maximum housing land supply of 4.2 years. This calculation takes into account the provision of additional windfall sites and the required 20% buffer, which has been added to AVDC’s five year target due to its record of persistent under delivery in meeting its annual housing targets. AVDC have confirmed that they do not have an up-to-date or deliverable five-year housing land supply. In order to make their draft Local Plan sound, the Council will therefore need to identify and allocate additional land for residential development across the district to enable it to meet its housing targets. The development of the ‘site’ for residential purposes would make a significant contribution towards housing supply in the district and the Council is respectfully requested to take the opportunity to allocate new and sustainable sites (or sites that can be made sustainable) for development that have not previously been identified through the local plan process as being suitable, available or achievable. In terms of the duty to cooperate, the draft plan acknowledges that Aylesbury Vale does not exist in isolation and recognises the need to engage positively with neighbouring authorities and other stakeholders on strategic issues such as housing and employment needs. With this in mind, the Council has sought to co-operate with neighbouring Buckinghamshire LPAs on the extent of the evidence base to be prepared to guide local plan preparation. This co-operation has led to the preparation of: a joint housing needs assessment; a joint assessment of employment land requirements; a joint review of the Green Belt; a joint report on a best-fit housing market area; and an agreed methodology over the assessment of land availability.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 140 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01116 Mr PR and Mrs MT Other Comments - It appears that those responsible for the draft VALP have little idea about the rural nature of the area and the Arnold current pressures from speculative developers that is experienced by our village (Little Horwood) and others in the Vale of Aylesbury. Little Howood suffers from the lack of provision of affordable housing to enable young people born in the village to continue to live here upon reaching maturity and work nearby. Older people are equally disadvantaged as those wishing to down size to smaller properties can’t because of lack of supply. What we have is an increasing number of executive style houses that the local population neither wants nor can afford. Nothing in the plan seeks to address these issues. Whilst planning for the future is imperative, trying to impose a large new town upon our rural community is not a good idea. We do not regard ourselves as NIMBYs but rather share with you our concerns for the survival of this rural part of North Buckinghamshire. As “custodians” of this land, it is incumbent upon those who live here to protect what we enjoy for future generations. The key words in NPPF “sustainable development” would be supported by many but the present VALP submitted for consultation does not seem to fit this description. N.B.The online form is rather overwhelming, difficult to answer without planning knowledge and is generally not user friendly. VALP16-09-07-01120 Clive Pearson Other Comments - The whole of VALP appears to have been composed backwards with the sole goal of urbanising the area south of Aylesbury. It fails to address the fears and opinions highlighted by the residents with their local experience and knowledge.

Wendover High Street, Tring Road and Aylesbury Road are the three main roads which join at a mini roundabout. The carriageways are quite narrow, drain grids often well below the metalled surface and sections of Aylesbury Road are liable to flooding. One regularly spurts water into the Aylesbury Road carriageway during and after rain. On these occasions the pavement is also awash.

Wendover infrastructure is village orientated with no apparent space to extend the shops or park additional cars. Adding many more houses, families/ children, cars/traffic and diesel pollution to an area where even the pavements are decaying seems to be putting the housing 'need' before the essential groundwork. Let's hope the builders don't follow the same system; foundations are important. The background infrastructure should be planned in advance.

VALP16-09-07-01121 Ken and Viv Birkby Other Comments - We would like to comment on three aspects of the VALP

•Overall plans for growth The numbers are too high and there needs to be flexibility to amend •New settlement Haddenham is not the most suitable place for the planning of a new settlement •Implications for Cuddington Cuddington is not a ‘medium’ village and should revert to its previous classification of ‘small.’ VALP16-09-07-01122 Nick Morgan (Aston Other Comments - •4.1 The AVDC plan is incomplete and seems to have been rushed out to be issued to local councils / parish Sandford Parish meetings to coincide with the summer holidays thereby giving them smallest chance of meeting and commenting on the plan. That Meeting) is shabby treatment for those affected.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 141 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01124 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - Representation in Response to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan on behalf of Mr N and on Behalf of Mr N Bartman and Mrs V Bartman Mrs V Bartman - land Savills is instructed by Mr N Bartman and Mrs V Bartman (the Owners) in respect of land at Thornbrook House, Risborough Road, owners at Thornbrook Stoke Mandeville (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Site’). The following correspondence sets out a formal response to the Vale of House) Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Draft Plan Consultation. For clarity a Site Location Plan has been enclosed with this correspondence which outlines the extent of land interest at Stoke Mandeville. In light of the Council’s assessment of potential development sites undertaken via the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) process, the following representations are made in support of a potential allocation for residential development at Thornbrook House, Risborough Road, Stoke Mandeville. The site extends to circa 6.7 hectares and incorporates the buildings and grounds of Thornbrook House and the Roylands Livery property in the northern portion of the site. The Council’s relevant HELAA site reference is SMD015. National Planning Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The three dimensions to sustainable development require the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. For plan making, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, requires that: Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: o Any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework (taken as a whole); or o Specific polices in the framework indicate development should be restricted.

Paragraph 47 of the NPPF identifies that in order to significantly boost the supply of housing local authorities should: Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (move forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic choice and completion on the market Draft VALP Consultation Document

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 142 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Housing Growth and Delivery Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. It is essential that, in working alongside those Districts which comprise the wider Housing Market Area, AVDC establishes the appropriate level of housing need to be met within its own administrative boundary as soon as possible. AVDC proposes a concise VALP preparation timetable, with a Proposed Submission VALP consultation programmed for the ‘start’ of 2017. The Proposed Submission VALP must be clear as to the quantum of growth required to be delivered across the District in the plan period. This quantum should comprise the need of AVDC itself, along with potential delivery of un-met housing need from the wider HMA, as reported by the Draft Plan. The Owners support the Council’s approach to accommodate unmet need, though it is essential that the level of unmet need is established in order to inform the appropriate Spatial Option for Development and in turn ensure the VALP can be found sound at Examination. Paragraph 3.11 of the Draft Plan reports that ‘further capacity work within the HMA may mean this will change, so a definitive housing number cannot yet be established’. The Report to VALP Scrutiny Committee (13th June 2016) identifies a shortfall of 11,000 units in respect of Luton Borough with Dacorum Borough and Milton Keynes Council yet to define the extent of their unmet need. In turn, this accords with the principle of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF which requires that local planning authorities ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local plan meets the full, objectively assess needs for market and affordable housing...identifying key site which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period’. AVDC acknowledges that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. On adoption, the VALP will need to ensure that a five-year supply can be soundly reported. Failure to do so risks the VALP being found ‘unsound’ through the Examination process. VALP16-09-07-01125 Ian Whipp Other Comments - Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the VALP Draft Plan, I attended your consultation at Newton Longville. I understand the requirement to produce a plan and government directives to include housing numbers for future growth. The consequence of not having a current plan, has meant developers have taken advantage of this situation and submit developments to any land they have a financial interest in. This is at the expense of local residents and their living standards, and against the idea of Localism.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 143 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01126 Sarah Churchard Other Comments - I write in response to the above consultation on behalf of the Ascott Farms Ltd and with regard to (Robinson & Hall LLP - development land at Wingrave. Abbotts Way, Wingrave) I include below a response to specific policies, paragraphs or tables in the VALP July 2016. I also enclose a site representation for the land to the west of Abbotts Way, Wingrave for your consideration (A/45476/1). Site representation Enclosed with this letter is a representation for land to the west of Abbotts Way. My client, Ascott Farm Ltd, own the land to the west of the cul de sac of Abbotts Way and north of Winslow Road, together with the allotment gardens. It is acknowledged that all this land is beyond the village boundary, but also that the Parish Council have committed to reviewing the allocation of an additional site to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan for housing development. A representation was previously made for a small area to the rear of 116-122 Winslow Road, which was confused in the site assessments with being part of the allotments. This area is in fact scrub land and not suitable for use as allotments or arable farmland. This can be seen on the attached aerial photograph of the site (A/45476/2). The proposal is well related to the main village with two good options for vehicular access. The existing shape of the field is irregular and not convenient to farm, and the proposed development would square off the western end of the village. The development could be located to the north of the allotments, or to wrap around the allotments, depending on the scale of development that would be appropriate. The proposal for this site relates to housing development, acknowledging the need to provide a suitable level of affordable housing and contribute through planning obligations in line with the Council’s requirements. The site is capable of providing for a mix of dwelling sizes. The site is ‘greenfield’ and I do not foresee any issues that might impinge on the viability of a scheme at this stage. This will be reviewed as and when plans become more detailed. This site should be considered as part of the additional site for the Neighbourhood Plan, as well as in the assessment of housing land availability for the Borough. I trust that you find the above and enclosed to be in order. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this further. I would be grateful if you would inform me of any updates to the Local Plan preparation.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 144 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01134 Matthew Dawber (Savills Other Comments - Representations Regarding Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Draft Plan on Behalf of the Berryfields Developer (on behalf of Berryfields Savills is instructed by the Berryfields Developer (hereinafter the Developer) to submit representations in response to the current Developers)) consultation concerning the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Draft Consultation Document. The representations are made specifically in relation to our client’s interests at Berryfields, Aylesbury. To specify further this is in relation to two areas within the Berryfields MDA which are currently allocated for employment use and their potential to accommodate residential development. Accordingly this representation relates to the proposed settlement hierarchy, the housing land supply position within Aylesbury Vale, the availability of employment land and the suitability of the Developer’s land to deliver residential development. National Planning Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The three dimensions to sustainable development require the planning system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. For plan making, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, requires that: Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: o Any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework (taken as a whole); or o Specific polices in the framework indicate development should be restricted. This general principle to meet the needs of the area which the Local Plan relates is discussed in more detail with relation to residential development at paragraph 47 of the NPPF. This states that to significantly boost the supply of housing local authorities should: Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (move forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic choice and completion on the market for land. Paragraph 22 of the NPPF specifically relates to the protection of sites which are allocated for employment use. The policy states the following:

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 145 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities. Housing and Economic Growth and Delivery Paragraph 14 of the NPPF requires that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area. It is essential that, in working alongside those Districts which comprise the wider Housing Market Area, AVDC establishes the appropriate level of need to be met within its own administrative boundary as soon as possible. AVDC proposes a concise VALP preparation timetable, with a Proposed Submission VALP consultation programmed for the ‘start’ of 2017. The Proposed Submission VALP must be clear as to the quantum of growth required to be delivered in the District in the plan period. This quantum should comprise the need of AVDC itself, along with potential delivery of un-met housing need from the wider HMA, as reported by the Draft Plan. The Developer supports the Council’s approach to accommodate unmet need, though it is essential that the level of unmet need is established in order to inform the appropriate Spatial Option for Development and in turn ensure the VALP can be found sound at Examination. Paragraph 3.11 of the Draft Plan reports that ‘further capacity work within the HMA may mean this will change, so a definitive housing number cannot yet be established’. The Report to VALP Scrutiny Committee (13th June 2016) identifies a shortfall of 11,000 units in respect of Luton Borough with Dacorum Borough and Milton Keynes Council’s yet to define the extent of unmet need. In turn, this accords with the principle of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF which requires that local planning authorities ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local plan meets the full, objectively assess needs for market and affordable housing...identifying key site which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period’. AVDC acknowledges that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. On adoption, the VALP will need to ensure that a five-year supply can be soundly reported. Failure to do so risks the VALP being found ‘unsound’ through the Examination process. In terms of employment provision, the figure of 22 hectares of employment land over the plan period and based on the current circumstances is acceptable. This employment development should be focused in the most suitable locations for modern economic development. There is more discussion of this current oversupply later in the representations. The Need for New Employment Land

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 146 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Paragraph 4.95 of the VALP rightly acknowledges that there is an oversupply of employment land in the district compared to the predicted need for employment land, with a surplus of 221,400 m2 or 51 hectares of total B use class. The Council has stated that it is looking to reduce the surplus of employment land as it does not wish to allocate more housing land to accommodate the workers attracted by employment development The Council has focused its efforts thus far on reviewing sites where it is considered that employment use does not need to be protected in the long term. No explanation of this statement is made within the VALP, but it is assumed that these sites would be non- key, smaller employment sites, which are not currently providing for any jobs. A good example of this is the Developer’s land at Berryfields. The Council has not identified any suitable employment sites for other uses to be considered. Rather they are inviting expressions of interest from landowners, or other relevant parties. The Developer’s response to this invitation is outlined later in these representations. Owing to the pressing need for housing sites to be identified within the VALP, the Council should use the opportunity of employment sites which have an established principle for built development for residential use, where appropriate. This would have the joint benefits of reducing the employment land surplus and providing much needed residential land. The Proposed Site As outlined earlier in this letter, the site comprises two parcels of land which are currently allocated for employment, within the Berryfields development. The land amounts to 7.33 hectares in total, which is split between 4.6 hectares to the south of the A41 (excluding constraints and possible employment user) and 2.73 acres north of the A41, close to the identified District Centre. The site has been the subject of a pre-application advice request to AVDC sent on 13 May 2016. At the time of writing the Developer is not in receipt of any such advice from the Council. The land in question has an employment use owing to the outline planning consent (Application Reference: 03/02386/AOP) granted in November 2007. However, there is currently nobody actually employed on the land and no development can take place until such time that the reserved matters have been approved. Therefore, there is no actual loss of any employment. There is no reasonable prospect of the land coming forward for employment uses and therefore in accordance with paragraph 22 of the NPPF and VALP Draft Policy E2 the land is appropriate for residential development and is immediately available to assist the District meet its housing land supply shortfall.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 147 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Based on an initial capacity assessment the northern employment parcel can accommodate circa 95 dwellings at a density of 35 dwellings per hectare. This is based on the low density figure taken from the approved Density Plan A3454/2.1/111A. The southern employment parcel can accommodate circa 175 dwellings. This is based on a density of 38 dwellings per hectare, using an average of the low and medium densities on the approved Berryfields Density Plan A3454/2.1/111A. It also takes account of a number of constraints affecting the parcel for example the potential employment land, the overhead power lines and gas pipe easement. Based on the above it is estimated that the combined total is circa 270 dwellings over both parcels, subject to detailed layout and technical work. Conclusions The VALP acknowledges both a shortfall in identified housing sites, and a surplus of committed employment sites. This deficit in housing supply may become more acute when the unmet need of all neighbouring authorities is finalised. The Council has acknowledged the need to reduce the amount of land identified for employment use through the VALP in order to avoid the necessity to allocate more housing land to reflect this and has invited developer interest on change of use from employment to reflect this. Aylesbury is acknowledged as the most sustainable settlement in the district with growth coming mainly from sustainable urban extensions. The Developer’s site is located within the Berryfields development in Aylesbury. The wider MDA was granted planning permission for a mixed use site in 2007 and development has taken place on parts of the site. The two parcels of employment land which are the subject of this letter have been marketed without success for over 12 months and as such cannot be considered as feasible for an employment use suitable for this location. The allocation of the site within the VALP would serve the dual purpose of reducing the surplus of employment land and increasing the supply of housing land. If the Council chooses not to undertake formal allocations as a means of changing the use of employment sites, it should develop a VALP Policy which seeks to facilitate the change of use from employment to residential on suitable sites, such as the Developer’s. We look forward to engaging further in the development of the VALP in due course.

VALP16-09-07-01144 Rachel Lewis Other Comments - •I now live in Wendover, having moved out from Aylesbury because of the Broughton mass development and now I see you are proposing to remove the Greenbelt restrictions which protects this beautiful area. •33,000 houses, HS2 and a a council who seems to be incapable of really being able to demonstrate sound environmental, flooding, transport, infrastructure and education considerations. Aylesbury itself has been ruined in recent years. Please take care for future generations and protect the beautiful, distinct villages and the surrounds. I know many people who are leaving this area now for good because of what it has/will become. VALP16-09-07-01146 Chris Lee (Kodiak Land) Other Comments - These representations are submitted by Kodiak Land (from here on referred to as Kodiak) in response to the current consultation on the New Local Plan Publication Draft. Kodiak welcomes the opportunity to comment on this version of the Vale of Aylesbury Plan, and asks to be kept informed on progress with this document. Kodiak specialises in the promotion of small sites (typically 5-7 acres) for residential development, by working alongside the community to deliver bespoke, high quality, design-led schemes which meet local housing needs and deliver community benefits while also assisting Councils to meet their five year housing land supply requirement. Kodiak’s representations at this stage focus on those policies which specifically concern Kodiak sites but we reserve the right to comment further as part of forthcoming consultation and at examination.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 148 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01150 Mr and Mrs Bradford Other Comments - We write to express some of our views on the latest draft of the VALP. A copy of the letter is attached. We note that this consultation period has taken place over the summer, a time when many people are away or have their attention focussed on other matters, such as local village events or childcare during the long school holiday. One of the attractive features of living in a country made up residentially of hamlets, villages, towns and cities, is that people can make a choice about the environment they prefer to live in. Those of us who choose, and are able, to live in a village do so because we value the scale, surroundings, history, rural nature and community spirit that villages provide. We choose to have access to few and small-scale service and retail resources, and are happy to travel further afield for larger and more diverse provision when necessary. Preserving the individuality of discrete hamlets, villages and smaller towns continues to give people a choice about how they live, and adds to the diverse, contrasting richness of the country's residential landscape. The current VALP draft plan will destroy the shape, heritage and nature of several villages in this area. Once lost, such beauty and quality of life will not be restored.

VALP16-09-07-01153 Sylvie Eames Other Comments - Firstly, congratulations to all working on this complicated document- many hours and pages of research and commitment has gone into this draft plan.Whilst I appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this Plan, I must stress that there are a number of comments that worry us in the north east of the area. Working through the document.the lengthy summary and background I comprehend the need for this plan to be successful but there still are issues to address. 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 ), 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. Will "New settlement" only be developed if there is a proven need. ? Pg 24 para 2.4 recognising the importance of "phasing" is welcome but an indication of timing would be welcome! VALP16-09-07-01154 Laura Dudley-Smith Other Comments - A transport statement and Phase 1 habitat survey are attached. (Strutt and Parker (on behalf of Mr Talbot These representations to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2016)( (DVALP), are submitted by Strutt and Parker LLP on behalf WGR009)) of Mr W. Talbot, who is actively promoting the residential development of land north of Lower End, Wingrave (site reference WGR009 in the Council’s plan-making process). 1.2 In summary, our site is adjacent to the current developed boundary of Wingrave with clear defensible boundaries. Wingrave is a sustainable settlement which is also well-related to other key settlements in the District. Notwithstanding this, the DVALP does not propose allocation of the site for housing. 1.3 The site’s rejection in the DVALP is not considered justified, and we have concerns in respect of how this site has been assessed through strategic environmental assessment/ sustainability appraisal as part of the plan-making process. 1.4 In addition, we have concerns as to whether the strategic approach to housing delivery is sound – the current proposed approach is neither justified nor effective. 1.5 We welcome further discussions with the Council as to how we could assist in ensuring a sound and legally compliant Local Plan for Vale of Aylesbury District.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 149 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01158 Judy Brandis Other Comments - WDC is proposing 2,600 houses at Princes Risborough. SODC is proposing a further 600 at Thame in addition to 775 already allocated in the NP. Plus a new settlement at either Chalgrove or Harrington, where they are advertising Haddenham station being 19 or 12 minutes away. VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great Other Comments - Additonal comments which cannot fit on form in attached document Horwood Parish Council) 0.1 The Development Plan 0.1.1 Aylesbury Vale District Council is the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the Vale of Aylesbury. The Development Plan represents its settled view on how development in the Vale should proceed. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) states that planning permission is required for development (Section 57) and that, when dealing with an application, the LPA shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application(Section 70 (2) (b)). In addition the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA) states If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38 (6)). 0.1.2 The Development Plan for the Vale of Aylesbury comprises the development plan documents (taken as a whole) which have been adopted or approved in relation to that area, (PCPA Section 38 (3) (b)) together with neighbourhood development plans which have been made for the area. 0.1.3 The Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (January 2004) (AVDLP) is a development plan document. Paragraph 1.1 of AVDLP states The Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (AVDLP) applies to the whole of the District and covers the period to 2011. 0.1.4 The expiry date of policies in AVDLP was, however, modified by PCPA. Paragraph 1 (2) of Schedule 8 in that Act states The transitional period is the period starting with the commencement of section 38 and ending on whichever is the earlier of— (a) the end of the period of three years; (b) the day when in relation to an old policy, a new policy which expressly replaces it is published, adopted or approved. and paragraph 1 (3) states But the Secretary of State may direct that for the purposes of such policies as are specified in the direction sub-paragraph (2)(a) does not apply. 0.1.5 On 24 September 2007 the Secretary of State directed that certain of the policies in AVDLPshould be “saved” under paragraph 1 (3), so that these policies remain part of the Development Plan for the Vale of Aylesbury. The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) is intended to be a development plan document which will replace the saved policies of AVDLP. 0.2 The structure of this representation 0.2.1 This representation from Great Horwood Parish Council (GHPC) contains comments on both the content and the presentation of the draft VALP. Each section of the representation refers to a similarly-numbered chapter in the draft VALP with, from section 3 onwards, subsections referring to the similarly-numbered policies in that chapter; a few sections contain a final subsection with general comments about that chapter.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 150 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great 0.2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision-takers both in Horwood Parish Council) drawing up plans and as a material consideration in determining applications. Paragraph 154 of the NPPF states Local Plans should be aspirational but realistic. They should address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change. Local Plans should set out the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where. Only policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal should be included in the plan. GHPC therefore regards its comments about the presentation of the draft VALP to be equally as important as its comments on the content. 0.2.3 GHPC has previously submitted two representations concerning the specific question of a proposed new settlement. For convenience these are appended as appendices to the present document. 0.3 GHPC general comments 0.3.1 In general, the layout of the chapters 3–11 in the draft VALP is that, after the chapter title page, each policy is preceded by explanatory text. GHPC suggest that, at the beginning of each chapter, a list of the policies (including their titles) be given. 0.3.2 The view of GHPC is that, whereas many of the policies are written at an appropriate level of detail, some policies contain detail that would be better provided as guidance in a supplementary planning document, with a suitable reference. This would, for example, give a decision taker more freedom to exercise planning judgement in favour of an innovative solution which satisfied the intention rather than the letter of the guidance. 0.3.3 It is also the view of GHPC that, on occasion, policies have been drafted in a repetitive manner so that the intention is obscured rather than clarified. Where this is the case, simplified wording is suggested. 0.3.4 On the other hand, it appears to GHPC that there are a few occasions where the clear intention of a policy is circumvented by a failure to use suitably robust wording, or by the inclusion of an inadequately restricted mechanism for avoidance. Again, where this appears to be the case, a modification is suggested. 0.3.5 It was felt inappropriate, at this draft stage, to highlight any typographical errors found, as the text of the draft plan will be modified for submission and such errors corrected at that stage. There are, however, several itemised lists in the draft VALP where the grammatical structure varies from item to item. GHPC is particularly concerned that these be checked so that the grammar is consistent from item to item, as inconsistencies in such cases can lead to ambiguity and disputes about the meaning of the plan.

VALP16-09-07-01159 Mandy Cliffe (Great 0.3.6 Occasionally, proposals for modifications to the draft VALP make reference to the South Worcestershire Development Plan Horwood Parish Council) (SWDP), adopted in February 2016. It is not suggested that SWDP is better in any way that other recently adopted local plans; SWDP has simply been chosen as an instance of a plan which has been prepared in the context of the NPPF, and which has been determined to be sound by the examining Inspector. Subject of course to context, reference to SWDP policies may be helpful when considering the wording of VALP policies. 0.3.7 GHPC’s penultimate general comment concerns the relationship of VALP to AVDLP. As the saved policies in AVDLP continue in force until a new policy “expressly replaces it”, there should be an appendix to VALP listing the saved AVDLP policies and, in each case, either specifying the replacement policy or else indicating why no new policy is required. 0.3.8 The Glossary should be in alphabetical order! (Please check the entries for Brownfield register and Cultural facilities.)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 151 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01166 Andrew Marsh (Central Other Comments - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013 - 2033: Draft Plan for Summer 2016 Consultation Bedfordshire) Thank you for consulting Central Bedfordshire Council on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013 – 2033, ‘Draft Plan for Summer 2016 Consultation’. Please accept this letter as our formal response.

Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and we look forward to continuing the good working relations that have already been forged between the two Councils.

We are keen to ensure, as no doubt you are, that when submitted for Examination, the Local Plan is found to be sound as well as compliant with the Duty to Cooperate. To this end, I hope you find the comments below useful.

CBC Local Plan timetable and the Duty to Cooperate

The legal framework around the Duty to Cooperate (DtC) underpins the positive and continual partnership working between bodies which should result in mutually beneficial outcomes. Central Bedfordshire Council is clear that by working with neighbouring authorities and other prescribed bodies on strategic issues, all local authorities can maximise the effectiveness and deliverability of strategic policies in their local plans. We’re also fully committed to plan led development and as such is fully supportive of neighbouring authorities progressing their respective plans. It is certainly in everybody’s best interests that local authorities continue to progress plans to provide certainty.

Aylesbury Vale District Council’s desire to progress and have up to date plan in place is supported. However, as set out in our comments on housing need, we feel that it may be premature to advance a Plan in the absence of consensus with regards Luton’s unmet need. The outcomes of the Growth Options Study will likely require further detailed Duty to Cooperate meetings and discussions between the authorities within the HMA to agree how the unmet need is to be met. How the need is distributed between the constituent authorities will then need to feed in to the overall housing requirement for each area and be a key consideration for other evidence base studies such as Green Belt Review, site assessments and sustainability appraisal. It will also be a key element in the consideration of viability across the plan area as well as the level of infrastructure that will need to be delivered in order to ensure the delivery of sustainable developments.

Should a local authority within the HMA feel that they cannot contribute to meeting part of the unmet need arising from Luton, this would need a detailed explanation and would need to be fully supported by robust evidence and sustainability appraisal.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 152 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01171 Nick Osgerby (Steeple Other Comments - Steeple Claydon Parish Council is currently preparing its Neighbourhood Plan and is therefore keen to work with Claydon Parish Council) AVDC in the development of the Local Plan to ensure that there is alignment between our village’s development plans and the obligations placed on AVDC as planning authority by the planning regulations. We believe we have taken a pragmatic and positive view of the draft local plan and trust that our comments will be taken into account in the next iteration of the document. This response only comments on the sections of the plan which directly affect the village. For comments on other sections we refer to and support the submission by the NBPPC, which SCPC is a member of.

Further Strategic Policy Chapter comments in attachment.

VALP16-09-07-01172 Simon Proctor (Proctor Other Comments - Additional comments in the attached on policies that wouldn't fit into the form - S5, S6, S8 and H7 Surveyors (Stoke Hammond)) VALP16-09-07-01174 Sarah Churchard Other Comments - I write in response to the above consultation on behalf of Messrs F, C and D Morris and with regard to (Robinson & Hall LLP development land at Whitehouse Farm, north of the railway line past Winslow. (Whitehouse Farm, I include below a response to specific policies, paragraphs or tables in the VALP July 2016. I Winslow)) also enclose a site representation for the site at Wingrave for your consideration.

Site representation A representation is enclosed with this letter to accompany the above comments. The site would form part of the wider northern expansion of Winslow as a sustainable location for new development in the 11-15 year timeframe. The type of development could be of mixed use, principally with housing development, whilst being able to provide for road improvements along Winslow Road, employment opportunities, community facilities and additional landscaping.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 153 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-07-01176 Neil McIntyre Other Comments - I am writing to raise my concerns regarding the proposals set out in paras 4.27 to 4.43 of the AVDC Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) draft issued summer 2016, called Delivering a new settlement (‘the proposals’). Those paragraphs propose a ‘village’ of some 6,000 houses (which would mean a population approximately the same as or bigger than Thame currently, and at least 3 times bigger than the current population of Haddenham) apparently mainly within the parish boundary of Aston Sandford. Deliverability 1.The proposals made in paras 4.27 to 4.43 are not yet supported by any evidence: at the end of those paragraphs there is a reference to ‘D2, delivering a new settlement, policy to follow, awaiting further evidence’; the boundaries of the proposed settlement are vague (little more than a blob); no consideration has been made as to the impact of such a huge settlement on the landscape, the local community or any infrastructure – and the proposals do not address the issue of land values. Para 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (which AVDC is obliged to follow states that any local plan must be ‘sound’, that is to say must be positively prepared, must be justified, must be effective and consistent with national policy. By putting forward a plan without full evidence and without a full (or indeed any) review or feasibility considerations AVDC have failed to produce a plan which satisfies those criteria: it is AVDC’s duty to produce a plan which is deliverable, and this clearly is not. The AVDC plan is therefore “unsound”. Sustainability 2.In addition the proposals are not sustainable for the following reasons – -2.1 Need: new developments of this kind should be based on need. The need in this case does not seem to come from AVDC but from Wycombe DC (the neighbouring DC) and also from DCs on the southern boundaries of the county. As I understand it AVDC is able to meet its own allocation without the need for a new settlement at Aston Sandford or at Winslow or anywhere else in its district. I understand that Wycombe DC uses a measure of density based on far fewer houses per hectare than is being proposed for the AVDC new village. I feel strongly that Wycombe should increase their density and thus obviate the need for a new settlement of any kind in AVDC. It seems bizarre that Wycombe DC fails to consider any developments in the AONB or the green belt while AVDC is apparently prepared to sacrifice land in an Area of Attractive Landscape (AAL).

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 154 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.2 Landscape impact: the proposals would have ‘a very significant adverse impact on the character and impact of the landscape’. Those are the words recently used by the Secretary of State in dismissing an appeal against AVDC’s own refusal for planning permission for 1,560 homes in Bierton. He acknowledged in that case that the development would be ‘well located and sustainable in terms of its accessibility and...choice of travel modes’ but decided that the landscape impact would be too great. It would ‘engulf historic field patterns’. I submit that all those objections apply to the proposals for a new settlement at Aston Sandford. It would in addition mean the loss of valuable productive agricultural land. It would too have a hugely significant visual impact – this is an area less than 5 miles from the Chilterns AONB, and would be a huge scar in the sightlines across the Vale from the Chilterns and in an AAL, tantamount to an infringement of the AONB.

- 2.3 Transport infrastructure: the proposals would place an intolerable burden on local roads in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire which are already under great strain, on Haddenham itself and on Chiltern Railways. A transport plan is said to be evolving whereas one would have thought that such a major undertaking would have necessitated a transport plan as part of a feasibility study. I make the following observations, none of which have been considered in the plan -

- 2.3.1 It is plain that the imposition of such a huge settlement would need to be supported by vastly improved roads, something which Bucks CC is unlikely to have the money to achieve. It should be borne in mind that Thame, Aylesbury, Princes Risborough are all set to be developed further. Access to High Wycombe, where it might be expected that some of the village residents would be employed or would seek access to the M40, will be further strained (the queues into the West Wycombe roundabout are already miles long in morning peak time). Similarly access to Thame, another centre of employment and an access way point for the M40, will be further strained. Freight traffic from the M40 to the area would also increase dramatically with all the needs of the 6,000 homes – Amazon and other home deliveries plus provisions to the local shops in the village and neighbouring towns.

- 2.3.2 One of the prime reasons for the proposal for the development of a village within easy reach of Haddenham (which is itself seen as a great attraction for the inhabitants of the new village) is that there is a popular station there, Haddenham and Thame Parkway (HTP). This reason is not sustainable for the following reasons -

o It is hard to see how Haddenham village could cope with the influx of maybe thousands of cars en route to HTP, to say nothing of parking issues (already a huge problem in Haddenham because commuters refuse to pay parking charges and park in the surrounding residential streets);

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 155 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment o The station also serves Thame, another town due to increase in size – so pressure on the station will increase; o In December 2016 Chiltern Line is due to open the extension of the line from HTP, Bicester Village and Oxford Parkway to Oxford Station; given the dire service which Oxford commuters have to endure to Paddington it is likely that the extension will prove hugely popular, so that trains stopping at HTP are likely to be crowded even without new housing developments; o I am aware of the proposals for huge developments at Harrington (near junction 7 of the M40) and Chalgrove (on the other side of the M40), both based on the belief that HTP will be available for commuters from those areas, which would of course put even more pressure on the local roads as well as the station/Chiltern line; o I further understand that there are big developments proposed for Banbury and Bicester; some trains from those centres stop at HTP so will presumably be even fuller particularly at peak times; o Chiltern Railways, for all their virtues, have limited scope, not least because there is little or no scope to increase the platforms at Marylebone (it has only six) and has no spare track capacity (there are only two tunnels into the station and only two lines between Neasden and the start of the tunnels, all of which carry rail traffic from the Aylesbury line as well). Trains are packed at peak times now (and often off peak as well) and options for improving the commuters’ lot are limited. None of this appears to have been considered by AVDC or indeed, so far as I can see, any other DC.

- 2.3.3 While the alternative site for a new settlement at Winslow does not at present have a railway line (a reason why Haddenham is favoured over Winslow) by the time a village is likely to be built the “varsity” line should be operational, opening up employment opportunities in Oxford, Milton Keynes and longer term to Cambridge, and would thus take the pressure off the Chiltern line. I understand that there is a proposal for an hourly service from Milton Keynes via Winslow to Marylebone – which is another attraction for Winslow – and that will be via Aylesbury not the line through HTP.

- 2.4 Other infrastructure: it can hardly be expected that the new village would or could be entirely self contained so pressure on other infrastructure would be enormous. For example, I can guess that the schools which are envisaged in the village would (at least in the first instance) be restricted to infant/primary/junior. It is difficult to see how the local secondary schools – Aylesbury, Waddesdon, Princes Risborough and Thame – could cope, especially as those areas are also expanding; and of course the need to transport the schoolchildren would only add to congestion. Perhaps it is because the plan envisages a population of 1.9 per household in the new settlement that it has failed to consider the needs of children. Assuming that a population in 6,000 houses could sustain a secondary school it would not, could not, be confined to residents of the village, nor could they be restricted to

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 156 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment sending their children to it or of course to the more junior schools – so the traffic problem would continue. It can too be expected that further congestion will be added as people shop in local towns – it can hardly be expected that the village will be entirely self contained. A settlement of that size would need a medical practice, perhaps a pharmacy, but the residents would have to rely on Stoke Mandeville as its hospital: Stoke Mandeville can barely cope now – I do not see how it could possibly cope in the future. Just as important is that no consideration has been given to water or sewerage needs.

- 2.5 Environmental issues: the environmental impact of such a scheme, on top of the landscape impact, will be huge, and of course no environmental impact assessment has been carried out. Indeed it appears that the very boundaries of the scheme are vague, so much so that it appears that some of the village could be built on a flood plain: that would have consequences, not just for new houses on the flood plain but for land further downstream, including in the conservation area of Aston Sandford (which has in the past flooded). And certainly no account has been taken of the possible unsuitability of the site for building (eg the local clay heave – it can be overcome, but at a cost).

- 2.6 Brownfield sites: brownfield sites are barely considered in the report despite the fact that the policy statement encourages their development; there are for instance some 9 former airfields in the AVDC area of which only Haddenham and Winslow get any attention.

Overall little or no consideration has been given to the impact of what is a massive development on the local community and its inhabitants, on the landscape or on the environment, in particular the destruction of productive agricultural land. It has failed to take into account wider issues and proceeds as if the village would be a self contained entity having little local impact.

Additional observations

3. There are a number of observations which I wish to make:

• 3.1 The AVDC plan is incomplete and seems to have been rushed out to be issued to local councils / parish meetings to coincide with the summer holidays thereby giving them smallest chance of meeting and commenting on the plan. That is shabby treatment for those affected.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 157 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment • 3.2 If the proposal of the New Settlement goes along the lines of a Garden Village, as mooted by Lord Matthew Taylor, then the land has to be available at 150% of agricultural value. Current indications are that the multiple land owners are certainly not willing to sell at that price, some not at any price, and this will force AVDC to attempt Compulsory Purchase Orders, which will be resisted, and will result in long legal battles pushing the creation of the new settlement out past the end of the plan period. • 3.3 Because the plan is not yet complete (eg section D2 mentioned above) if these proposals are pursued I wish to reserve my right to comment on any further work such as the transport plan and D2 when available and on any other aspects of the whole plan impacted by data not yet available. • 3.4 It seems that no one is taking an overall view of the impact of a myriad of schemes by local councils, none of whom are talking to each other or taking account of each other’s plans. The NPPF (para 178) places a duty on public bodies to co-operate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is taking place. Conclusion 4. For the reasons set out above I believe that this plan is unsound, that the proposals for any new settlement are unnecessary, and that the proposal for a settlement of over 6,000 houses mainly in the parish of Aston Sandford is not deliverable and is unsustainable, and should be dropped from the next draft of the plan.

VALP16-09-07-01184 Michael Edmonds Other Comments - Firstly may I thank you and your team for your hard work and enterprise in getting us to this stage of the Plan. An unenviable task. As a an elected member with a keen interest in the Planning procedure and as a member for the Haddenham & Stone I obviously have an interest in that locality. I aim my comments across the Vale and try to not be a Nimby, although I do have strong views on landscaping issues affecting the Haddenham Ridge. So will comment as follows. VALP16-09-07-01185 Matthew Carter Other Comments - Additional comments on evidence documents that are not able to be uploaded into form

VALP16-09-08-01192 Chris Sebire (Chairman Other Comments - I am writing this letter as Chairman of Brill Parish council on behalf of the Parish Council and Brill Villagers in of Brill Parish Council) response to the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. To ensure we give a considered response to the draft plan, a village meeting chaired by District Councillor Cameron Branston and County Councillor Angela McPherson was held on Saturday August 20th at which villagers had the opportunity to discuss the draft plan and express their views. 59 villages attended. VALP16-09-08-01195 Adrian Cole (Brown & Other Comments - Call For Sites submission Merry (on behalf of Evett Partnership))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 158 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01204 Mark Furnish (Sport Other Comments - Community Facilities England) Many schools contain sport facilities. The ability to access sport facilities within the local community is vital to any sports organisation, yet many clubs struggle to find places to play and train. A large number of sporting facilities are located on school sites and making these available to sports clubs and the community can offer significant benefits to both the school and the local clubs. Community use of school sports facilities provides many benefits including:

• Increasing educational attainment • Improving attitudes and • Engaging pupils at • Directing people from anti-social behaviour • Healthier communities - • Economic vitality and workforce development • Well being

Any school proposal should therefore be designed with community use in mind and the Local Authority should seek to allow community use of existing school facilities out of school hours to address any unmet demand.

Overall, Sport England do not consider the Local Plan is based on an up to date and robust evidence base and the policies are not specific and is therefore contrary to the NPPF. In consequence, Sport England objects to the Vale of Aylesbury Draft Local Plan in its current form. VALP16-09-08-01205 Mark Rose (Define (on Other Comments - Further comments in attachment behalf of Bovis Homes)) VALP16-09-08-01207 Michael Knott (Barton Other Comments - DRAFT VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN CVALPl CONSULTATION: REPRESENTATIONS Willmore (on behalf of SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF MANLET GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Manlet Group Holdings We are pleased to submit the following representations on behalf of Manlet Group Holdings Limited Limited)) (MGHL) on in response to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Consultation (July - September 2016) Conclusion We trust that the above will be of assistance to the Council in the preparation of the VALP and demonstrates that the land controlled by MGHL to the north and south of Moor Park, Wendover should be removed from the Green Belt as a more sustainable alternative to the RSA-2: North of Wendover and RSA-3: Halton Camp sites. Further to the above, we understand that Wendover Parish Council (WPC) supports the removal of the Site from the Green Belt in preference to the proposals included within the VALP. We therefore urge AVDC to engage with WPC prior to the publication of the Proposed Submission ('Regulation 19') VALP to review the allocation of land for development at Wendover.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 159 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01209 Tim Coleby (Peter Brett Other Comments - 12.1.1 As stated in chapter 1 above, these representations draw on the content of, and justification for, the Associates LLP on outline planning application for development at the site known as ‘Aylesbury Woodlands’ to the east of Aylesbury and promote behalf of policies in the new Local Plan consistent with it. In summary, the representations have demonstrated BA’s overall support for the Buckinghamshire VALP and its policies and in particular: Advantage) its overarching vision and objectives (chapter 2 of the VALP); its sustainable strategy for growth and its distribution, including policy S5 regarding provision of infrastructure; (chapter 3 of the VALP); and its Garden Town vision (chapter 4 of the VALP), incorporating the ‘emerging allocation’ of the Aylesbury Woodlands site for mixed use development, including residential and employment, as one of the “linked and integrated sustainable urban extensions on greenfield sites around the town (see the ‘Aylesbury Garden Town’ maps).” (policy D1c) and with provision made for “employment within the enterprise zones ….Policy E1” (policy D1d). 12.1.2 There are just four areas of the Plan where BA have concerns, as follows: Concern that the reference to 22 hectares of employment provision in policy S2 is an under-provision which needs to be clarified and/or revised as we have described in our chapter 6 ‘Economy’ above; Concern that policy E1 and/or the relevant map defining the Aylesbury Woodlands site should clarify that non-employment uses such as residential are acceptable within the Arla/Woodlands Enterprise Zone alongside employment uses, as also described in our chapter 6 ‘Economy’ above; Concern that policy NE2 ‘Biodiversity; should be revised to be flexible enough to allow for off site mitigation of biodiversity impact in appropriate circumstances, as described in our chapter 9 above; and Concern that policy NE4 is unduly onerous in respect of development outside the Chilterns AONB and its wording should be modified in this regard, as described in our chapter 9 above. 12.1.3 The representations have also shown that BA’s vision for Aylesbury Woodlands, and the current planning application proposals themselves: are fundamental to delivering the Plan’s vision and strategies for sustainable development, economic growth, provision of housing and the proposed role of Aylesbury as a Garden Town; respect and conform where relevant with the Plan’s generic policies in chapters 5 – 11; deliver a highly sustainable form of development with substantial social, economic and environmental benefits, thereby complying with the principles of sustainability set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, paragraphs 11 – 16); and suitably mitigate any potential adverse impacts of development (eg in respect of transport and flood risk) such that they are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the above benefits.

12.1.4 Finally, in order to help secure the delivery of the Plan’s strategy and the sustainability benefits described above, BA considers a site specific policy for Aylesbury Woodlands is required, to be included within chapter 4 ‘Strategic Delivery’ and using the wording suggested in chapter 1 of these representations.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 160 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01224 Chris Rattue Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.^ I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development.

VALP16-09-08-01225 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Other Comments - This statement provides comments in relation to the draft ‘Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan’ on behalf of Mrs Collier Planning Services and Mr Chambers, owners of Brook Farm, Broughton, Buckinghamshire Limited) 3.2. As has been set out, it is considered that the proposed strategic expansion of Aylesbury to the south and east to form a Garden Town (which will also contain Bierton, Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville) to support the delivery of growth in the district is considered logical, however there is a clear shortfall of allocations in comparison to the identified residual housing requirement (and the associated policy framework appears restrictive to the delivery of windfall sites within Bierton and Weston Turville).

It is therefore considered that the council should seek to identify a greater number of allocations, and that Land at Brook Farm, Broughton is ideally located and suitable to be identified for housing. 3.4. In regards to this, it will be noted, that the site sits in close proximity to the proposed urban expansion area, is within the heart of a new network of strategic roads in and around Aylesbury, and can be delivered without resulting in coalescence, with a protected green buffer formed along the Bear Brook, in keeping with the spirit of the proposed Green Infrastructure proposals.

The site has not previously been submitted via the Call for Sites and therefore this representation is accompanied by a formal submission of the site for consideration. 3.6. We trust that these comments will be taken into account through the further preparation of the plan.

VALP16-09-08-01229 Stuart Anderson Other Comments - I therefore submit that the VALP in its present form should be rejected.

VALP16-09-08-01230 Jon Waite (Kemp and Other Comments - Additional comments submitted - a copy of their reps to Wycombe DC and Landscape representation so the Kemp (on behalf of Green Belt Study by Fabrik as appendices Berkeley Strategic Land))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 161 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01232 Ruth Millard Other Comments - GUPC considers that the VALP should be modified to plan for The Vale's own OAN of 21,000 homes with any possible additions as an addendum. Following a public consultation a clear preference for the village to continue as a linear development has emerged. The GUPC fully supports this view. Residents of GU and GUPC consider that flooding, roadsraffic, provision of doctors surgeries, schooling must be considered in detail for any proposed sites in GU or nearby villages. The PC wishes to work closely with AVDC to obtain an optimum solution to the housing need and would welcome the opportunity to consider major site applications simultaneously to enable a comparison of their merits with regard to the above considerations.

VALP16-09-08-01235 Duncan Hartley (Rural Other Comments - Further comments in attachment (2016.09.05 Representation Aylesbury Plan. RS DH.PDF) Solutions (on behalf of Nick Moore, Brian and Harrison, Malcolm Cotton, Pauline and Jane Allum)) VALP16-09-08-01237 W.J Schram de Jong Other Comments - Firstly, we agree with all the points raised by the Cuddington Parish Council in its submission in response to the Aylesbury Vale Local Draft Plan. With respect to the Draft Plan for Aylesbury Vale, there are two points that are of major importance to Cuddington and which we believe will have a major impact on Cuddington both as a village and as a community over the coming years.

VALP16-09-08-01240 Ray & Lesley Cooper Other Comments - We have grave concerns over plans to site a massive amount of housing in/around Haddenham. We understand that additional housing has to be provided and realise that Haddenham will inevitably grow considerably. However the idea that a New Settlement could be sited alongside Haddenham seems ludicrous.

After looking at the VALP documents and attenting recent roadshows and meetings, I want to question both the need for a new settlement (anywhere) and in particular in Haddenham. VALP16-09-08-01242 Louise, Thomas & Eleri Other Comments - Additional comments in attachment Hosking

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 162 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01245 Deborah O’Brien Other Comments - We have a general concern that VALP seems to be promoting the district as a dormitory area, where we supply (Padbury Parish Council) all the houses and the neighbouring authorities get all the jobs - and therefore the wealth. The apparent preparedness to meet unmet housing need from Wycombe, Chilterns and potentially Dacorum, Luton, Milton Keynes and London whilst reducing employment land is unbalanced. Our overall impression is that this is a plan for houses - not for sustainable living! The numbering below relates to the numbering of paragraphs and tables in the draft VALP. We have also cross-referenced to VALP ‘evidence documents’ where appropriate.

Conclusion Although it might not look like it from our comments, we are generally supportive of the VALP and have no desire to slow its progress……since we are acutely aware of the alternative! The Devil, though, is in the detail. This is especially true (on our analysis) regarding: Infrastructure planning and delivery (especially roads). The economic/employment foundation to support the Plan. Details regarding the allocation of housing to individual settlements. Details concerning unmet housing need from neighbouring authorities and impact on the Plan.

VALP16-09-08-01250 Simon Elcock Other Comments - In conclusion the proposal for the expansion of Winslow is unsound and provision of new housing in the borough should be made in more appropriate locations.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 163 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01262 Geoff Gardner Other Comments - 5.0CONCLUSIONS (Gardener Planning Ltd 5.1This Report is the AWEL response to the consultation on the AVDC Draft Plan. on behalf of Arnold 5.2The starting point is the demonstration that the housing numbers proposed, based on the ORS calculation of OAN in 2015, are White Estates Ltd) much too low. The alternative 2015 OAN report by GLH is more robust and reliable. It makes an additional allowance for higher economic activity and jobs which is more positive. The DP adds 12,000 extra homes to accommodate unmet need from Districts to the South, it therefore proposes 33,300 new dwellings 2013 - 2033. The GLH report calculations of the District’s housing needs plus the 12,000 produces a need for 38,500 homes in the plan period. 5.3The DP’s site proposals are 1,835 short of its own target, and 7,035 short of what the target should be. Many extra sites are required. 5.4Current 5-year housing land supply is 2 years or less. The DP’s proposal to change the initial supply targets to improve presentation would be contrary to Government policy and practice. 5.5AWEL are promoting 2 sites - at Berryfields East (North-East of Aylesbury) and Littleton Manor Farm at Waddesdon. Both sites should be identified in the Local Plan and would make a material contribution to the shortfall in housing provision - however calculated. 5.6The DP includes identification of a site South West of Aylesbury which is severely constrained by HS2 and has previously been rejected for that reason. Its deletion from the Plan is justified with the resultant loss of 800 homes. The Berry Fields East site has been substantially revised to overcome previous objections - it has a capacity of 350 homes. Its development would also facilitate a section of the linear park. 5.7The Waddesdon site is for 600 homes and facilitates the provision of a relief road or bypass, diverting heavy traffic on the A41 currently bisecting the settlement. This would have a major positive impact for the existing Waddesdon residents and accords with the DP positive messages that this is the right time to identify a development proposal which would bring forward a good number of homes and create real benefits. 5.8The Report also supports the positive attitude to renewable energy.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 164 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01267 Chris Green (Kirkby Other Comments - Please find enclosed our representations to the consultation draft 'Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan'. They are Diamond (on behalf of submitted on behalf of the Trustees of FJ Wallis and concern the provision of housing land within the district. Trustees of FJ Wallis)) Specifically, it is considered that insufficient land is allocated for housing development, and that land off Leighton Road, Stoke Hammond (Site Reference SHM008) should therefore be included. Our comments are provided in full within the supporting statement, which is accompanied by a Master Plan for the site, as well as a note on transport matters. In brief, our representations relate primarily to Policy S2 'Spatial Strategy for Growth'. It is considered that the policy significantly understates the need for additional housing land. Furthermore, the draft plan fails to identify a sufficient supply of specific, deliverable sites to meet the requirements for the first five years of the plan period. In addition, we raise concerns in respect of the approach identified in the corresponding policies relating to the distribution of growth and the allocation of sites. This is set out in Policy D1 to Policy D8 (inclusive). In particular, the rigid approach advocated to the distribution of development in the villages further exacerbates the shortfall, and unnecessarily stifles the development of land that is readily available and deliverable. The approach places reliance upon future work and emerging neighbourhood plans. This is unfounded and unlikely to ever realise land in the quantities required. Accordingly, the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan must allocate additional housing land. In this context, is considered that land off Leighton Road, Stoke Hammond should be identified for the purposes of housing development. The Council has already confirmed that the land is suitable and that development is achievable. Nevertheless, our representations provide further detailed work to demonstrate that the site is deliverable within the next five years.

Further comments in attachments VALP16-09-08-01273 Adam Ross (Nexus Other Comments - Further comments in attached. Planning Ltd (on behalf of Gleeson Developments Limited, the Ernest Cook Trust, the Trustees of Lord Carington’s 1963 Settlement and the Pearce Family))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 165 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01283 Simon Proctor (Proctor Other Comments - Additional comments not able to be put in form for policy S5, S6 , S8 and H7 Surveyors (Stoke Hammond 2)) Land to the Rear of Hunters Lodge Stables Leighton Road Stoke Hammond Buckinghamshire MK17 9DD The land, as shown in the plan below, lies to the west of the village of Stoke Hammond and between parcels of land with the HELAA references SHM001 and SHM013 both being described as “part suitable” for residential development. The land abuts the west of the village and is not within the Brickhills Area of Attractive Landscape that is located to the east of the village. A clearly defined western boundary exists in the form of the West Coast railway line. Views into and out of the site are generally contained by existing trees and the railway line and there are no ready visual or physical linkages to open countryside. No public rights of way offer significant views into the site. Development of the land would be consistent with recent settlement patterns in the village. The character of the wider settlement is unlikely to be affected as there is limited inter-visibility with the rest of the village. There would be no elevations facing onto key roads, pedestrian routes or major residential streets. The topography of the site is predominately level and not within a flood zone. There are no known ecological constraints. Access to the site could be taken from either the south or north east via the Hammond Fields development providing a logical extension to the existing and developing settlement pattern and local infrastructure. Access through the Hammond Fields development would allow direct access to the village amenities and the local transport network. VALP16-09-08-01285 Mark Manwaring Other Comments - Could you please advise who I should contact to determine the liability on my reduced property price during the developments build? Perhaps AVDC are liable?

Awaiting your reply, VALP16-09-08-01286 Oliver Bell (Nexus Other Comments - Further comments on site WTV017 in attached Planning Ltd (on behalf of Westonmead Farm Ltd))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 166 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01291 Martin Small (Historic Other Comments - Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP): Draft Plan Consultation England) Thank you for your e-mail of 7th July advising Historic England of the consultation on the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP). We are pleased to make the following general and specific comments.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes it clear that the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment is an integral part of sustainable development and sets out a number of specific requirements for the historic environment in local plans. Local plans should:

•set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment [126]; •include strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment [156]; •contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment [157]; •identify land where development would be inappropriate, e.g. for its environmental or historic significance [157]; •be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the historic environment [158 and 169].

It should be noted that the definition of “historic environment” in the NPPF is wide-ranging, encompassing more than just the built environment: “All aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and planted or managed flora.” As regards the required positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, the NPPF advises that, in developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account:

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 167 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2 - ● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; ● the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and ● opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

We consider that the positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of, and the clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by the NPPF should comprise recognition throughout the Plan of the importance of the historic environment, of the historic environment’s role in delivering the Plan’s vision and the wider economic, social and environmental objectives for the Plan area, and of the potential impacts of the Plan’s policies and proposals on the historic environment.

We have produced a revised Good Practice Advice Note: 1: “The Historic Environment in Local Plans”, available on the Historic England website: (http://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/gpa1-historic-environment-local-plans/) which provides advice on a positive strategy (and the other requirements of the NPPF as regards the historic environment and local plans). Our specific comments below reflect this advice.

Paragraph 1.8 of the Draft Plan describes the Government’s commitment to sustainable economic growth and the requirement that councils should boost significantly the supply of housing as “particularly significant” in the NPPF. We consider that this is a skewed emphasis on Government policy in the Framework.

The paragraph does recognise that the NPPF also states that the “planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment” and requires local planning authorities to set out in their Local Plan “a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment” (which are two separate quotes, not one as indicated in the Plan). However, the NPPF also requires local plans “to contain a clear strategy for enhancing the natural, built and historic environment”, which should be recognised in paragraph 1.8.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 168 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment We see these environmental issues as being no less significant than the commitment to sustainable economic growth and the requirement that councils should boost significantly the supply of housing. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF makes it clear that there are three dimensions to “sustainable development”: economic, social and environmental (the latter including “contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment”).

Paragraph 8 explains that the planning system should deliver all three roles: “to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system” (as recognised in paragraph 3.3 of the Plan). It is therefore inaccurate and invidious for the Local Plan to just emphasise the NPPF’s references to economic growth and housing supply.

3 - Paragraphs 1.20 – 1.22 explain the evidence base behind the Plan. As we note earlier in this letter local plans should be based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the historic environment to underpin their strategy, policies and proposals. Paragraph 169 of the NPPF states “Local planning authorities should have up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area and use it to assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment”.

However, we note that there is no reference to any historic environment evidence in these three paragraphs or on the Council’s supporting evidence webpage. We are aware of the Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Historic Town Project, the Council’s Conservation Area Management Plan and Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Document, individual Conservation Area Character Appraisals and the Aylesbury Vale Historic Landscape Character Assessment.

Other sources of information on the historic environment include the National Heritage List for England, the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record, the Historic England Heritage at Risk Register and the Buckinghamshire Historic Landscape Characterisation. Has the Council any other historic environment evidence e.g. a list of locally important heritage assets or a survey of grade II buildings at risk ?

We will expect the Council to have an adequate, up-to-date and relevant historic environment evidence base and to demonstrate in the Local Plan how that historic evidence base has informed and influenced the Plan’s policies and site allocations.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 169 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Paragraph 1.62 – we would prefer the sub-heading above this paragraph to read “Natural, Built and Historic Environment” given that the first paragraph underneath it refers to historic houses and landscapes. We welcome the reference to the 124 conservation areas, but wonder why there is no reference to the 2,896 listing entries, 67 scheduled monuments and 10 registered historic parks and gardens in the district?

Spatial Vision – this is brief and to the point, which is no bad thing, although we would have liked “attractive” added to the list of desired attributes for Aylesbury Vale in 2033.

Paragraph 2.4 – we welcome and support the commitment in a. that “…heritage… assets will be protected and, where possible enhanced”, as part of the positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of, and the clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by the NPPF. We also welcome and support the commitments in g. to “a renaissance to the town that protects and promotes its historic core” and in j. to “heritage……assets protected and where possible enhanced” for the same reason, but do not understand why there is no commitment to the protection and enhancement of the heritage assets in Buckingham.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 170 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01300 Layla Vidal-Martin Other Comments - On behalf of our client, Denison Investments Ltd, please find below their response to Aylesbury (Nathaniel Lichfield & Vale District Council's (AVDC) consultation on the Consultation Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Partners (on behalf of Summer 2016 (VALP) in relation to the land at Soulbury Road, Stewkley. Denison Investments We also enclose the following information: Ltd)) 1 Site Location Plan; 2 Indicative Layout Plan Background Denison Investments are actively promoting the land at Soulbury Road, Stewkley for residential development. The land is currently subject to an outline planning application (AVDC Ref: 16/02551/AOP), submitted to the Council on 11 July 2016, which seeks permission for the development of up to 85 residential units with associated vehicular access. The site is included in the AVDC Draft VALP (July 2016), where it is identified as a "potential site to be allocated" for 80 dwellings (labelled as Land off Orkney Close and Walducks Close, ref. STW005). This potential allocation is welcomed and supported, but Denison Investments request that the number of dwellings is increased to 85 dwellings for the reasons set out below. There is already previous work and correspondence in respect of this site which was submitted to the Call for Sites and earlier stage of the VALP. Our client has also completed a number of technical studies which underpin the aforementioned outline planning application. These studies include archaeology, transport, landscape and ecology studies and each of these has been submitted as part of the outline planning application. They provide a technical case which underpins the proposed development of 85 dwellings. This letter supplements the information provided in both the Planning Statement and previous representations to the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan process and Call for Sites submission. These representations focus on the strategic policies and housing distribution and our client reserves their position to comment on detailed Development Management Policies, or any change to the housing distribution arising from a change in unmet need, at subsequent stages of the process. VALP16-09-08-01304 Iain Stewart Other Comments - Additional documents attached - comments of Cllr Bald, Cllr Clancy to VALP consultation and Iain Stewart MP's submission on the NIC consultation Oxford-MK-Cambridge Arc

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 171 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-08-01306 Layla Vidal-Martin Other Comments - On behalf of our client, Denison Investments Ltd, please find below their response to Aylesbury Vale District (Nathaniel Lichfield & Council's (AVDC) consultation on the Consultation Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Summer 2016 (VALP) in relation to the land off Partners) Griffin Field and High Street South, Stewkley. The land is known locally as Chapel Field and is referred to as such in the rest of these representations. Denison Investments Ltd have submitted separate representations to this consultation in respect of other land within Stewkley (land at Soulbury Road) and each site is being promoted separately as a freestanding site. We also enclose the following information: 1 Site Location Plan; 2 Agricultural Land Quality Assessment 3 December 2015 HELAA and Call for Sites Submission Background Denison Investments are actively promoting Chapel Field (the land at Griffin Field & High Street South, Stewkley) for residential development. The site was submitted in the December 2016 Call for Sites. The Final Aylesbury Vale Draft Housing and Economic Development Land Availability Assessment Report v3 (May 2016) (HELAA) considers the site (ref STW007) and summarised that the site was considered unsuitable due to the width of the access, but that this could be overcome: "Unsuitable - site currently related to the historic area of Stewkley and the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. No suitable access to site. Currently the access width is too narrow to accommodate any development in this location. Subject to a widened access and inclusion of footways an objection on this matter could be overcome." This letter supplements the information provided in previous representations to the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan process and Call for Sites submission (enclosed). These representations focus on the strategic policies and housing distribution and the objection raised in the HELM with respect to the site. Our client reserves their position to comment on detailed Development Management Policies, or any change to the housing distribution arising from a change in unmet need, at subsequent stages of the process.

Further comments on site STW007 in attachment

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 172 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01315 Neil Tiley (Pegasus Other Comments - Pegasus Group have been instructed by Jeremy Elgin to submit the attached representations Group (on behalf of to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and the supporting evidence based documents. Jeremy Elgin)) Jeremy Elgin owns part of the area identified as having potential for a new settlement entitled Haddenham New Garden Village. These representations and the supporting Position Statement have been prepared in response to Aylesbury Vale District Council, which identifies this site as one of a number of options for a new settlement in July 2016. The attached Position Statement reflects the work which has been undertaken to date on behalf of Jeremy Elgin (we are aware that other landowners will also be making submissions). It is intended that further work will be undertaken and provided to the Council as it becomes available. The initial work indicates that the site could be comprehensively planned, designed and developed to provide an exemplar self-contained Garden Village, which: • reduces the need to travel by providing for an appropriate mix of land-uses; • minimises any environmental harm; • supports sustainable travel choices including improvements to bus services serving nearby settlements (including Ford) and a sustainable transport link to Haddenham; • disperses traffic movements; • provides the opportunity for low carbon development; and • meets housing needs as close as possible to where they arise. Please find enclosed a copy of the representations, a supporting report entitled 'Critique of the HEDNA and Unmet Needs' as well as a Position Statement promoting Waldridge Garden Village. I will also forward hard copies of these documents. Pegasus Group have been instructed by Jeremy Elgin to submit the following representations to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and the supporting evidence based documents. This response is structured to reflect the structure of the draft Local Plan and references are drawn to the supporting evidence as appropriate. The supporting evidence is then also responded to as appropriate.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 173 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment The Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan identifies an area of land with potential for a new settlement entitled Haddenham New Garden Village. This area of land provides the opportunity for a new stand-alone Garden Village (called “Waldridge Garden Village”) in close proximity to Wycombe District where much of the housing need arises. A self-contained garden village is being designed based on information included in technical studies which are being prepared to support the promotion of the site through the Local Plan process. These identify that the area provides the opportunity to develop a new settlement, and that any constraints can be addressed by appropriate mitigation. Therefore, it is considered that the development of Waldridge Garden Village would be deliverable in the plan period (with capacity for additional development post 2033). A Position Statement is appended to this response which summaries the work of specialist consultants who have been commissioned to consider the specific factors relating to the development of Waldridge Garden Village. It is recognised that representations are also being prepared on behalf of other landowners with an interest in Haddenham New Garden Village. This demonstrates support for the principles of development of Haddenham New Garden Village and the intent to comprehensively design and deliver this new settlement.

Further comments in attachments VALP16-09-09-01317 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to on behalf of Mr D and contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The three dimensions to sustainable development require the planning Mrs G Hearn) system to perform an economic, social and environmental role. For plan making, Paragraph 14 of the NPPF, requires that: Local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area; Local plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless: Any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against policies in the Framework (taken as a whole); or o Specific polices in the framework indicate development should be restricted.

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF outlines that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Residential development in such settlements can make a significant contribution to the maintenance and continuing provision of local services and facilities for community use, as necessary by Section 3 of the NPPF: Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy.

VALP16-09-09-01321 John Gronow Other Comments - I visited the exhibition at the Bucks Show and discussed the proposals with your officers who were very helpful.

Please could you register me on your list of interested parties and keep me informed of progress.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 174 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01324 Robert Barnes (Planning Other Comments - INTRODUCTION Prospects (on behalf of Context Greenway Land LLP)) Greenway Land LLP (Greenway) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Draft. As the Council may be aware Greenway Land LLP has considerable land interests within the District which lie to the north of Winslow. Greenway have previously submitted information regarding land at the former airfield to Aylesbury Vale District Council in the form of a planning application in 2008. Through this submission Greenway highlight a number of concerns regarding the identification of options around Haddenham for the location of a new settlement. This submission goes on to detail the merits of locating the proposed new settlement on the airfield site to the north of Winslow, and support this option for inclusion within the VALP. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out four tests that must be met for Local Plans to be considered sound. In this regard we submit that in order to prepare a sound plan it is fundamental that it is: Positively Prepared – the plan should be prepared 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 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.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 175 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment CONCLUSIONS New Settlement Greenway supports progressing with a new settlement as an integral part of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan and that this is a sensible, appropriate and sustainable option. Greenway do not support the options presented for delivering this new settlement in Haddenham. Options regarding the scale of new settlement and ideas to promote delivery should be explored. For the reasons outlined above Greenway considers the airfield site, potentially with adjoining land and tied in with growth to the north of Winslow (Options 2 and 3) are the most appropriate locations for this new settlement and that this should be progressed as the preferred option. Greenway, as the lead promotor, strongly support the identification of Options 2 and 3 and believe that this location should be the preferred approach and allocated within the VALP. As demonstrated through the previous planning application, this site has the capacity to deliver in the region of 3,300 dwellings along with associated facilities and services and larger with adjoining land. The earlier work in preparing the previous planning application for the airfield site demonstrates how there are no significant barriers or technical constraints which would preclude a sustainable development coming forward on this site and updated will continue to support the allocation of the site. As promoters of this land, Greenway can confirm that this site is available, achievable and deliverable and that a scheme could viably come forward and start delivering housing within the early plan period. Development of the Winslow Green site would align with national policy and provide an opportunity for a wholly sustainable development. The promoters and land owners are keen to see a high quality development delivered in this location to help address the housing needs of the district. Through the development of a refined and updated masterplan for this site the promoters would work with the Council to ensure that the proposed scheme provides for all the necessary services and facilities, is of high design quality, integrates informal and formal open space to create a high quality environment. The promoters are committed to ensure an appropriate baseline of evidence is available to support any allocation. A new settlement in this location would be capable of providing a range of community facilities which will aid in the social and economic cohesion of the new community.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 176 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Tests of soundness To be found sound at examination the plan must be positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy. The Council should start by clearly defining their OAN, through a PPG and NPPF compliant approach. The Council should then take this OAN to determine a robust housing requirement using the OAN as a starting point. As well as considering the scale of housing growth required it is fundamental that the Council undertake careful consideration of the spatial strategy to deliver the identified scale of growth and ensure that this is realistically deliverable over the plan period. Greenway support the approach which includes provision for a new settlement. A new settlement, if provided in a sustainable location, is an appropriate means of delivering a significant scale of housing development along with the associated services, facilities and infrastructure.

Further comments and plan in attachment

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 177 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01336 Duncan Hartley (Rural Other Comments - On behalf of our clients, Mr Ben Marten and Mr Andrew Threipland, please find attached our representation Solutions (On behalf of response to the Draft Aylesbury Vale Local Plan which should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Site Assessment Mr Ben Marten and Mr Document of Land to the north of Avenue Road which was assessed for residential development in the Council’s last Call for Sites Andrew Threipland)) round under site reference MMO001.

This email therefore includes the following titled documents:

•Representations - Draft Aylesbury Vale Local Plan (AVLP) •Site Assessment Document - Maids Moreton

We provide commentary on draft policies S3 and D6 in relation to the allocation of residential development in Maids Moreton in our Representations document. Whilst we acknowledge that site reference MMO001 was previously assessed as being unsuitable for residential allocation, our attached Site Assessment Document demonstrates the suitability of the site for residential development and explains how a sensitively designed layout and effective landscaping scheme can be brought forward which will preserve this part of the village’s Conservation Area, present opportunities to enhance the ecology value of the site and maintain a buffer between Maids Moreton and Buckingham.

The following representations are set in the context of the growth of the Medium Village of Maids Moreton and HELAA (May 2016) site reference MMO001 and attached plan at document reference 2016.09.05 HELAA VALP site submission land North of Ave Rd Maids Moreton. A number of site submissions and previous representations have been submitted on the HELAA and prior versions of the Local Plan; those documents relevant to these submissions are also appended here. The following representations are structured in the sequential order of the consultation draft and relevant page numbers, policy references, and paragraph and table numbers are referenced to enable ease of use. In addition to this, the representation also assesses the suitability of the site for development as contained in the accompanying document referenced 2016.09.05 HELAA VALP site submission land North of Ave Rd, and considers the development potential of Land to the north of Avenue Road for a residential scheme. Evidence of the sustainability of the settlement and suitability of the site is also put forward to support the site’s inclusion in the HELAA.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 178 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01368 Adam Murray (CODA Other Comments - 6.0 Concln.sjons Planning on behalf of 6.1 Pursuant to the discussion in the previous sections of this representation it is asserted that in order for the Simco Homes and Local Plan to be considered sound it must ensure that all appropriate avenues of delivering the district's Landlink Ltd) OAN have been explored. 6.2 The Framework makes clear that, when taking the presumption in favour of sustainable development as a 'golden thread' running through plan-making, Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs unless specific circumstances or policies indicate otherwise. This representation, along with that previously made relating to the land in question, clearly establishes that in this regard A VDC must identify a significantly larger quantity of land for the delivery of dwellings if it hopes for the emerging Local Plan to meet this requirement of the Framework. If it does not then there is a significant risk that it will not be judged to be positively prepared, and in such circumstances it is likely that the Inspector would therefore consider it to be unsound. 6.3 A number of recent Local Plan examinations have faced difficulties in this regard and as a result 6.3 A number of recent Local Plan examinations have faced difficulties in this regard and as a result we would urge A VDC to minimise this risk. It is therefore reasserted that the land in question has been demonstrated as being capable of accommodating residential development of the scale required within Ickford, and consequently, in the interest of the continuing positive progress of the Local Plan, the site should be allocated accordingly. VALP16-09-09-01385 Andrew and Mary Other Comments - The consultation process, although very detailed, is based on many questionable assumptions, and the Hearsey timescale for information grossly inadequate for such important decisions.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 179 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01389 Amy Stone Other Comments - As identified previously in our representations, whilst we consider that the housing requirement for the district is materially too low and does not reflect a robust calculation of OAN, and we take some issue with the overall housing distribution, we support the focus of development on the five strategic settlements, which include Wendover. 12.2 However, as set out in our representation to Policy S2, we object to the Council’s failure to allocate land north of Aylesbury Road for housing – a sustainably located greenfield site, at one of the five strategic settlements, and the only meaningful greenfield site at Wendover that is not in the Green Belt or the AONB. 12.3 This site is currently the subject of a planning application for the delivery of up to 175 new homes and associated green infrastructure. The submitted Planning Statement (attached at Appendix 3) and the Design and Access Statement (attached at Appendix 4) provide further detail regarding the planning and design merits of the site. However, in summary it can be noted that: i. the Site comprises approximately 10 hectares of land located adjacent to the north-western settlement edge of Wendover – one of only five strategic settlements in the district; ii. it can accommodate up to 175 residential dwellings in addition to areas of new public open space and allotments; iii. it is within 2km i.e. within reasonable walking and cycling distance of a range of services and facilities within Wendover including Wendover Railway Station and the John Colet Secondary School; and iv. the site is the only greenfield site which is adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Wendover and is not within either the AONB or the Green Belt; 12.4 As set out elsewhere in our representations, this site should be allocated for development as part of a strategy for growth at Wendover, one of the most sustainable settlements in the district. Whilst we support a Green Belt release at Wendover, the scale of this Green Belt release should be determined having first identified deliverable urban capacity and then having allocated land north of Aylesbury Road, which could together deliver approximately 200 homes. It is evident that a major Green Belt release would still be required, even based upon the housing numbers for the district as currently identified (which are not a full reflection of OAN) but the Council cannot demonstrate that it has attached great weight to the Green belt, as required by paragraph 79 of the NPPF, whilst it is releasing land from the Green Belt but not allocating for development a site for up to 175 homes on sustainably located land that is outside the Green Belt. Changes Sought 12.5 As a highly sustainable site which is unconstrained by higher order environmental designations and situated on the edge of the settlement boundary, land north of Aylesbury Road at Wendover should be identified in the VALP as an allocation for up to 175 residential dwellings.

VALP16-09-09-01392 Chris Bennett Other Comments - The VALP is a plan that will surely be rejected. There needs to be a pause in the process so that proper and alternative options can be considered. So that AVDC can demonstrate to Government and in particular to local people that the plan has been thought through. A new plan that will have plenty of, "we have now reconsidered what the housing needs really are"...... "we have taken into consideration the thoughts and concerns of local people and Parish Councils". VALP16-09-09-01396 Margaret Donlon Other Comments - The online form is not user friendly. I have spoken to many people who have found the form to be daunting, including myself, and had not realised that the alternative of emailed comments would be acceptable.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 180 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01399 Cllr Phil Yerby Other Comments - The Council has invited comments on the draft VALP and this paper sets out my considered response. where this is possible, given the insufficient detail in the published material. Phil: should we add a footnote to position ourselves as a community organisation one of whose aims is to represent residents’ views and input into the Local Plan.. In some cases, I support the proposed policies; in others I support the policy aim but point out where the wording needs strengthening if that aim is to be fulfilled; in other cases - including some key elements - I strongly challenge the proposed approaches, supporting our argument with clear evidence. Reference to “we” is to mean I support the submission by the Hampden Fields Action Group. Consultation Process 1. The Council has asked the public to respond to its Draft Local Plan by commenting under each section. From the outset we wish to make it clear that we have found this very difficult to do as so much of the Local Plan is interconnected. Where possible, we have tried to comment using the Council’s format, however, there are wider comments that need addressing alongside the policies in relation to the evidence base for: i. The lack of “sufficient information” regarding infrastructure and, in the most part, Transport means that residents have been prejudiced in their ability to be able to tender helpful advice in the most significant areas of the draft plan. We refer to our letter to Mr. Ifty Ali Alli, 23rd June 2016. i.ii. The Transport Strategy and the technical notes prepared by AECOM and the modeling supplied by Jacobs, iii. The allocation of sites in the HELAA, in particular, the allocation of some sites, which appear to fail sequential or exception tests in relation to flooding. iv. The HELAA lack of process and the lack of involvement of Community Groups and Stakeholders

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 181 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment iii.v. The conclusions of the “VALP Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives” (July 2016) iv.vi. The “ease” in which practical sites are ruled out in the “New Settlement Scoping Study: Aylesbury Vale District Council” GL Hearn (June 2016) Accordingly thisThis document should be read in conjunction with the following appended documents: § The Transport Planning Practice report entitled “TPP Review of Local Plan Transport Modeling and Assessment”; § The THDA Technical Note entitled “Aylesbury Woodlands Flooding Assessment”. The Council will appreciate that I and the Action Group have limited resource and therefore our appraisal of some important documents will be submitted at the next stage of the process. These include, but are not limited to 1. Thethe Sustainability AppriasalAppraisal (SA) Scoping Report, and 2. The Sustainability Appraisal – Assessment of Reasonable Alternative Report of July 2016 has not been fully completed in time for the VALP submission deadline. and 3. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and its application in the VALP. In addition it is the intention of the Action Group to undertake full scrutiny of the Sustainability Appraisal when it is published at the next stage of the plan process. 2. Whilst the document does have sections entitled “Vision and Strategic objectives”, in effect the public is not asked to comment on the overall strategy, but simply to comment on the proposed policies. The “other comments” box at the end of the form is not designed for a full review of the strategy but is more along the lines of “anything we’ve missed”. 3. Similarly, as mentioned above, there is no specific opportunity to comment on the Transport Strategy, the HELAA and the Sustainability Appraisal (especially in relation to flooding) and any of the evidence base.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 182 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 4. In summary, we do not feel that the document format allows us to ‘say what we want to say’, and thus conflicts with the Council’s expressed desire for people to have their say. We are aware that the Council may be editing submissions sent to the email address “[email protected]” and attempting to place them into the Council’s own template. We request that the Council fully consider these comments and do not try to shoehorn our, or other people’s, comments into their own format to suit their own purpose. To do so would seriously compromise the integrity of the consultation process. Overall, the VALP is flawed and incomplete in some key areas fundamental to good planning, principally traffic, infrastructure and in at least one notable exception, flooding. This renders the current consultation premature to the point of being meaningless. 132.157. Also, there are weaknesses in many of the policies contained in the draft Plan. This strongly suggests no more than a post- rationalised attempt to put housing where the Council wants it. This goes against the principle that a plan should be evidence-based. Nor does it align with the claimed desire for ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’. What should happen now? 158. Accordingly, the VALP plan process should be paused until genuine options have been considered based on appropriate evidence. This especially includes a full and publicly consulted Aylesbury Transport Strategy. The council is reminded of our letter of 23rd June 2016. At paragraph 12 we state: “It is submitted that the Council has to date failed to provide sufficient information to the consulted party to enable it to tenderhelpful advice.” 134.159. At paragraph 16 we state: “If the Council cannot provide the information, the consultation should be suspended. It would not be in the public interest for the consultation to proceed with important documents held back from public consideration.” 1. Whilst some documents have been published, almost certainly as a result of the letter, we still regard the information provided as materially deficient. There must be a better plan and we want to work with AVDC to construct it.

VALP16-09-09-01402 Stephen Beal Other Comments - What happens if HS2 does not come? You have made decisions in policies and areas for development with no cast iron proof it will happen. All this will be a waste of time and "made" NDPs will need to start again.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 183 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01407 Simon Handy (Strutt & Other Comments - Representation on draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (Summer 2016) Parker LLP (Stoke Strutt & Parker act on behalf of Manor Oak Homes and the landowners in promoting two parcels of land to the south of Stoke Mandeville)) Mandeville for residential development. The two parcels of land have been identified in the draft HELAA (May 2016) as sites SMD001 and SMD002. I write on behalf of Manor Oak Homes and the landowners to engage with the current consultation on the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. The purpose of this representation is to provide constructive feedback on the draft Local Plan, while also promoting the land to the south of Stoke Mandeville as one or two potential development sites with associated community benefits. Please find enclosed a ‘Vision Document’ prepared by First Environment Consultants Limited which should be read in conjunction with this written representation.

Conclusion In summary, it is considered that the overall aims and objectives of the new Local Plan are positive but that a number of modifications and amendments need to be made to the document to ensure that the district’s development needs are met in the most sustainable manner. In particular, it is submitted that our clients’ land to the south of Stoke Mandeville presents an excellent opportunity for deliverable and sustainable development to be achieved and that, as a result, further consideration should be given to the merits of these parcels of land. I would be grateful if the above comments could be taken into account during the preparation of the next iteration of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. We welcome the opportunity to discuss any element of this representation or the merits of our clients’ land to the south of Stoke Mandeville as additional or new housing allocations.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 184 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01408 Mike Galloway (Newton Other Comments - This submission endorses the submission made by North Bucks Parishes Planning Consortium which should be Longville Parish Council) read in conjunction with this submission. 1. Introduction 1.1. Consideration should be given to splitting the Local Plan into two or three parts. It may be worth splitting up into Core Strategy, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies so that each aspect can potentially be adopted even if more work is required on others. 1.2. Consideration should be given to deferring consideration of meeting unmet need from elsewhere until later. See for example recent examples where Inspectors have accepted this concept – when combined with a very clear policy commitment as to how any such unmet need would be dealt with. (Such as Stroud, Vale of White Horse and Birmingham.) 2. Duty to Cooperate (DTC) What the Duty to Cooperate requires, when, where and with whom 2.1. The duty to cooperate is not simply with other planning authorities within a single Housing Market Area as has been said by members at some AVDC meetings or even just with all neighbouring planning authorities. There is an extensive list of bodies prescribed in regulations as listed in the PPG1. 2.2. Whilst not all of the bodies listed under the DTC may not apply to Aylesbury Vale most do and some will be far more significant than others. 2.3. The PPG2 explains the requirement and importance of the duty to cooperate to undertake consultation beyond existing statutory consultees: “The duty requires active and sustained engagement. Local planning authorities and other public bodies must work together constructively from the outset of plan preparation to maximise the effectiveness of strategic planning policies. It is unlikely that this could be satisfied by consultation alone. Local planning authorities that cannot demonstrate that they have complied with the duty will fail the independent examination process.” 2.4. The entry in the VALP glossary for DTC could be clearer as to what the duty is and when it applies: “The ‘duty to co-operate’ is a legal requirement on the Council in the VALP plan preparation process. The duty concerns the Council and neighbouring district/borough councils, county councils and other identified public bodies. The Council is required to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the duty has been undertaken appropriately for the plan.” A clearer entry, along with footnotes to the relevant sections of the NPPF and PPG, would be something more like:

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 185 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment “The Localism Act places a ‘duty to cooperate’ which requires, local authorities and other public bodies to work together in ways that reflect genuine shared interests and opportunities to make common cause. It requires on-going, constructive and effective engagement from the outset on strategic development and consider joint approaches to plan making. In doing so, regard must be had to any guidance issues by the Secretary of State such as in the Planning Practice Guidance. However, it is not a duty to agree.” The Duty to Cooperate applies from the outset 2.5. There appears to be a misconception as to when the Duty to Cooperate applies from. The PPG3 is very clear on this in a paragraph headed: “Is there a specific point in the Local Plan making process when cooperation should apply” which also makes clear that a failure to comply with the DTC cannot be corrected after the plan has been submitted for examination: “Cooperation should take place throughout Local Plan preparation – it is important not to confine cooperation to any one point in the process. Local planning authorities and other public bodies need to work together from the outset at the plan scoping and evidence gathering stages before options for the planning strategy are identified. That will help to identify and assess the implications of any strategic cross boundary issues on which they need to work together and maximise the effectiveness of Local Plans. After that they will need to continue working together to develop effective planning policies and delivery strategies. Cooperation should continue until plans are submitted for examination and beyond, into delivery and review. Local planning authorities should bear in mind that failure to demonstrate compliance with the duty at the Local Plan examination cannot be corrected after the Local Plan has been submitted for examination. The most likely outcome of a failure to demonstrate compliance will be that the local planning authority will withdraw the Local Plan.” Evidence of compliance with the Duty to Cooperate 2.6. VALP paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 briefly describe collaborative working with only local planning authorities and only specifically mentions the three other districts within the county: Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe. No others are mentioned despite the acknowledgement in 1.10 of the wider cooperation required.2.7. There does not seem to be any more detailed statement of compliance with the duty to cooperate on which to comment, setting out how the key strategic issues have been determined and discussed.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 186 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.8. Without this there is little clear evidence of how AVDC has complied with any requirement arising from the DTC. Yet there are a number of examples listed below which point to a lack of a suitably robust approach at both officer and member level given that the NPPF4 and PPG5 make clear cooperation should be a continuous process of engagement from initial thinking through to implementation, resulting in a final position where plans are in place to provide the land and infrastructure necessary to support current and projected levels of development. 2.9. The above also has implications for soundness as it is difficult to assess whether the plan is likely to be effective or deliverable where we do not feel it has been based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities. 2.10. There is bullet point in VALP paragraph 1.22 listing the need for “further work to align plans with other local authorities to meet the duty to cooperate” which indicates a misunderstanding within AVDC as to when the DTC applies and treat it more as something that only needs to be dealt as is an afterthought and mere legal requirement prior to submission. 2.11. In VALP paragraph 3.18, on Five Year Housing Land Supply, there is reference to “As part of duty to cooperate discussions with its partners” without any indication as to who the partners are. By implication it is only the three other districts within Buckinghamshire. This also indicates that DTC is being treated as little more than a box ticking exercise rather than a determined effort to cooperate on cross boundary, strategic matters as envisaged by the government. Examples of compliance with the Duty to Cooperate 2.12. There are examples that indicate working together to comply with the DTC, such as the joint commissioning of work by consultants ORS on Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) and Housing Market Areas (HMA). However, whist this may be an indication of joint working, of itself joint commissioning does not show compliance with the DTC. Indications of lack of compliance with the Duty to Cooperate 2.13. There are a number of indications that there has not been the level of contact required at both officer and member level with all appropriate authorities, not just the three other districts within Buckinghamshire. The submission by AVDC to the Luton Local Plan examination indicates some issues over the lack of compliance by Luton with the DTC. The duty is not just one way, so AVDC should arguably have been more proactive in cooperating with Luton, rather than waiting for Luton to make contact. 2.15. The claim within the draft Wycombe Local Plan that AVDC has agreed to take all the unmet need from Wycombe and the subsequent rebuttal of that claim by AVDC and the response made by AVDC to Wycombe all go to indicate a lack of appropriate engagement at officer and member level – rather than simply a failure to agree.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 187 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.16. In his letter6 to AVDC dated 7th January 2014, the planning inspector notes in paragraph 21: “Milton Keynes Council expresses concern as to the balance between the provision for houses and jobs. It considers that the relationship between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes, and specifically the potential need for the growth of the urban area of Milton Keynes into Aylesbury Vale has not been adequately addressed. It highlights the need for joint working on this issue and raises concerns as to the extent of engagement earlier in the process and the effectiveness of the consultation process.” 2.17. In paragraph 27 the Inspector states: “There are particular issues concerning the relationship of Aylesbury Vale to Milton Keynes and its future growth. These issues have been left unresolved. The Council has been aware of these issues from early in the plan preparation process, if not before. There has been a substantial period of time since the duty to co-operate came into force and the NPPF was published. Whilst noting the lack of specific evidence on potential unmet needs from other authorities and accepting that collaboration and joint working is a two- way process, it is the Council’s duty, as the authority submitting the Plan for examination, to have sought to address these issues through constructive, active and ongoing engagement.” 2.18. It is not currently clear how the issues detailed above highlighted by the Inspector have been addressed. Instead there appears to be a lack of active and ongoing cooperation between AVDC and Milton Keynes Council to develop a joint policy despite the scoping opinion request for the current application having been submitted in January 2013. This is further indicated within VALP policies S2 and D3 dealing with “strategic development” around Milton Keynes which gives little indication of joint working. Instead it relies on what is said to be evidence and background studies but which in reality is flawed as it is connected with the discredited top- down South East Plan, rather than any locally assessed need. No references are made to thedetailed policy CS6 in the adopted Milton Keynes 2013 Core Strategy which sets a clear policy position from Milton Keynes Council. 2.19. It is as if “anywhere but around Aylesbury” seems to be the real explanation for the allocation on the edge of Milton Keynes rather than establish a clear green boundary between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale. 2.20. The development at Newton Leys demonstrates how things can go wrong when a development straddles boundaries without robust and ongoing cooperation and a joint policy approach. Instead what results is residents in part of the development feeling they are less favourably treated. 2.21. Whilst there is a limited amount of cooperation at a development management level for the current planning applications at Salden Chase (misleadingly being called South West Milton Keynes by the applicants) this had to be encouraged and was at the initiative of Newton Longville Parish Council and West Bletchley Council after the actual applications had been submitted. Will other bodies cooperate? Evidence required of efforts made

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 188 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.22. Based on court challenges to date, it seems fairly likely that not all other Local Planning Authorities and other DTC bodies will readily cooperate. The PPG7 covers this situation and is clear that “Local authority officers and councillors have an important role to play in this process” and that there is a need to “submit comprehensive and robust evidence of the efforts it has made to cooperate and any outcomes achieved and this will be thoroughly tested at the examination”. The PPG also stresses that the DTC is not a duty to agree. 2.23. Clear and robust evidence must be produced to demonstrate the efforts made, even if the other body was not willing to cooperate. Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Nature Partnerships 2.24. The PPG8 advises whilst Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Nature Partnerships are not subject to the requirements of the DTC, local planning authorities and other designated public bodies that are subject to the duty must cooperate with them to reflect the important role that both Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Nature Partnerships need to play in strategic planning. 2.25. The PPG makes clear that Local Enterprise Partnerships have a key role to play in delivering local growth by directing strategic regeneration funds and in providing economic leadership through their Strategic Economic Plans. There seems to be little in the VALP to show how AVDC is workingcollaboratively with the Local Enterprise Partnerships, other than a brief reference in VALP paragraph 3.44 and an entry in the glossary. 2.26. Similarly, with Local Nature Partnerships, there is little indication of what AVDC has done to seek opportunities to work collaboratively with Local Nature Partnerships to deliver a strategic approach to encouraging biodiversity other than an entry in the glossary. Clinical Commissioning Groups 2.27. One of the key bodies to be consulted are Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) as provision of health care for new housing developments is absolutely critical. 2.28. Not all of Aylesbury Vale is within the Aylesbury Vale CCG area. Six parishes (Newton Longville, Great Brickhill, Mursley, Drayton Parslow, Stoke Hammond and Soulbury) are within the Milton Keynes CCG area. Involvement of the relevant CCGs is key at the very early stages of considering sitesof more than five dwellings and certainly for strategic settlements. Outcomes expected from the duty to cooperate 2.29. The PPG9 provides that: “Cooperation between local planning authorities, county councils and other public bodies should produce effective policies on strategic crossboundary matters. Inspectors testing compliance with the duty at examination will assess the outcomes of cooperation and not just whether local planning authorities have approached others.”

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 189 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.30. For Newton Longville and Whaddon where are the effective policies on the strategic cross boundary matters that are fundamental to any such “extensions” to Milton Keynes as are proposed in several of the current AVDC options. This is not something to be tacked on at some point in the future as if an afterthought, such policies should have been discussed and agreed with Milton Keynes Council before this stage. 2.31. It is not as if this is merely a suggested general direction for growth, but specific developments on specific sites, with planning applications submitted to both Milton Keynes and Aylesbury Vale councils in January 2015 for Salden Chase. 2.32. Newton Longville Parish Council does not support any proposed so called “strategic” development as currently proposed either within Newton Longville or Whaddon whether as extensions of Milton Keynes to meet a housing need from within Aylesbury Vale; or an unmet need from Wycombe or Chiltern; or an unmet housing need from Milton Keynes. However, if such proposals were to be brought forward this should be by way of a joint approach and joint policies as provided for under section 28 of the 2004 Planning Act and envisaged in the adopted Milton Keynes Core Strategy 2013. 2.33. Instead it is now over 18 months later and yet there is no evidence that a joint policy has even been considered by the two planning authorities working together as well as with Buckinghamshire County Council given the significant highways implication of development on the scale proposed. 2.34. Mention is made in VALP paragraph 4.46: “The Milton Keynes Strategic Development Directions Consultation Document, (January to April 2016), recently consulted on four options for expanding Milton Keynes, one of which considers a direction of growth to the west around Newton Longville and Whaddon in Aylesbury Vale district.” This mention is disingenuous as the consultation document was not a proposal from Milton Keynes Council itself but a consultation proposal from a working group which included those promoting the development. That proposal itself indicates a failure to comply with the DTC as it had not been discussed with AVDC beforehand. At a public meeting by Milton Keynes in Newton Longville about their consultation, Milton Keynes Council officers acknowledged that the proposal was not one supported by Milton Keynes Council itself and that Milton Keynes Council were aware that any such development would not contribute to any housing need from Milton Keynes Borough. 2.35. Milton Keynes Council passed a motion (cross party) in March 2015 robustly opposing the proposed development see Appendix 1. The resolution noted:“… notes the absence of a Core Strategy for development by Aylesbury Vale District Council and that this places Milton Keynes at an unacceptable risk of speculative unplanned edge of town development applications such as Salden Chase; and notes the legal requirement of ‘Duty to Co-operate’ between local authorities over planned development and that contact between Aylesbury Vale District Council and the developer with Milton Keynes Council over the impact of this proposal has been minimal.”

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 190 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.36. Aylesbury Vale DC does not have to provide for sites to meet a Milton Keynes need for housing, but to meet an Aylesbury Vale need. This need can and ought to be primarily be met by smaller developments which encourage small builders with a far better build out rate and be located closest to where the need arises. Duty to Cooperate - Conclusion 2.37. AVDC need to demonstrate far more action than currently, to show compliance with the duty to cooperate which must be with all relevant bodies throughout the plan making process to avoid the risk of another plan being rejected for the similar reasons as the last attempt. 2.38. The duty to cooperate only applies up to the point of submission10 when control of the process passes to the Inspector appointed to carry out the Independent Examination. Failure to comply with the duty to cooperate cannot then be corrected by subsequent action. VALP16-09-09-01413 Michelle Thompson Other Comments - Challenge HW and South Bucks now Hearnes report shows they have surplus area. Brexit - Is this plan sound and homing needs absolutely necessary? HS2 - where are your plan B policies if this does not happen?

VALP16-09-09-01414 Nigel Johnston (Boyer) Other Comments - 1.1 This response to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) is submitted on behalf of Wates Developments Ltd (“Wates”). 1.2 The representations are in addition to those submitted by Wates to the Issues and Options consultation held in late 2015 and a more recent ‘Call for Sites’ submission made in respect to land off Osier Way (south of A421 and east of Gawcott Road, Buckingham) which is under Wates’ control. 1.3 The 42.2ha Site is shown at Appendix one. It has been assessed in the Council’s Housing Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) as part suitable for housing and/or employment use (HELAA Ref: BUC046) and is identified as a potential housing allocation in the Local Plan. 1.4 The site is being promoted by Wates, with support from the two landowners. The company is an expert in delivering residential planning consents throughout Southern England and forms part of the Wates Group founded in 1897. Today the family business, now led by the fourth generation, is one of the largest privately owned development and construction companies in the UK. The company has twice won the Queen’s Enterprise Award, recognition of the commitment to working closely with local communities. 1.5 These representations are supported by a Vision Document prepared by Omega Partnership Ltd, which provides additional information on the site and surroundings, constraints and opportunities and includes a concept plan (included at Appendix two) that sets out the development potential of the land. The Vision Document demonstrates that there are no significant constraints to the development of the site and that it is capable of delivering a high quality residential scheme with open space that would be well integrated into the landscape. 1.6 Our comments on the VALP are detailed in this statement. Section Two provides a brief review of national policy as a context to our submissions. In Section Three we provide a critique of the Council’s proposed strategy and policies. In Section Four we highlight the suitability and potential of the site. A summary of our responses in the context of specific policies is provided in Section Five.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 191 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2. PLANNING CONTEXT The National Planning Policy Framework 2.1 The National Planning Framework at paragraph 14 requires policies in local plans to follow the presumption for sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be approved without delay. 2.2 Paragraph 47 identifies that to boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: “Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period.” 2.3 Paragraph 50 states that “to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen the opportunity for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should: Plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community…” 2.4 Paragraph 158 states that “each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up–to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local Planning authorities should ensure that their assessments of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated and they take full account of market and economic signals”. 2.5 Paragraph 181 states that “local planning authorities will be examined by an independent inspector whose role is to assess whether the plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, legal and procedural requirements and whether it is sound. A local planning authority should submit a plan for examination which it considers sound, namely that it is:

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’.” VALP16-09-09-01416 Kathryn Hedges Other Comments - NDP's must have maximum weight in all planning decisions before and after VALP is made!

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 192 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01417 David Wilson Other Comments - Some of you must live in the local area and know what the knock on effect that this scale of development will have on your own lives let alone the lives of those that live around you. Please let some common sense prevail and stop this now and at least think about the full consequences. Aylesbury is a town with the infrastructure of a town, you are trying to make the area into a small city and it really isn’t ready. The traffic congestion alone should stop this. Please don’t be short sighted and rush this through.

A wrong strategy

In the Issues & Options consultationn, the vast majority of comments clearly asked AVDC to consider a strategy for growth other than placing a vast amount of development to the South of Aylesbury, which clearly creates coalescence 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 so many people. Summary Overall, the VALP is flawed and incomplete in some key areas fundamental to good planning, principally traffic and infrastructure. This renders the current consultation meaningless. Also, the weakness of the policies contained in the draft Plan strongly suggests no more than another post-rationalised attempt to put housing where the council wants it. This does not align with the claimed desire for ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’.

What should happen now? Accordingly, the VALP plan process should be paused until genuine options have been considered based on appropriate evidence especially a full and publicly consulted Aylesbury Transport Strategy. There must be a better plan and we want to work with AVDC to construct it.

VALP16-09-09-01420 G Lacey Other Comments - Infrastructure is vital. Roads/transport need to be considered first. Aylesbury is already congested.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 193 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01422 Jennifer and Gerald Other Comments - An immediate piece of feedback. I was tempted to take what seemed to be the easy way out and use the online Groom comment form, well it was a complete ‘turn off’ hence this email is the best solution for me, where I can express my thoughts and comments without the constraints of a bureaucratic format that I am happy to admit I don’t understand. Also from my perspective I don’t have the eloquence, knowledge, insight or ability to comment on the macro plan, nor those of adjacent authorities and so I must and will concentrate on my local area. In my lay view the VALP poses more questions than it answers, and as this process moves forward I can only hope that AVDC will be determined to answer the questions from us and others to a level we can understand i.e. in plain and simple language rather than the language of politics and planning.

Furthermore I want to make it clear that appropriate development with all of the right services and infrastructure will not be opposed by us.

This property is within the Parish of Whaddon, located just south of the A421 on the Whaddon to Mursley Road, and is adjacent to Newton Longville.

AVDC and the Government must stand by their promise that growth will and must be accompanied by the delivery of infrastructure, services, and other facilities at the right time and place and not months or years later. This includes employment; transport - public and private, health, education, utilities, and leisure services and so on. Housing growth cannot be accepted without these guarantees.

How does the AVDC plan link in with Plan MK and/or the MK2050 report?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 194 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01427 Phil Yerby (Hampden Other Comments - The Council has invited comments on the draft VALP and this paper sets out the considered response of the Fields Action Group) Hampden Fields Act1ion Group, where this is possible, given the insufficient detail in the published material. In some cases, we support the proposed policies; in others we support the policy aim but point out where the wording needs strengthening if that aim is to be fulfilled; in other cases - including some key elements - we strongly challenge the proposed approaches, supporting our argument with clear evidence. Consultation Process 1. The Council has asked the public to respond to its Draft Local Plan by commenting under each section. From the outset we wish to make it clear that we have found this very difficult to do as so much of the Local Plan is interconnected. Where possible, we have tried to comment using the Council’s format, however, there are wider comments that need addressing alongside the policies in relation to the evidence base for: i. The lack of “sufficient information” regarding infrastructure and, in the most part, Transport means that residents have been prejudiced in their ability to be able to tender helpful advice in the most significant areas of the draft plan. We refer to our letter to Mr. IftyAli , 23rd June 2016. ii. The Transport Strategy and the technical notes prepared by AECOM and the modeling supplied by Jacobs, iii. The allocation of sites in the HELAA, in particular, the allocation of some sites, which appear to fail sequential or exception tests in relation to flooding. iv. The HELAA lack of process and the lack of involvement of Community Groups and Stakeholders v. The conclusions of the “VALP Assessment of Reasonable Alternatives” (July 2016) vi. The “ease” in which practical sites are ruled out in the “New Settlement Scoping Study: Aylesbury Vale District Council” GL Hearn (June 2016) This document should be read in conjunction with the following appended documents: § The Transport Planning Practice report entitled “TPP Review of Local Plan Transport Modeling and Assessment”;

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 195 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment § The THDA Technical Note entitled “Aylesbury Woodlands Flooding Assessment”. The Council will appreciate that the Action Group has limited resource and therefore our appraisal of some important documents will be submitted at the next stage of the process. These include, but are not limited to 1. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Scoping Report, 2. The Sustainability Appraisal – Assessment of Reasonable Alternative Report of July 2016 and 3. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and its application in the VALP. In addition it is the intention of the Action Group to undertake full scrutiny of the Sustainability Appraisal when it is published at the next stage of the plan process. 2. Whilst the document does have sections entitled “Vision and Strategic objectives”, in effect the public is not asked to comment on the overall strategy, but simply to comment on the proposed policies. The “other comments” box at the end of the form is not designed for a full review of the strategy but is more along the lines of “anything we’ve missed”. 3. Similarly, as mentioned above, there is no specific opportunity to comment on the Transport Strategy, the HELAA and the Sustainability Appraisal (especially in relation to flooding) and any of the evidence base. 4. In summary, we do not feel that the document format allows us to ‘say what we want to say’, and thus conflicts with the Council’s expressed desire for people to have their say. 5. We are aware that the Council may be editing submissions sent to the email address “[email protected]” and attempting to place them into the Council’s own template. We request that the Council fully consider these comments and do not try to shoehorn our, or other people’s, comments into their own format to suit their own purpose. To do so would seriously compromise the integrity of the consultation process. Summary

156. Overall, the VALP is flawed and incomplete in some key areas fundamental to good planning, principally traffic, infrastructure and in at least one notable exception, flooding. This renders the current consultation premature to the point of beingmeaningless. 157. Also, there are weaknesses in many of the policies contained in the draft Plan. This strongly suggests no more than a post- rationalised attempt to put housing where the Council wants it. This goes against the principle that a plan should be evidence-based. Nor does it align with the claimed desire for ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’. 158. Accordingly, the VALP plan process should be paused until genuine options have been considered based on appropriate evidence. This especially includes a full and publicly consulted Aylesbury Transport Strategy. The council is reminded of our letter of 23rd June 2016. At paragraph 12 we state: “It is submitted that the Council has to date failed to provide sufficient information to the consulted party to enable it to tender helpful advice.” 159. At paragraph 16 we state: “If the Council cannot provide the information, the consultation should be suspended. It would not be in the public interest for the consultation to proceed with important documents held back from public consideration.” Whilst some documents have been published, almost certainly as a result of the letter, we still regard the information provided as materially deficient. There must be a better plan and we want to work with AVDC to construct it.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 196 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01437 Lawson MacKellar Other Comments - NB. Not wishing to appear wholly negative, why has the Brown field site of the runway at Windslow not been given priority consideration. Especially as there is a surfeit of office space & industrial property available in existing Business Parks, There is also Wescott & what is so special about Wycombe’s green belt? Wycombe seem past masters at pushing unwanted development as far out as possible!

VALP16-09-09-01451 Geoff Culverhouse Other Comments - Additional comments (North Bucks Parishes 6.10 We consider that there are serious omissions in this policy area. Planning Consortium) There is no mention of policies to support economic development and in particular it seems that there should be in respect of the three ‘Enterprise Zones’ which AVDC were granted by the government. 6.11 Jobs and houses need to be linked to maximise sustainability. Of the three Enterprise Zones which are at Silverstone, Westcott and Woodlands (Arla), (see, http://enterprisezones.communities.gov.uk/enterprise-zone-finder/aylesbury-vale/ only the latter is nominated for housing growth and even that is suspect, due to flood zone problems. That does not represent a sustainable, well integrated approach to economic development in our view. VALP16-09-09-01453 Kirstie Brockett Other Comments - To allow this project to proceed would be an absolute travesty! AVDC should not even be considering this proposal, a project of greediness!

The flaws outlined in this project would be bordering on criminal if approved... Facts have been mis calculated and are misleading!

The sustainability of supporting infrastructure is impossible and easily provable this is the case!

It is outrageous that the supporting strategy has been so poorly constructed however unsurprising as it would impossible to support!

I hope for the sake of our future in this beautiful countryside that's his project is not considered appropriate to proceed in its current form!

VALP16-09-09-01460 Dallas Chapman Other Comments - Now the schools are back we will take nearly 10-15 mins getting out of Bedgrove on to the main road out of town to get to work, going into town is just queuing and you wish to add more houses? This'NEW' road system does not go nearly far enough. I could get to the new but not wothout going out to Wing why are we so far behind and then thinking of putting more sorry people into this already over populated and used area. Please think again and get your plans more joined up now for the future development of what I consider was a lovely town but it is gradually going down.

RE consider your view please.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 197 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01467 KG Oldknow Other Comments - The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.

Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.

The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure. VALP16-09-09-01468 Sarah Hamilton-Foyn Other Comments - The representations can be summarised as objecting to the overall housing provision as set out in the Plan, in (Pegasus Group (Revera particular its distribution and what appears to be a lack of discussion with Milton Keynes regarding the accommodation of housing Limited on behalf of needs in their plan area and the relationship to Ayelsbury Vale. It would appear that needs are not being met in those parts of the M&G Property Limited district where they are arising, especially if the needs of other authorities in the HMA need to be accommodated. Partnership)) It is recognised that the strategic settlements in the settlement hierarchy offer the most sustainable opportunities to accommodate future development, however, the role of smaller settlements, such as Bierton, in close proximity to these growth centres must be recognised and emerging policies developed with sufficient flexibility so as to ensure those locations have the ability to respond positively, within the context of their locational specific circumstances, to opportunities for development. This includes the broad strategic policies within the Local Plan, but also relevant Development Management Policies. It is considered that there should be a continued focus of development at Aylesbury, with adjoining parishes, including Bierton, playing an important role in supporting the delivery of new homes and infrastructure to reinforce the strategic function of the districts largest settlement. Our objection therefore is to the lack of any allocation to Bierton (which has been “downgraded” to a Medium settlement), which has been subsumed into the housing requirement for Aylesbury. In addition, we object to the reclassification of Bierton from a Larger Village to a Medium Village Given the Council’s position on housing land supply and the reliance of the Draft Plan on brownfield sites and large urban extensions, it is considered that a number of smaller sites should be allocated to meet housing land supply in the short term. The aspirational route of the Northern Link Road (identified in the Aylesbury Transport Strategy, Stage 2 Report – Existing and future Conditions - May 2016) is noted, this would facilitate the development of BIE005 which the HELAA considers has some potential for economic development. The site has been promoted for residential development. We also have concerns about the identification and delivery of the Green Infrastructure as part of the Aylesbury Linear Park.

Further comments in attachments.

VALP16-09-09-01471 K Boxhall Other Comments - I would also like to register my full support for responses provided by Hampden Fields Action Group, and recent contributions made via the Bucks Herald letters column.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 198 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01472 Nigel Rosier Other Comments - I would like to register my opposition to the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan (VALP).

This seems to be a plan that is being pushed through without taking the views of the local populous into account and will have a serious detrimental effect on those of us that live in the vale.

The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.

Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the "cart before the horse" in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.

The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

I hope that you will take these views, and I am sure the hundreds of others that you will receive, into account when deciding on the VALP and come to the conclusion that this is not the way forward for the vale, especially when such an important decision is going to be made that will affect the lives of thousands of people, and the body given the decision making powers are using incorrect and outdated statistics and formulas. VALP16-09-09-01473 Denis Corben Other Comments - 3. It would appear that authorities in the south of the county have failed to plan to meet their own needs through poor planning. They should be told to think again. After all that is where the established transports links are. Where are the railways and motorways north of Aylesbury?

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 199 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-09-01476 Charlotte Goodrum Other Comments - Housing Demand and Supply Position (Daniel Watney LLP) It is considered that there is still a vast amount of work which still needs to be undertaken to inform the preparation of the Plan, in particular with regards to housing supply. This is acknowledged by AVDC who specifically state that various other evidence base documents need to be finalised before the submission of the Plan to the Inspector including, amongst others: - Reaching conclusions on the housing requirements set through the Duty to Co-Operate; - Further assessment of land availability; - Updating land availability assessment to include additional sites, or amendments to existing sites; - Revisions to site suitability because of new information which could lead to more sites being allocated. We consider therefore that there are substantial gaps in the Plan as there remains a significant amount of work that needs to be undertaken to inform the scale of development required across the District. For example, the housing targets do not yet consider the requirement from the Duty to Co-Operate, therefore all policies relating to the housing need of the District and the housing supply within the District, cannot be considered to be based on appropriate assessments and thus have not been properly prepared. Paragraph 178 of the NPPF places a duty to cooperate on public bodies with cross administrative boundaries, requiring joint working on areas of common interest. LPAs are required to work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities to meet the strategic priorities and development requirements.

A Housing Market Assessment was commissioned within Buckinghamshire, with Atkins preparing the Assessment in January 2016. The Study highlighted the authorities neighbouring Aylesbury Vale were significantly constrained due to their coverage by Green Belt land. AVDC suggest in their August 2016 Statement on Five Year Housing Land Supply (FYHLS) that there will be a significant requirement on them to deliver housing as a result of the unmet need of other Authorities which could be as great as an additional 12,000 new dwellings. This is an estimation at this stage and needs to be fully scrutinised before housing policies can be fixed, however there is no indication within the VALP as to how this additional need could be met within Aylesbury Vale. The Plan acknowledges that there is likely to be a substantial increase in the housing requirement due to increases from the Duty to Co-Operate. This significant increase will have a major impact on the strategic approach to development within the District and therefore the Plan in its current form cannot be appropriately assessed.

Should this 12,000 be taken forward as the requirement, this would result in an additional requirement for at least 3,000 homes in the first five years of the Plan period.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 200 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment The emerging Local Plan states that AVDC cannot demonstrate the FYHLS, due to a large portion of the allocated supply being made up of large sites which will not deliver housing early in the Plan period. The emerging Plan therefore proposes reduced delivery rates in the first five years of the Plan, before increasing in the remaining years to reach the required total. Para. 3.17 of the emerging Plan states that due to the number of large sites which will be developed later in the Plan period, the Council can only demonstrate 3.9 years’ worth of housing supply. As suggested above, this does not include the increase in housing requirement which AVDC will be required to provide as a result of the Duty to Co-Operate. If the 12,000 figure estimated by AVDC is adopted, with a requirement therefore to deliver 3,000 new homes within the first five years of the Plan period, the LPA can currently demonstrate only 3 years’ worth of supply. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires LPA’s to ensure the following, in order to boost significantly the supply of housing: - Use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period; - Identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% to ensure choice and competition in the market for lands (20% buffer wherethere has been a record of persistent under-delivery); - Identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad location for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15; - For market and affordable housing, illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the plan period and set out a housing implementation strategy for the full range of housing describing how they will maintain delivery of a five-year supply of housing land to meet their housing target; and, - Set out their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. The emerging Local Plan does not satisfy the second point of para. 47 in that there is insufficient supply of specific deliverable sites within the first five years of the Plan period. AVDC acknowledge that they do not have a sufficient supply of housing sites within the first five years of their Plan period which is in conflict with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the NPPF. There is a focus through the Plan on the delivery of more strategic sites later in the Plan period without satisfying the requirements earlier in the plan period. There is no provision for this approach to housing delivery and FYHLS within the NPPF. The NPPF is very clear that a local planning authority must identify a FYHLS.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 201 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment This is an unsustainable approach to identifying housing land supply and the Plan should be revised to include for additional measures to deliver the increased housing requirements within the first five years of the Plan period, as required by national policy. Any alternative proposal would not be consistent with national policy and therefore would be unsound. Land Adjacent to Cold Comfort Farm On behalf of our client, we would take this opportunity to make the authority aware of a potential site for housing development in Wendover. Initial capacity studies indicate a yield of between 65 – 95 new homes across the 3.7ha site. The site falls to the north of Wendover and is currently accessed by a single track from Aylesbury Road serving allotments, the site and Cold Comfort Farm. The rear gardens of residential dwellings border the site to the south and north east [further information provided by respondent].

The site falls within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. During pre-application engagement, an initial landscape visual impact assessment was undertaken. This concluded that, whilst there were limited harmful impacts, these were at the strictly local level and could be mitigated via a reduced density and or revised site layout, coupled with a suitable site boundary treatment. Harm was not identified beyond these local receptors. Furthermore, we are mindful of numerous Inspector’s decisions where, on the basis of guidance within chapter 116 of the NPPF, exceptional circumstances have outweighed any perceived harm (of varying degrees) to the AONB arising as a result of the proposed development. These exceptional circumstances have even included occasions when a local authority can demonstrate a five year housing land supply, yet there is still a clear need for the development. In the context of AVDC, as we have set out, not only does the Plan not have a clearly established level of housing need, there are significant issues with the spatial strategy and housing allocations proposed to date. In short, AVDC’s housing position is not robust and could be held as an exceptional circumstance to permit development within the AONB [further information provided by the respondent].

These representations set out our significant concerns as to the soundness of the plan. Firstly, we consider that the settlement hierarchy, whilst appropriate and useful in principle, is undermined by the spatial strategy set out in draft Policy D4. The proposed level of development to those settlements which have been identified as the most sustainable is insufficient, with too greater reliance on the growth of Aylesbury. Any under delivery (which is realistic) would increase pressure on less sustainable locations or growth, contrary to national policy and the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 202 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Further, the draft policies seeks to restrict unallocated development. Given our concerns with the identification and limited allocation of sites currently within the VALP, this is an unjustified approach. Development located to the most sustainable locations for growth should be supported. We do not consider that the identification of a single site in Wendover is an effective or justified strategy for the delivery of housing. This site has not been properly tested and we have identified significant barriers to development, notwithstanding the Green Belt designation. The ability of the site to meet the expectation of 800 new homes must be properly tested prior to being taken any further in the plan preparation. We understand that Green Belt release is being considered, however this is not a justified approach having regard to national Green Belt policy. It would lead to inevitable coalescence between Halton and Wendover, encroach on the countryside and allow for unconstrained sprawl to the north, undermining the original purpose of the designation. In advance of the release of such a significant area of land, alternative opportunities to deliver housing should be considered. We do not consider that AVDC can demonstrate a FYHLS and are very concerned that the VALP is not based on a comprehensive evidence base. As one example, the actual level of housing need is yet to be confirmed as the Duty to Co-Operate is yet to be satisfied. The VALP is therefore unsound as it not a justified nor positively planned approach. AVDC’s proposed bypassing of clear FYHLS policy is not supported by any national policy. Such an approach is unjustified and unsound.

Finally, we have taken this opportunity to highlight the opportunity presented by our client’s site in Wendover to deliver a significant quantum of residential development. We would be happy to meet with the authority to discuss further.

I trust the content of these representations is clear, however if you would like to discuss further then please do not hesitate to contact me

VALP16-09-09-01477 Jane Eden (Aylesbury Other Comments - Aylesbury Town Council's Planning & Licensing committee welcomes the fact that after many years of there Town Council.) being no protection for the town that a new development plan is nearing completion, the failure of successive plans has led to many years of virtually open season development in and around the town, we wish to see this plan succeed to give our 70,000 residents a voice and some confidence in the development plan.

The development around Aylesbury and in the wider vale is Government policy and will take place, the lack of a local plan is allowing unplanned opportunistic development to take place, this is adversely affecting current residents and damaging local services, the VALP will at least address these issues in future. The numbers of proposed homes is probably correct, but we do feel that the number proposed to “meet the needs of other councils” is highly speculative, there must be a rigorous system to examine this “unmet need” to ensure that Aylesbury residents do not feel as if they are the only ones having to accept development and changing of their town.

If the proposed development is carried out in the correct manner with the full engagement of residents, with the full implementation of the necessary infrastructure then it may be acceptable to Aylesbury Town council, and Aylesbury residents, if the VALP is not implemented correctly it will lead to an increased burden on facilities and infrastructure and will damage the quality of life for all residents for generations to come.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 203 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01494 Louise, Thomas and Other Comments - P.S Eleri is our 18 month old daughter who deserves someone to fight on her behalf to protect the countryside in Eleri Hosking Aylesbury Vale and has already in her short life sat through two planning committee meetings. VALP16-09-12-01508 Mr and Mrs Marsh Other Comments - Strategic issues In addition to the above points relating to Cuddington specifically, we would object to:- The inordinately high provision for possible un-met needs from neighbouring local authorities. The apparent disparity between the approach in Wycombe and Chiltern and South Bucks Districts, where, despite not having completed their plans, their bottom-up approach seems to leave a huge deficit. This compares with AVDC top down approach to impose targets on all its settlements, at the outset. The crude mathematical division of development for settlements with little, or no, consideration of the character of the settlement, or its ability to find sufficient sites. The lack of specific planning policy for Areas of Attractive landscape (AAL) We would re-iterate our main point that in the real world- there is no way that Cuddington is anything other than a small village- indeed we have won Buckinghamshire small best-kept village awards for many years!

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 204 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01511 Cameron Branston Other Comments - In developing this response, I echo the perspective of Cllr Carole Paternoster, Cabinet Member for Growth (Grendon Underwood & Strategy that this is an important time for Aylesbury Vale. A number of exciting opportunities await the Vale over the coming years. Brill Ward) Moreover, I share the enthusiasm expressed in this draft plan for the future of Aylesbury Vale and believe that the project growth will on the whole bring more employment, investment and opportunities. It is against this backdrop of enthusiasm for the work being done by planners that I make my comments.

1.0 Introduction Whilst I support the efforts of AVDC staff in drafting this plan, I am, however, aware that my role as District Councillor for the Ward of Grendon Underwood & Brill necessitates that I listen to the views of the residents I represent. To that end, I have spoken with a number of residents within my Ward and feel that I have a good understanding of their views. Residents in my Ward are only too aware of the challenges facing Aylesbury Vale. They appreciate the need for housing, yet are concerned with the current strain on services and amenities. They understand the desire for growth, yet have concerns about sustainability. They see in this plan real economic potential for the Vale, yet they are unwilling to sacrifice the benefits of village life for growth and success. For the most part, the Vale of Aylesbury Plan endeavours to balance this apprehension by arguing that sustainability is a key value. I welcome this approach and believe that with input from residents, and if well-executed, the draft VALP can be the roadmap towards future sustainable prosperity for the Vale.

As District Councillor for Grendon Underwood and Brill, I represent three villages that have been asked to take housing over the next 20 years. These villages are: Brill, Grendon Underwood and Ludgershall. Since my election, I’ve sought to have a dialogue on housing with a number of residents using various vehicles including surgeries, parish councils and one to one meetings. My constituents have offered robust feedback and recognition of the policy straightjacket within which AVDC finds itself. I shall address each village separately.

In conclusion, I support the efforts by AVDC planners in the draft VALP. I agree in spirit with this draft plan and am optimistic that if well-implemented, we can manage our growth in a sustainable way for the next 20 years. I urge AVDC planners to consider the views of residents in the Ward of Grendon Underwood & Brill as regards the location of housing. I remain confident that planners will protect the unique nature of the villages within my Ward whilst recognising that residents are willing to accommodate housing where possible in a manner that adds to the overall vitality of their village.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 205 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01512 Peter Chilman Other Comments - 4) Major Information Gaps in the Draft Plan. The VALP consultation documents to allow a meaningful consultation on the strategy AVDC promote has 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. There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. Conclusion Overall, the VALP consultation is meaningless. The information on fundamental areas such as traffic and infrastructure are extremely weak with little information. How are people expected to comment when these key areas are essentially absent from the document? The whole process suggests that the development is a preconceived plan and makes a mockery of the statement that ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’. It will not become “Our Plan” unless you listen to people’s expressed views. The VALP plan process should be paused until significant information is provided on infrastructure and transport. VALP16-09-12-01514 Simon Proctor (Proctor Other Comments - additional comments attached that do not fit in form including comments on S5, S6, S8 and H7 Surveyors (Gawcott)) GawcottAllocations are required for 62 new homes in Gawcott. The HELAA identifies sites for 31 homes, and so it is proposed that these sites are allocated for housing. This leaves a shortfall of 31 homes still to be identified.

additional site promoted - Land to rear Clearhayes, Gardener’s Lane, Gawcott MK18 4HY

See plan attached

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 206 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01515 Cameron Austin-Fell Other Comments - Summary (RPS Planning & The preparation of the Local Plan is supported, as is the generally positive approach to deliver a Development (on behalf proportion of the housing requirements associated with unmet needs associated with the wider of Richborough Estates Buckinghamshire area under the duty to cooperate. Site - Churchway, RPS is generally supportive of the Development Strategy of the plan which identifies both Aylesbury and Haddenham as Strategic Haddenham)) Settlements where growth is to be located. RPS has concerns about the scale of the housing requirements generally and believes the evidence demonstrates a housing requirement which is above the proposed figure of 33,910 (21,300 for Aylesbury Vale) indicated in the Local Plan. This is addressed in greater detail in Section 3 of these representations. In relation to the distribution of housing growth within the Local Plan, the strategy of the Local Plan appropriately acknowledges that Aylesbury is the principal focus for housing and that the Council is seeking to meet its housing requirements in full and has identified Aylesbury as a Garden Town. Additionally, in relation to Haddenham, this is appropriately recognised as a Strategic Settlement, however, the policy should allow a greater scale of growth, beyond 50% to come forward, reflective of the settlements existing infrastructure and accessibility, with the Haddenham and Thame Parkway Station and A418 providing strong levels of transport accessibility. Specifically, the supporting text to Policy 4 is clear that sites not considered suitable for development in the HELAA have been ruled out. In the context of Richborough’s land interests at Churchway, Haddenham (HELAA HAD002), this site has effectively been ruled out due to such landscape concerns. However, as explained in sections 4 and 6 of these representations, the HELAA assessment for the site was based on a larger land parcel, than Richborough’s land interests. A new HELAA submission is included within these representations along with more refined landscape evidence (the full LVIA can be made available to the Council). This provides new and compelling evidence to the Council that its land interests at Haddenham should not be ruled out on landscape grounds, with the site capable of being successfully integrated into the settlement with delivery early in the plan period. The element of HAD002 in Richborough’s control (see section 6), should be allocated for up-to 100 dwellings. RPS is keen to ensure that the evidence base underpinning the plan is robust, particularly when it comes to establishing the reasons for allocating sites and not allocating others. RPS is particularly keen to ensure the Local Plan fully meets the requirements of the SEA Directive having regard to the consideration of reasonable alternatives. For this reason these representations assist the Council in sections 4, 5, and 6 in considering the evidence base associated with the site at Churchway, Haddenham, which, based on this assessment work, strongly supports the allocation of the site in the Local Plan.

Further comments in attachment

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 207 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01518 Silas Willoughby Other Comments - INTRODUCTION (Dominic Lawson 1. This document has been prepared by Dominic Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd on behalf of Bespoke Planning (on ICP Asset Management Limited and JGE Truck & Plant Ltd in response to the most recent behalf of ICP Asset public consultation on Aylesbury Vale District Council’s emerging Local Plan (the “Draft Management Limited Plan”). and JGE Truck & Plant 2. This representation is made in relation to Pitstone Quarry no.2 (“the site”), located to the Ltd)) south-east of Pitstone and south of Upper Icknield Way (B488). Part of the site lies outside of Aylesbury Vale (see Appendix 1). 3. This representation pack comprises the following documents: • Aylesbury Vale District Council Local Plan Briefing, with appendices (September 2016); and • Landscape and Visual Commentary (September 2016) (produced by Scarp landscape Architects).

SUMMARY 4. We are grateful for the opportunity to make representations to the emerging Local Plan, and welcome the work that the Council has done to develop a plan to influence and manage development across the district. 5. However, we respectfully request the removal of the site from the green belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (“AONB”) designations in this location. We consider that the site does not contribute to these designations and should be removed. 6. In respect of removal from the green belt, this would accord with the area of the site within Dacorum borough which is not within the green belt. The borough boundary does not reflect any site boundary and as such the current Aylesbury Vale green belt boundary is not considered appropriate. 7. In addition, we request the retention of the Pitstone Policy Area (and associated policy RA. 26 of the Adopted Aylesbury Vale Local Plan 2007) to support development in the Policy Area following the historic and current extraction and quarrying activities.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 208 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment THE SITE 8. The majority of the site lies within Aylesbury Vale district and a small section of the site to the south-west lies within Dacorum borough (see Appendix 1). 9. The site currently comprises mineral extraction in accordance with permission 92/461/AMI. 10. The site is located on the edge of the AONB and green belt. PLANNING HISTORY 11. The relevant minerals and restoration planning applications at the site comprise: • 92/461/AMI - Extraction of chalk and restoration of the land at Quarries 1 and 2, Pitstone (GRANTED); and • 00/0791/AMI - Variation of condition 3 attached to consent 92/461/AMI (GRANTED).

REMOVAL OF AONB DESIGNATION 12. Paragraph 9.21 of the Draft Plan notes that the Chiltern Hills were designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in 1965 by the government in recognition that the Chilterns countryside is amongst the finest in England and Wales. The main purpose of designation is to conserve beauty which includes protecting flora, fauna and geological features as well as the overall landscape. 13. This is supported by paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework: “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”. 14. Draft Policy NE4 reflects this, and establishes criteria identifying the key characteristics of the AONB to be conserved or enhanced, including the: “special qualities, distinctive character, tranquillity and remoteness […] and the overall purpose of the AONB designation” (criteria a); “aims of the statutory Chilterns AONB Management Plan” (criteria c); “the steep chalk escarpments with areas of flower-rich downland, broadleaved woodlands (especially beech), commons, tranquil valleys, the network of ancient routes, villages with their brick and flint houses, chalk streams and a rich historic environment of hillforts and chalk figures” (criteria f);

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 209 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment “locally distinctive patterns and species composition of natural features such as chalk downland, trees, hedgerows, woodland, field boundaries, rivers and chalk streams” (criteria h); and “tranquillity, remoteness and the need to avoid intrusion from light pollution, noise, and transport” (criteria m). 15. The current mineral extraction on the site, by its very nature, is disruptive to the tranquility and remoteness of the AONB. Any flora and fauna (key components of the AONB designation) present on the site prior to minerals activity have since been lost. 16. However, the potential for new development also provides opportunities for the creation of higher levels of biodiversity gain, including new woodland, as explained in paragraph 7.1.2 of the Landscape and Visual Commentary report. 17. The Ivinghoe Foothills Landscape Character Area (part of the Aylesbury Vale Character Assessment) encourages the establishment of new woodlands “especially where they will provide mitigation for visually intrusive elements.” A prominent feature of the site is the active chalk quarry, which is considered ‘intrusive’ (section 10.2 of Aylesbury Vale Landscape Character Assessment) and demotes the features expected of the AONB. 18. The quarrying activity has resulted in a vastly altered landscape at the edge of the AONB in this location. Despite the approved minerals restoration plan (see Appendix 2), the landscape quality that may have existed at this edge previously is now lost and the restoration scheme does little to contribution to its recreation. The restoration plan offers limited scope to restore the degraded landscape. 19. The special qualities of the AONB are also specified in the Chiltern AONB Management Plan, but the site’s contribution is very limited (paragraph 7.1.4 of the Landscape and Visual Commentary report): • high-quality calcareous grassland - the high-quality original grassland has or will be removed by the quarrying activities;

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 210 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment • fine long views across the lower lying vales to the north from the main escarpment ridge - these views are significantly degraded by the quarrying activities, planning permission for which has been granted until 2037. These views can only degrade further from now; • chalk landscapes are dry landscapes, but in a few shallow valleys can be found gentlyflowing streams - there will be no gently-flowing streams; • the folds of the landscape provide hidden ‘secret’ landscapes and unspoilt countryside - the quarrying and subsequent restoration proposals will result in a landscape with many incongruous features; and • the Chilterns has an extensive network of ancient routes, roadside hedges and sunken lanes. The Ridgeway (Icknield Way) - surrounding routes within the Chilterns network are all retained but the quality of views from these routes is degraded (barbed wire fencing, chalk excavations) and will, to a degree remain, degraded post-restoration. 20. The site’s degradation towards the wider AONB landscape consists of: the uniform cut slopes within the site, which comprise gently undulating slopes; and extensive areas of exposed chalk which are both visually unpleasing. 21. It is therefore considered that the site, either in its current or restored form, would do little to contribute to the special qualities that the AONB is designated for. 22. Upper Icknield Way, which provides an artificial boundary for the AONB, could be replaced by the upper cliff edge of the quarry (southern boundary of the site) - this would represent a more appropriate landscape boundary and would not create a hole within the designation. 23. Views towards the site from the north are dominated by a robust belt of mature trees/ shrub growth, working in favour of the AONB designation. However, this section of the site will likely be quarried in the future and will be particularly intrusive in the AONB due to the greater visibility of this part of the site. In the effort to maintain fine long views (Chilterns AONB Management Plan) and criteria (c) of draft policy NE4, removing the designation from this site would be in the best interests of the wider AONB and the borough (land use for development need).

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 211 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 24. To conclude, we consider the AONB designation should be removed at the site as it is a degraded landscape that will not meet the purposes of its designation even after the site is restored. The site has a relatively high capacity in landscape and visual terms to accommodate new built development, potentially relieving pressure on other areas of Aylesbury Vale where development might be more intrusive in landscape and visual terms.

REMOVAL OF GREEN BELT DESIGNATION 25. According to paragraph 83 of the Framework, “Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan”. 26. Paragraph 85 continues to state that when defining green belt boundaries as part of a review, local planning authorities should “not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open”. 27. Paragraph 80 states that green belt serves five purposes - these are considered below, alongside justification as to why the site no longer contributes to each purpose: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - the site is not located within a large built-up area, and is located on the edge of the green belt; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - the site is not part or adjacent to built development; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - the site is not located within or adjacent to built development, and is on the edge of the green belt. Removing the designation in this location would not lead to encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns - the site is not within or adjacent to any built development and is located away from Pitstone; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land - removal of the site from the green belt in this location would not prejudice this purpose, as the site is located to the edge of the green belt and away from urban land.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 212 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 28. While mineral extraction can be considered not inappropriate development in the green belt, the existing quarry demonstrates clear harm to the openness of the green belt by virtue of its scale and presence of buildings and structures on-site. 29. The local landscape character is diminished by many man-made influences, which include quarrying activities and does not contribute to green belt purposes (paragraph 7.2.5 of the Landscape and Visual Commentary report). 30. Furthermore, the adverse impact minerals operations can have on the openness of the green belt was emphasised by a refused application in 2003 for chalk extraction with restoration to agriculture and amenity uses (Buckinghamshire County Council ref 03/20002/ACC), which cited the lack of very special circumstances and the lack of available alternative sites as reasons not to grant development in the green belt at this location. 31. The site does not support the five purposes of the green belt, and the current mineral works do impact upon the openness of the green belt in this location. Consequently, it is considered appropriate to remove the site from the green belt designation, and provide a new green belt boundary on the southern boundary of the site to reflect the altered landscape and land use in this location. 32. The Aylesbury Vale District Council boundary ends in the middle of the site and the Dacroum Borough Council’s boundary begins thereafter. The Dacorum Borough Council boundary section of the site is not green belt land. The green belt boundary does not match any artificial or natural boundary and should therefore be removed to a make a more appropriate boundary.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 213 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment PITSTONE POLICY AREA 33. The site lies within the Pitstone Policy Area, as established by policy RA.26 of the Adopted Aylesbury Vale Local Plan. The current policy provides guidance for appropriate uses with the Policy Area, in light of the historic and current minerals activity, including: • uses for Quarry no. 2 consistent with its location within the AONB and green belt following the extraction of chalk from and restoration of Quarry no. 2 pursuant to the planning consents ref. 92/461/AMI and 0975-93; • the protection and enhancement of the amenity of the neighbouring residents and those in nearby settlements; and • additional pedestrian and cycle links through the adjoining restored quarry land to neighbouring settlements and/or surrounding footpaths. 34. In light of the continuing mineral activity in the Pitstone Policy Area, we consider that this policy should be retained in the Draft Plan to guide future development. APPENDICES 35. These appendices include the restoration plan and decision notice attached planning application 00/0791/AMI attached to consent 92/461/AMI and the Landscape and Visual Commentary report as part of the representation pack: • Appendix 1: Site Location Plan (August 2016); • Appendix 2: Restoration Plan (drawing number 833.54F); • Appendix 3: Decision Notice (ref. 00/0791/AMI); and VALP16-09-12-01519 Lisa Cooper Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in the two aspects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village, and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development VALP16-09-12-01521 Sean Carolan (Winslow Other Comments - 58) National housing statistics which confirm completions, housing starts etc do not include those new dwellings Town Council) which result from the conversion of office space into new homes. Is VALP allowed to include such conversions to new homes in its delivery figures to meet its targets? 61) We would like to see a statement to the effect that any additional housing (etc) delivered over and above the VALP requirements will be taken into account in subsequent revisions or plans. To do otherwise might be seen as penalising communities that voluntarily take on an additional share of the development burden. 63) Can you assure us that submissions made during the consultation process will be responded to either by changes to reflect those submissions or explanations as to why they have not been acted upon? It is recognised, of course, that such responses would need to be ‘generic’ in nature rather than specific to every individual submission. Without clear responses it is likely that the same issues will be raised time and again including at Examination. 64) The published timetable for adoption of VALP seems to be extremely unrealistic. If the Plan is submitted in March 2017 then adoption sometime in mid to late 2018 would seem more likely than the published date of mid 2017.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 214 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01523 Cameron Austin-Fell Other Comments - The preparation of the Local Plan is supported, as is the generally positive approach to deliver a (RPS Planning & proportion of the housing requirements associated with unmet needs associated with the wider Development (on behalf Buckinghamshire area under the duty to cooperate. of Richborough Estates RPS is generally supportive of the Development Strategy of the plan which identifies both Site - Lower Road, Aylesbury and Haddenham as Strategic Settlements where growth is to be located. Aylesbury)) RPS has concerns about the scale of the housing requirements generally and believes the evidence demonstrates a housing requirement which is above the proposed figure of 33,910 indicated in the Local Plan. This is addressed in greater detail in Section 3 of these representations. In relation to the distribution of housing growth within the Local Plan, the strategy of the Local Plan appropriately acknowledges that Aylesbury is the principal focus for housing and that the Council is seeking to meet its housing requirements in full and has identified Aylesbury as a Garden Town. RPS is keen to ensure that the evidence base underpinning the plan is robust, particularly when it comes to establishing the reasons for allocating sites and not allocating others. RPS is particularly keen to ensure the Local Plan fully meets the requirements of the SEA Directive having regard to the consideration of reasonable alternatives. For this reason these representations assist the Council in sections 4, 5, and 6 in considering the evidence base associated with the site at Lower Road, Aylesbury, which, based on this assessment work strongly supports the allocation of the site in the Local Plan. Further Comments in Attachment VALP16-09-12-01526 Andrew Wright (Kirby Other Comments - We are appointed by the John Mason Raven Trust. Our client owns land in the village of Wingrave - specifically Diamond) the area north of Winslow Road referred to as Site Ref WGR004. Please accept this as our consultation response to the recently published draft 'Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan'.

I trust that our representations are of assistance and will be taken into account. We would, of course, be pleased to discuss any of the issues raised in further detail. VALP16-09-12-01527 James Tree-Booker Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

VALP16-09-12-01528 Linda Cannon Clegg Other Comments - Additional Objection to Wycombe Draft Plan and Sustainability Appraisal -see documents attached (Risborough Area Residents Association (RARA))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 215 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01532 Gill Mabey Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

VALP16-09-12-01534 Ian Manktelow Other Comments - Finally, I would like to add that as an authority we are fully committed to joint working through the Duty to (Wycombe District Cooperate, and are firmly of the view that the evidence base for our separate plans will be strengthened if all work to assess the Council) capacity for housing and employment across the Housing Market Area, and any unmet needs arising, is undertaken on a joint basis. This provides a firm basis for the essential scrutiny that needs to take place by each Council to ensure the work is robust and accurate. We have shown the value of this in terms of joint commissions or joint methodologies – for example with the HEDNA, HELAA and Green Belt assessment - and we trust that this approach to work will continue in the final stages of plan preparation.

VALP16-09-12-01536 Gareth Owens Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 216 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01538 Jon Gateley (Savills (on Other Comments - Overall, CSP broadly welcomes the direction of travel of the VALP, however as set out in this document, it behalf of Crest Strategic requests a series of modifications to several policies, and the deletion of others, in order to ensure that the plan overall is sound and Projects)) deliverable. More specifically we welcome the identification by the VALP of the Shenley Park site as a strategic allocation adjacent to Milton Keynes (WHA001). However we recommend that the allocation site area is expanded, in order to avoid unduly constraining the potential capacity of site. This will enable approximately 1,800 dwellings. The present draft site designation is likely to fall significantly short of this and will not provide a secured and deliverable gap between Whaddon and the development. As set out in the accompanying Appendices, Shenley Park can be brought forward in a manner that is sensitive to landscape character, and which delivers the necessary separation between Whaddon and Milton Keynes without the separation buffer being as extensive as currently proposed by AVDC. The current boundary, as drawn in the draft VALP, will result in the ‘buffer’ land remaining in its current status, as arable land. However the alternative approach advocated by CSP, of incorporating this buffer positively into the scheme, will allow it to become publicly accessible and a useable amenity space. Shenley Park is necessary in order to fulfil the planned housing targets required in the VALP, and is a highly sustainable option for growth given the existing major trans-boundary linkages and commuting flows between Aylesbury Vale and Milton Keynes. Provision of additional housing adjacent to Milton Keynes will reduce the need to travel on the part of future residents, compared with alternative sites in Aylesbury Vale. Related to this we note that if unmet needs from Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks districts are ultimately omitted (in whole or in part) from the VALP, this should not affect the existing proposals for development around Milton Keynes, since it is at such considerable distance and serves Aylesbury Vale’s needs before any need arising from south of the district. We commend these representations to AVDC along with the accompanying vision and technical documents, and welcome the continuing opportunity to engage positively with the authority as the process moves forward.

Further Comments in Attachment (20160905 CSP Representations)

VALP16-09-12-01540 Caron Owens Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 217 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01541 Sarah Copley (Stoke Other Comments - Introduction Mandeville Parish Stoke Mandeville Parish Council has prepared a comprehensive response to Aylesbury Vale District Council’s draft Local Plan. To Council) develop the response it has critically reviewed the documents in detail, consulted with the local community and held a well-attended public meeting on Tuesday 16 August. The analysis and the comments have been combined in the formal submission document. This summary has been prepared to set out the key points of the Parish Council’s response in a more accessible way for County, District, Parish and Town Councillors, local residents, businesses and other stakeholders. The Council is happy to discuss this further and expand on any of the points or offer other clarification if required. The Parish Council notes references to Stoke Mandeville in the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan are about the village rather than the Parish. The Council urges all to note that the proposed growth of Aylesbury will potentially involve significant development in Hawkslade, Stoke Leys and Stoke Grange which are also within the parish of Stoke Mandeville. Consultation, engagement and feedback The Parish Council is concerned about the timing of this consultation, during the summer holiday period. It hopes that as many people as possible will have taken the opportunity to respond to the Plan, but asks the District Council to note that it was not easy for Parishes to fully engage with the community. The District Council reports that it had more than 4,500 specific comments at the Issues and Options consultation stage. The Parish Council questions whether this consultation will receive as many responses. It also looks forward to the publication of a comprehensive consultation report that shows how each submission is taken account of and leads to direct changes in the plan. Because of its unique position both adjacent to (part of) and separate from the growth of Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville Parish Council has been and remains committed to ongoing engagement with the District Council to discuss growth as part of both the Local and Neighbourhood Plans. It hopes the District will remain committed to communication and partnership working throughout the process. Stoke Mandeville Parish Council is aware of some local criticism about poor communication from the District Council, including little feedback. Whilst it recognises current resource constraints, it does urge Aylesbury Vale to consider how to close the feedback loop more effectively in future. Policy S7 – Traveller and travelling showpeople provision The Parish Council is unable to comment on this policy or the supporting information, since it presents only a partial picture. It looks forward to the publication of the updated Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, so it can provide a more detailed response.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 218 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Para 3.83 – 3.84 Stoke Mandeville Parish Council is pleased to have embraced neighbourhood planning and be one of the 27 areas where a plan is in place or being developed. A significant reason for taking forward this work was to allow the community to have a say in the location and specification of growth. It is therefore disappointed that despite consulting with the community about key development sites, these views were overlooked in recent decisions on contentious planning applications. Para 3.86 – 3.87 Both paragraphs include important commitments from the District Council about support for the neighbourhood planning process. The Parish Council agrees that good communication between the parties is critical and looks forward to receiving regular evidence and information to support its neighborhood plan. It hopes that this will include advice on how to best disaggregate Census data to better understand its four wards. Infrastructure The Council believes that for economic and housing growth to be truly sustainable it must be supported by the delivery of timely and appropriate infrastructure. It questions the extent to which the draft Local Plan has, to date, been shaped by a detailed infrastructure assessment. The Parish Council believes that such an assessment, identifying capacity and constraints should be a key determinant in where and how growth is allocated and planned. The Council urges Aylesbury Vale to carry out a comprehensive infrastructure analysis to help identify existing gaps in public services and / or geographical areas that could be addressed by future economic and housing development. Such work would create the foundation for and inform the preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan for Aylesbury Vale. The Parish Council believes that the District has set itself a very ambitious (possibly unrealistic) target to prepare the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy schedules. To identify and co-ordinate infrastructure needs and phasing will require collaboration between a large number of service providers to ensure it reflects the needs of existing and future communities and is based on robust assessments of demography and growth. The Council does not think that such important work should be rushed or short-circuited to meet a self-imposed deadline. The work is more complex than suggested in Policy S5 (Infrastructure) requiring a detailed understanding of existing infrastructure and facilities, an appreciation of the opportunities provided by growth and a commitment from all parties to work collaboratively to maximise the benefits of the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Parish Council hopes that bodies such as the County Council are properly resourced for this work. Neighbourhood planning

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 219 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment The Parish Council is pleased to be amongst the 27 areas that have embraced neighbourhood planning in Aylesbury Vale, where a plan is in place or being developed, with the Parish as the defined geography. A big reason in the decision to progress the plan was enabling the local community to have a say in both the location and specification of growth. It is therefore disappointed that despite a programme of community consultation about key development sites, the views were overlooked in recent decisions on contentious planning applications. Stoke Mandeville Parish Council is concerned that the draft Local Plan appears to place great emphasis upon made or submitted plans, but suggests little weight should be accorded to ‘work in progress’. Regardless of this Stoke Mandeville wants the opportunity to discuss possible allocations, to inform both Neighbourhood and Local Plans, based on the commitments from Aylesbury Vale about their ongoing support for neighbourhood planning. The Parish Council agrees that good communication between all parties is critical and looks forward to receiving regular data, evidence and information from Aylesbury Vale District Council to support its neighbourhood plan. It trusts this will include advice on how to disaggregate National Census statistics to increase understanding of the four wards (Hawkslade, Stoke Leys, Stoke Grange and the village). VALP16-09-12-01543 Mrs C Pritchard Other Comments - As a resident of Haddenham for 39 years, I wish to register my objections to further proposals to change the identity of the village and subsequent quality of life for residents of all ages.

Acceptance, reluctantly, of approx 1000 new homes - which will increase the housing stock by 50% - will present significant difficulties to those of us who do not commute/work full time and who need to move safely through the village on a daily basis. Narrow roads and lanes are already heavily populated with parked vehicles - some of which park on verges, across footpaths and increasingly on side and main roads close to the Railway Station.

Essential amenities - schools, health and welfare services - are already stretched and Haddenham does not have the infrastructure found in a town that could support further development on the scale proposed.

I consider myself very fortunate to live in, and contribute to, this community and am concerned about the well-being of every resident.

VALP16-09-12-01544 Nancy Wardle Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I amappalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

VALP16-09-12-01546 Mr and Mrs Bonham Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I amappalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 220 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01548 Richard Cooper Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I amappalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

VALP16-09-12-01551 Alan Brook Other Comments - I live at 21 Walnut Close which is accessed from Station Road,

I moved to this address in November 1995, was new to the area and intended to stay here for a 'couple of years' or so. Well 21 years later I am still here and thoroughly enjoy living in a wonderful village within The Vale.

In the last few years I have noticed that Station Road at rush hour is at saturation point from a traffic perspective and that is a concern! Imagine how I felt when I saw the proposals. Life as I know it would be destroyed, traffic congestion would be unacceptable, access to shops, amenities and open space would be massively affected and in short I would no longer wish to live in Stoke Mandeville.

Whilst I understand that extra homes have to be built I would hope that this could be done without destroying the character of the village and creating traffic congestion and the resulting hazards for existing residents.

I really do not want to leave the village of Stoke Mandeville. Please do not force me out! VALP16-09-12-01563 Colin Bradford Other Comments - General The need to grow Aylesbury Vale by such high numbers seems to stem from the inability of or refusal by neighbouring authorities to meet their housing needs. Wycombe is foisting 5,000 extra homes on Aylesbury Vale and this alone accounts for the bulk of the increased need within our area. Whilst Wycombe seems to have a genuine problem regarding suitable land, the land allocated has density of just over 11 houses per hectare compared to close to 35 per hectare in Aylesbury. The bulk or all of Wycombe's unmet need could and should be met by them increasing their housing density to the same as Aylesbury Vale's. Additionally at 11 per hectare given the price of land per unit and the proportion of house price, Wycombe's plan doesn't seem to meet the need for affordable housing VALP16-09-12-01565 Patrick Collins Other Comments - I wish to object to the above plan for the following reasons; 1. It entails serious overdevelopment with loss of rural land and loss of habitat for flora and fauna. 2. Deviation of public footpaths. 3. Loss of village identities replaced by urban sprawl. 4. Serious increase in congestion on already inadequate main roads and on village roads with increased risk to local inhabitants and animals. 5. Several thousand extra vehicles resulting in more pollution. 6. An intolerable burden on already overstretched hospital and GP services and schools. VALP16-09-12-01566 Chris & Shirley Bull Other Comments - Our other concerns include poor air quality, lack of schools provision (especially secondary schools) and need for some community centres.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 221 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01567 Laura Tilston (Gladman Other Comments - Additional comments made that cant be entered in the form on policies S5, S8, S9, D4, D5, D6, H7, in document Developments) attached, further appendices attached also.

1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 These representations are submitted by Gladman Developments Ltd (from here on referred to as Gladman) in response to the current consultation on the New Local Plan Publication Draft. Gladman welcome the opportunity to comment on this version of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP), and ask to be kept informed on progress with this document. 1.1.2 Gladman have been involved in a significant number of Local Plans across the country, both through Plan preparation stages (through written representations) and through participation at the EiP stage. Through this experience Gladman have become acutely aware of the need for Local Plans to meet the tests of soundness and be based on robust up to date evidence. 1.2 Local Plan Context 1.2.1 Gladman have various land interests within Aylesbury Vale District and have been involved in plan preparation here for a number of years. Gladman made numerous written submissions to local plan consultation documents and participated actively at the Vale of Aylesbury Plan (VAP) EiP in December 2013. 1.2.2 Gladman understand that since the withdrawal of the VAP in 2014 the Council have been preparing a new Local Plan – the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan to cover the period 2013-2033. 1.2.3 The Council claim this Draft version of the VALP builds on the previous consultation (carried out in 2015) and adds details to the policies and overall strategy. As well as the Draft VALP, the Council are seeking comments on the background evidence which supports the policies in the VALP. 1.3 Previous Submissions 1.3.1 Gladman have submitted written representations to the early stages of engagement into the emerging plan, and intend to continue to do so throughout the preparation of the Plan. 1.3.2 Specifically, Gladman submitted representations in response to the following consultations: VALP Scoping Consultation (Regulation 18) – May 2014 VALP Issues and Options Consultation – December 2015

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 222 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 1.4 National Policy 1.4.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out four tests which must be met for Local Plans to be considered sound. In this regard we submit the following summary comments in relation to these four tests: Positively prepared – It is currently premature to conclude whether or not the plan is positively prepared, as the proposed housing requirement is not yet fixed (due to unresolved issues regarding unmet need). Gladman accept, that as currently drafted the plan is accommodating 12,000 dwellings of unmet need on top of their claimed OAN figure. On the one hand this is a positive approach and in line with the ethos of the Duty to Cooperate. However, the OAN for the district itself may need to increase which would then have knock on effects for the delivery of this scale of unmet need. The unmet need from the adjacent districts is also not yet confirmed with further work on Green Belt and AONB in these districts still to be completed. These issues lie at the heart of the VALP and need to be resolved in order to progress any further. Justified – Gladman have raised concerns regarding various elements of the housing need evidence which has been used to justify the proposed housing requirements. These concerns and issues need to be addressed before this this evidence can be considered up-to-date and robust. Effective – The plan cannot be considered effective, as through the proposed spatial strategy, specifically the 4,500 dwellings proposed to be delivered at the new settlement within the plan period, the scale of housing will categorically not be delivered. Consistent with National Policy – As detailed throughout this submission, there are various elements of the VALP and the policies within this which conflict with national policy. 1.4.2 As detailed throughout this submission, Gladman believe the Draft VALP fails to meet the tests of soundness set out in the Framework and therefore in its current form cannot be considered sound.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 223 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 1.5 Structure of Representations 1.5.1 These representations are structured to follow sections within the consultation document and as such will cover the following topics: Evidence Base Strategic Policies Strategic Delivery (including site submissions) Housing Built Environment Natural Environment 1.5.2 In addition to providing comments on the consultation document itself, Gladman have also reviewed a number of the supporting evidence base documents and provide comments and critique of these within this submission.

9.1 Key conclusions 9.1.1 Having considered the VALP Gladman are concerned regarding a range of matters, not least the spatial strategy proposed to deliver the necessary scale of housing growth across the plan period. Gladman submit that in its current form the VALP is not capable of being found sound. Significant amendments are required to ensure that the VALP meets the tests of soundness. 9.1.2 The plan must be positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy to be found sound at Examination. In the first instance, the Council must start by clearly defining an NPPF and PPG compliant OAN. The Council should then develop a robust housing requirement using this OAN as a starting point. For the reasons discussed within this submission (including the Regeneris critique report) and the remaining uncertainty regarding the scale of unmet need from neighbouring LPAs, we do not believe this has been done. 9.1.3 The Regeneris critique of the AVDC housing needs evidence (Buckinghamshire HEDNA) concludes that there are various elements where either further clarification of the evidence and assumptions is needed or where the data points to the OAN being higher than the 21,300 (1,065 dpa) accepted in the VALP.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 224 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 9.1.4 The implications of a higher OAN for Aylesbury Vale would have a knock on effect on the proposed housing requirement for the district. Since the VALP’s proposed requirement includes 12,000 additional homes more than the claimed OAN, a higher OAN would imply either less headroom to accommodate the housing need from elsewhere or a further revision to the housing requirement figure. If the OAN were higher and the unmet need still accommodated then the Council would need to find more options to accommodate this higher scale of housing growth. 9.1.5 Careful consideration also needs to be given to the spatial strategy which forms the basis for the spatial distribution of growth across the district. Gladman do not believe the proposed spatial strategy will deliver the scale of growth needed over the course of the plan period. The Council need to be taking a realistic approach in terms of delivery assumptions to ensure that the plan is capable of being effective. VALP16-09-12-01585 Stephen and Patricia Other Comments - Having found your official form far too complicated to complete we wish to submit the following comments Creasey regarding Newton Longville VALP16-09-12-01589 Kathryn Ward Other Comments - I hope this detail assists in clarifying the issues both of myself and residents of Newton Longville regarding your draft Plan. My views are for your consideration. VALP16-09-12-01592 Shirley Spurrell Other Comments - I have visited your planning exhibition at Winslow Public Hall , I have looked at the web site , I have logged onto your planning portal in an attempt to make comments but I found the format so confusing that I thought it best to drop you an e mail with my views as I fear my voice would be lost in translation on the planning portal.

I look forward to watching the progress of this debate and plan and trust you will keep us all fully informed VALP16-09-12-01594 Victoria Chase (Indigo Other Comments - AYLESBURY VALE DISTRICT COUNCIL EMERGING DRAFT LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION Planning Ltd on behalf On behalf of our client, Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd (SSL), we are pleased to submit representations in respect of the Aylesbury Sainsbury’s Vale District Council draft Local Plan consultation document. Supermarkets Ltd (SSL)) SSL currently has three stores within borough; one supermarket at Buckingham Street in Aylesbury town centre and local stores on Oakfield Road and Cambroune Avenue. The Council have also resolved to approve a new supermarket at Gatehouse Road subject to a legal agreement being signed (LPA ref. 13/00833/APP). SSL are therefore invested significantly in the area and are keen to engage with the new Local Plan process. Representations to the draft Local Plan Paragraph 4.145 notes the approval of a scheme for external enhancements and an extension to the existing SSL town centre store linked to the development of the larger, new SSL store proposed at Gatehouse Road. SSL continue to work with the Council to bring forward their commitments within Aylesbury.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 225 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01600 Heather Pugh (David Other Comments - We respond on behalf of our clients O&H Properties who control land to the east and north of Lock Associates (on Newton Longville abutting the south west boundary of Milton Keynes Borough. behalf of O&H Some of our clients’ land is included in the above document with a favourable assessment for Properties)) residential development, whilst other land has been identified in the draft Newton Longville Neighbourhood Plan as a ‘site opportunity’ for residential development. It is against this background that these representations are made. O&H Properties wish to make the following comments.

Further Comments in Attachments VALP16-09-12-01602 Mr and Mrs Lawton Other Comments - I appreciate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I amappalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brownfield sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previously identified largely brown-field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 226 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01604 Nayan Gandhi (RPS Other Comments - Please find attached RPS’s representations to the draft Local Plan made on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land, Planning & Development including the submission of the former Marsworth Airfield for consideration by the Council. This submission was submitted via the on behalf of Ainscough Council’s online service, however, there were some problems uploading the documentation so this email represents a carbon copy of Strategic Land) that submission to ensure the Council’s receipt within the allotted timeframe.

Completed PDF versions of the online forms are included in Appendix 1 of our report. We look forward to discussing our representations and how the former Marsworth Airfield site may assist the Council in meeting its housing needs through an allocation in the emerging Local Plan in due course. Please note that this submission should be read in conjunction with our submission of the site for consideration in the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment v4, also submitted to the Council on 5th September 2016.

I would be grateful for confirmation of receipt of this email.

1 rpsgroup.com/uk 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This statement has been prepared by RPS Planning and Development Ltd (RPS) on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land to promote land located at the former Marsworth Airfield (the site) to Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) for the development of a mixed-use settlement comprising residential development, employment land and other supporting uses. 1.2 The subject site is shown in Figure 1 of this Report, and it comprises an area of approximately 13.76ha, of which 11.09ha is located within AVDC’s administrative area and 2.67ha is located with Dacorum Borough Council’s (DBC) administrative land. 1.3 These representations relate to the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) which was published for consultation. RPS has also prepared a site submission report for consideration of the site in the latest Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). RPS will also be separately submitting the site to DBC for the same proposals, for consideration in their draft Local Plan as it emerges. 1.4 This report should be read in conjunction with the RPS Site Submission Report submitted to AVDC in September 2016.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 227 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 3 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 RPS has prepared these representations on behalf of Ainscough Strategy Land, who are promoting the redevelopment of the former Marsworth Airfield for a mixed use residential community and employment land in both Aylesbury Vale and Dacorum. 3.2 RPS generally supports the draft Local Plan’s strategy of meeting both Aylesbury Vale’s housing needs and helping neighbouring Councils within the housing market area to meet their unmet needs. 3.3 RPS submits that the former Marsworth Airfield should be allocated for approximately 330 dwellings set in a new sustainable village, and that this would go some way in meeting the needs identified to support ‘medium’ sized villages within the District. It can deliver substantial additional benefits including redeveloping brownfield land, thus minimising the Council’s greenfield landtake elsewhere. 3.4 The redevelopment of the Airfield for housing would also help ease pressure on the Council to meet its housing needs in the first five years of the plan period, which at present the Council has indicated that it may not be able to achieve. This is particularly important as the approach taken by the Council at present appears to be contrary to NPPF guidance. 3.5 RPS also considers that the Council has allocated other ‘medium’ sized villages, namely Stewkley, for more housing than can be suitably accommodated on identified land within the HELAA. These additional amounts should be re-distributed to the former Marsworth Airfield which can more suitably accommodate these amounts. VALP16-09-12-01606 Stuart Twigg Other Comments - Conclusion – VALP is a seriously flawed non- plan with no credible substance. It was written in panic with the certainty that it would be ridiculed and challenged by residents. Looking at the Sustainable Appraisal, there is far too much focus on dumping high cost, low quality housing on the southern part of Aylesbury. In essence, that is the whole plan. AVDC seem to want that Aylesbury comes to a crashing halt twice a day as residents leave home or return home after they have travelled to work. The chaos will result in even less investment and people moving out to much nicer places. What is needed is a new city in the vale, self sustaining with its own schools, doctors and hospital that is self funded with its own S106 reinvested into its community for the benefit of those who live there. What is not needed is Aylesbury joining up with Wendover in a never ending urban sprawl out of keeping with the topography and character of the area. There should be no building permitted. Nothing should happen until there is measurable certainty, not guesswork based on guesswork.

VALP16-09-12-01608 Tim Armitt Other Comments - Please do not allow the community spirit and individuality of this village to be swamped by ill-conceived and ultimately profit lead schemes.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 228 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01611 Ross Middleton (CC Other Comments - Conclusion: Town Planning on behalf Whilst the employment element of any proposed development at the site will be aimed at high quality jobs principally in of Mr C Morris & Mr P office/business use and high-tech office industrial use to compliment other developments which are taking place locally a pragmatic Cowley) approach will be required to bringing the site forward. As with all B-Class uses there will be a need for a complimentary mix of uses to ensure the longer term viability of the site and it is urged that such flexibility is built into the plan. It is considered that the Benthill Farm, London Road site will play a key role in in the development of Buckingham but furthermore it is considered that the site has a wider role to play in supporting the longer term development objectives of ADVC including the complimentary role to those larger developments which are planned elsewhere within the district. In addition the site will benefit from and potentially contribute towards the delivery of existing and future infrastructure proposals for Buckingham. The site will be directly accessible by the improved A413 Sustainable Travel Scheme which will introduce a 9km shared cycle way which interconnects Buckingham and the east-west rail station at Winslow. This bolsters the sites sustainability and further enhances the attractiveness of the site for mixed use development. In addition to the aforementioned the site will also have a positive effect on the Windsor Park development which sits opposite the site and is also directly accessible from the A413. The development of our client’s site will ultimately provide employment opportunities for this increased population, but through a mix of ancillary uses to bolster this sites sustainability, there are other uses which could be introduced at the site to compliment the residential offer at that significant development site for Buckingham. Given the sites allocation within the Buckingham Neighbourhood Plan there is now a real urgency from the clients to progress matters in relation to the site and it is our intention to engage with the Council through the formal pre-application process to assist in the formulation of a planning strategy to secure planning permission for 10 hectares of employment land at the site as well as a range of other complimentary uses. The significance of the site is clear, there is now an opportunity to place down a policy basis for the delivery of employment development at the site to achieve the Council’s strategic economic objectives. However, the delivery of employment land at the site should be complimented by alternative uses to assist in decreasing the pattern of out commuting experienced in Aylesbury Vale whilst at the same time bolstering Buckingham’s role as a strategic settlement. As previously stated this letter represents the first time that the clients have engaged with AVDC in the development plan production process, therefore could we request that you update your consultation database to include our Client’s details who can be contacted via CC Town Planning at the above address. If you would like any further information in respect of the site or require clarification on any of those points raised above, then please do not hesitate to contact me via any of those channels listed.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 229 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01620 Nicholas Deschamps Other Comments - I have read your well presented VALP Draft Plan proposals, and I am concerned for the ‘blighting' of the Vale in general but most specifically about the proposed creation of an enormous ‘garden village’ centred in the Haddenham area to the west of Waldridge Manor.

My wife and I reside in what was previously the stable complex to Dinton Hall, at the junction of Upton Road and Ford Road in the very heart of the Dinton, Westlington, Upton and Gibraltar Conservation Area. Some of the most important historic buildings in the DWUGCA are our close neighbours: Listed Grade 1 is the Parish Church of Saints Peter and Paul. Listed Grade 2 are; Dinton Hall, Sir Gilbert Scott’s Glebe House, Gable Cottage, Summers Cottage.

We, like many of our neighbours, chose to live here because of it’s special nature and do not want that to change more than superficially. It’s clear that this is recognised by the AVDC as expressed in this brief extract from the conservation area document. The red and bold highlighting is mine. VALP16-09-12-01621 Stewart Patience Other Comments - Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to proposed allocation sites within (Anglian Water Services Anglian Water’s area of responsibility. Limited) Buckingham The majority of the proposed housing allocations at Buckingham (with the exception of site BUC 003) are expected to require improvements to the existing water supply and/or foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to these sites. Improvements to the foul sewerage network are expected to be required for site BUC 003 (Roxwell, Moreton Road) Winslow A number of the proposed housing allocations in this area are expected to require improvements to the existing water supply and/or foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to these sites. Edlesborough A number of the proposed housing allocations in this area are expected to require improvements to the foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheet for detailed comments relating to these sites. Pitstone A number of the proposed housing allocations in this area are expected to require improvements to the existing water supply and/or foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to these sites. Steeple Claydon Site SCD008 are expected to require improvements to the foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on this site. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheet for detailed comments relating to these sites.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 230 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Whitchurch We note that there are number of parishes within Anglian Water’s area of responsibility where suitable housing sites have yet to be identified. We would wish to comment further on any additional housing allocation sites identified within our area of responsibility. Wing We note that there are number of parishes within Anglian Water’s area of responsibility where suitable housing sites have yet to be identified. We would wish to comment further on any additional housing allocation sites identified within our area of responsibility. Wingrave A number of the proposed housing allocations in this area are expected to require improvements to the existing water supply foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to these sites. Policy D6 Housing development at medium villages Anglian Water has made an initial assessment of the available capacity of water and water recycling infrastructure to serve the potential housing allocation sites within our area of responsibility. However it is important to note that the cost and extent of any water supply and foul sewerage network improvements are investigated and determined when we are approached by a developer and a detailed appraisal is carried out. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to proposed allocation sites within Anglian Water’s area of responsibility. Cheddington The proposed housing allocation in this area (site CHE1) is expected to require improvements to the existing water supply foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please note that the foul flows from this development are discharged into a Thames Water sewage treatment asset. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to these sites. Gawcott Please see comments relating to the available capacity of Water Recycling Centres set out above. Great Horwood A number of the proposed housing allocations in this area are expected to require improvements to the existing water supply foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Please refer to the enclosed spreadsheets for detailed comments relating to these sites.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 231 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Maids Moreton The proposed housing allocation in this area (site MM004) is expected to require improvements to the existing foul sewerage network to enable development to come forward on these sites. Newton Longville Both of the proposed housing allocation sites in this area (sites NLV005 and NLV008) is expected to require improvements to the existing water supply and foul sewerage networks to enable development to come forward on these sites. North Marston We note that there are number of parishes within Anglian Water’s area of responsibility where suitable housing sites have yet to be identified. We would wish to comment further on any additional housing allocation sites identified within our area of responsibility. Padbury One of the proposed housing allocation sites in this area (site PAD004) is expected to require improvements to the existing water supply and foul sewerage networks to enable development to come forward on these sites. Stewkley Anglian Water is responsible for the supply of potable (clean) water in the Stewkley area. Improvements to the existing water supply network for the proposed allocation sites (sites STW003 and STW05) are not expected to be required.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 232 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01622 Christopher Roberts Other Comments - Summary (Turley.co.uk on behalf 5.1 The Draft Local Plan, as currently written, is unsound. The document fails to take into of Cala Homes Ltd) account up-to-date and relevant evidence, which that has been published to support its preparation. As a consequence, the Plan is unlikely to fully meet either the Vale of Aylesbury’s housing need or that arising from other local authorities. Similarly, the proposed phasing of the housing requirement does not plan positively to address the District’s short-term housing need and would not provide the District with a five year supply of deliverable housing. Consequently, Policy S2 cannot be deemed to be sound in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 182. 5.2 It is also noted that the Draft Plan’s overarching housing strategy is contingent on the long-term development of a number of very large allocations and a new settlement. However, to rely on the delivery of such sites introduces considerable uncertainty and risk. Indeed, the successful implementation of the Plan is in no small part contingent on the delivery of a new settlement. Yet, despite its significance to the Draft Plan, the settlement’s location is not confirmed, nor has the pre-requisite (and complex) analysis been finalised, such that the viability of the proposed settlement (at any of the location options) is properly understood. Therefore, we submit that Draft Policy S2, D2, D3 and D4 cannot be considered as fully justified or effective. 5.3 The Draft’s Plan’s current proposals in relation to housing mix (Draft Policy H6) and affordable homes (Draft Policy H1) are also not regarded as being sound. Policy H6 sets out a proposal which would require that all strategic sites shall provide extra care units. We submit that this would introduce a blanket policy that is not properly justified and which infers a failure to understand the commercial dynamics of the extra care sector. Similarly, the proposed affordable housing policy would not (as presently written) provide sufficient clarity to developers and not does it appear to be based on a sophisticated understanding of development viability. Accordingly, we recommend that considerable additional analysis is required and would advise that Draft Policies H1 and H6 are, at present, not fully justified, positively prepared or likely to be effective.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 233 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 5.4 In considering the suitability of Haddenham as a sustainable location for development, it is encouraging that the Draft Plan acknowledges the settlement’s range of services, its strategic location and access to transport infrastructure. This leads the Council to conclude, correctly, that Haddenham is a ‘strategic settlement’ (in the Settlement Hierarchy), which is capable of accommodating significant additional housing growth and potentially providing a suitable location for further growth (however this is defined). 5.5 In evaluating the specific suitability and developability of the site, Land North East of Haddenham, the Draft Local Plan identifies the southern extent of the holdings as capable of accommodating approximately 210 no. dwellings. Accordingly, part of the site is proposed as being potentially suitable for allocation (site Ref. HAD007). However, the analysis of this site in the HELAA (May 2016) indicates that the northern extent of the site was discounted because of concerns regarding visual and landscape impact. We submit that HELAA analysis is flawed and arbitrary, has no grounding in the Council’s 25 own evidence base and indeed contradicts the findings of the Aylesbury Vale: Areas of Sensitive Landscape Report (2008), on which the Draft Local Plan relies. Additional Development Opportunities 5.6 This response considers that the Draft Plan, in its present iteration, suffers from a number of significant limitations that call into question in soundness. These particularly relate to the failure to fully address the District’s housing requirement or that arising from other local authorities, and the inability to address short-term housing needs. Accordingly, the Council should consider the allocation of additional land for housing delivery. 5.7 In this regard, the proposed Settlement Hierarchy denotes that Haddenham is a strategic settlement, with sufficient provision of facilities, transport infrastructure and access to employment opportunities, to accommodate significant new housing growth. As such, the Council should re-evaluate sites at Haddenham, in order to secure new opportunities for development. This will assist in helping to meet the District’s housing need and that arising from the wider Housing Market Area.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 234 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 5.8 Based on the analysis in this representation, we submit that our site has greater potential for sustainable development than is acknowledged in the HELAA (May 2016) and, subsequently, the Draft Local Plan. This view is supported by the Council’s own landscape character / sensitivity evidence base, which confirms that the site is not significantly constrained by landscape concerns. Similarly, the New Settlement Scoping Study (2016) also infers that the Council’s assessment (in the HELAA) underestimates the site’s development capacity and ability to provide additional new housing. 5.9 Accordingly, we would submit that the entirety of the 50 hectare site should come forward to provide a comprehensive scheme, which provide approximately 750 no. dwellings. If allocated, the full extent of the landholdings would allow for extensive areas of open space and appropriate landscape buffers towards the A418 ridgeline. This would contain the development and provide a defensible barrier, curtailing future development to the north. There is also clear potential to bring forward a comprehensive urban extension, through the incorporation of land associated with the adjacent airfield. VALP16-09-12-01629 Kenneth David Shaw Other Comments - 7. The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. 10. The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure. VALP16-09-12-01631 John & Susan Keane Other Comments - We trust that AVDC will listen to the people of Winslow who have already fought long and hard and won several battles against speculative builders. We do not want to go into battle with our local council but if necessary be assured Winslow is ready.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 235 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01633 Neil Rowntree (Berks, Other Comments - BBOWT response to draft Vale of Aylesbury Plan consultation – September 2016 Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Thank you for consulting the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) on the Vale of Aylesbury Plan. Trust) As a wildlife conservation charity our comments relate specifically to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. We begin by making comments in relation to Policy wording – Part 1. We then make comments in relation to the proposed site allocations – Part 2 Part 1 – Policy wording Having assessed the Draft Local Plan we welcome numerous areas of Policy particularly the majority of the content of Policies NE1, NE2 (including the references to LWSs/BNSs and BOAs), NE5, C3, I1. Whilst welcoming much of the Policy content we nevertheless consider that the following areas still need addressing in order for the Plan to be Sound and in order to achieve the best possible outcomes from development for the people and wildlife of Aylesbury Vale. The Local Plan should include additional or amended content relating to the following: Summary of Part 1 Achieving a net gain in biodiversity and the use of a metric to provide a quantifiable way of showing that the gain is achieved. Policy relating to legally protected species, priority species and priority habitats Buffers for ancient woodland and other irreplaceable habitats Locally important species Management in perpetuity of wildlife habitat created as mitigation, compensation and enhancement Biodiversity Opportunity Areas Protection and Enhancement of River and Stream Corridors: Trees,hedgerows and woodland Biodiversity in built development Flooding

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 236 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment Concluding Comments The wildlife of Aylesbury Vale District has intrinsic value in itself and should therefore be conserved in its own right. Furthermore, ultimately it is the natural environment of Aylesbury Vale District that makes these areas distinctive, attracts people to live in, work in and visit the area, provides numerous benefits to people, and makes a vast difference to quality of life. The economy of the area is therefore underpinned by the natural environment and wildlife of the area. And yet the biodiversity of the area continues to decline. The Local Plan will influence the wildlife impact of the construction of many thousands of houses, as well as commercial and infrastructure development. If not implemented correctly it will lead to an accelerated loss of wildlife with little compensation. Implemented correctly the Local Plan can lead to development that is located where it will have least impact on wildlife; it can require genuine mitigation and compensation for all habitat and species losses, and the creation of wildlife rich habitat within developments of benefit to both wildlife and people (see the table on Biodiversity in Built Development earlier in this response for more on some of the ways that wildlife contributes to the lives of people). So the challenge for Aylesbury Vale District Council is to ensure that the development proposed will result in more wildlife (as required by the NPPF) rather than less wildlife. This will only happen if existing wildlife rich sites are protected, and in areas where development is permitted any losses are more than compensated for so as to create a net gain for wildlife. And a genuine net gain can only be shown if a metric is used to demonstrate that all habitats impacted (including arable, improved and semi-improved grassland and scrub (priority habitats should be retained and enhanced)) are fully compensated for. This is all achievable, but only if the Local Plan demonstrates a vision for it, and includes policies to enforce it. It can then lead to Aylesbury Vale District being an area where wildlife has habitats to live in, and that continues to attract people to live in, work in and visit, all underpinned by Aylesbury Vale’s fantastic wildlife resource. Thank you again for the opportunity for us to input into the Local Plan, please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries regarding our response.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 237 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01642 James Yeoman (Savills Other Comments - Savills is instructed by All Souls College, Oxford (hereinafter ‘the College’) to submit representations in response on behalf of All Souls to the current consultation period concerning the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Draft Plan. This representation is made in College) relation to the College’s interest at land to the east of Church Close, Maids Moreton. A plan to highlight this specific interest is enclosed. This representation relates to the proposed settlement hierarchy, the categorisation of Maids Moreton as a ‘Medium Village’, and the availability of the College’s land to deliver residential development. Background The College’s ownership, identified by this correspondence, extends across circa 3.5 ha to the east of Church Close, Maids Moreton. The site abuts existing residential development to the west and north. Arable land lies beyond the site to the east. The site fronts the existing highway to its immediate south, beyond which lies the St Edmunds Church and agricultural land. The site does not fall within a designated landscape area. The site is situated to the north west, though lies outside, of the Maids Moreton Conservation Area. The site is not subject to designations which might preclude development. A red line plan identifying the site accompanies this correspondence.

Summary In conclusion, the College supports the distribution of a proportion of growth to the ‘Medium Villages’ across the District, including at Maids Moreton. These representations support the Council’s assessment of the sustainability credentials of Maids Moreton and its suitability to deliver residential development as per the Draft VALP. This correspondence further outlines the suitability of the identified land interest to the east of Church Close to deliver the residual dwelling requirement of the settlement. The College confirms the availability and deliverability of the site. We trust that this correspondence sets out the College’s position and would be grateful to be kept informed of the Council’s progress with the VALP.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 238 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01643 Jim Malkin (JMI Planning Other Comments - Introduction on behalf of Mr J L 1.1 JMI Planning is a Midlands based town planning consultancy. Its directors are chartered town planners with over 30 years’ Wickson & Mrs S G combined experience in both the public and private sector. Raven) 1.2 The author of this appraisal, Jim Malkin, has worked as a principal planning officer in local government, and more recently as a planning consultant in the private sector. He has extensive knowledge of the planning system and experience of the appeals process. He is a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. 1.3 This document sets out representations to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan made on behalf of Mr J L Wickson and Mrs S G Raven the owners of a piece of land in Nash. 2 Site Details 2.1 The area of land over which Mr J L Wickson and Mrs S G Raven have an interest comprises of approximately 0.45 hectares of agricultural grassland to the rear of Church Farm in Nash. The site provides a continuation of the previous development on the adjoining land being completed by Barwood Homes. This is a suitable, sustainable and in our view entirely logical site for development, is immediately available and achievable and has the opportunity to provide significant benefits to the village of Nash. Our representations are therefore submitted against that background. 2.2 The site measures 0.45ha in size and is directly linked connected to the existing built form of the village. The site is bordered on 3 sides by existing residential development and can be accessed through the recently completed development. The site cannot therefore be considered to be an intrusion into the countryside. 4 2.3 There is easy access from the site to all current available amenities within Nash and access to sustainable transport options in the village. The scale of the site is commensurate with scale of the village and will not provide for a disproportionate level of development but will support and enhance facilities available in the village for the benefit of all residents.

4 Conclusions 4.1 We support the overarching objectives of the Vale of Aylesbury Draft Local Plan and support the provision of 33,300 new homes over the plan period. However, we have strong reservations with regards to the development strategy and especially the focus of new development at strategic settlements, at sites around Milton Keynes and on the new settlement on which serious concerns are raised regarding deliverability.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 239 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 4.2 We are particularly concerned that the quantum of development designated for smaller villages is far too low and provides for an arbitrary limit on new housing against the growth agenda promoted by the NPPF. In advising that Nash has no residual housing requirement until 2033 the Council will cause the stagnation of the village as new services and facilities in Nash and surrounding villages would not be able to be supported over the plan period. 4.3 The land to the rear of Church Farm is ideally placed to accommodate an appropriate and proportionate level of development for Nash. It has an appropriate relationship to the village with housing development to 3 sides and will focus all new development in one location. It is within easy walking distance of the existing facilities in the village and is of a scale that will support these facilities. 4.4 The site has the benefit of being controlled by a single landowner and therefore the can be considered as being immediately available for development. 4.5In conclusion, we therefore contend that quantum of development assigned to Nash as part of the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan is wholly insufficient and would result in a stagnation of the village. We believe that allowing a small quantum of development that would be completed on the site to the rear of Church Farm would represent a suitable, sustainable and deliverable development option for the village.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 240 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01646 Nick Stafford (DLP Other Comments - Housing and Economic Needs Assessment Planning (on behalf of 2.3 The Housing Strategy for the VALP is based on a raft of supporting evidence including September Properties)) the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) that sets out the strategic housing needs for the area. There are a number of issues with this document and the conclusions that are drawn. 2.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that: Planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes that the country needs. The NPPF requires that every effort should be made, objectively, to identify and then meet the housing needs of an area and take account of market signals (such as land prices and housing affordability), and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in the local area, taking account of these needs (paragraph 17); local authorities should significantly boost the supply of housing (paragraph 47); planning should deliver a wide choice of quality homes and widen the opportunity for home ownership; the evidence base for the Objective Assessment of Housing Need should be adequate, up-to-date and relevant (paragraph 158) and include Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) for the whole of the Housing Market Area (HMA) taking into account household and population projections including migration and demographic change (paragraph 159); and the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing has to be determined prior to applying any constraints or engaging the Duty to Cooperate (paragraphs 152 and 179). Despite recognising some of these requirements in paragraph 3.7 and 3.8, the VALP goes on to state in paragraph 3.10 that: “The reports produced by ORS, identify that Aylesbury Vale sits within a best-fit housing market area that includes High Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks. There was a recognition that Aylesbury town sat within its own area but within a wider strategic housing market area. Aylesbury Vale also has links with housing markets in neighbouring areas, such as Milton Keynes.” The report by ORS recognises a stronger link with other housing market areas, that the draft VALP somewhat underplays. As can be seen in Figure 1 below (AVDC HMA map), the ORS report shows that the north of the District is strongly influenced by the Milton Keynes Housing Market Area and the east of the district is firmly within the influence of the Luton Housing Market Area.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 241 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-12-01647 Anna Bend Other Comments - Land at Cottage Farm, (Environment and Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure UK Limited has been instructed by Infrastructure UK Albanwise Limited to submit representations to the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) Limited, Amec Foster consultation, in respect of its land interests at Hoggeston. Wheeler (on behalf of Albanwise Ltd)) VALP16-09-12-01660 Mark Harris (DLP Other Comments - 1.0 INTRODUCTION Planning on belhalf of 1.1 This report has been prepared in response to Aylesbury Vale District Council’s (AVDC) consultation on the Draft Vale of Robin Gaymer) Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP), published in July 2016. The representation, on behalf of Mr Robin Gaymer, is submitted to promote a reconsideration of the housing policies in the plan and to support additional allocations of land in the village of Edlesborough. 1.2 Mr R. Gaymer is the owner of a 17.1 hectare site previously submitted through the call for sites process (EDL011). This land is still available, but in light of the emerging strategy further analysis of the site, this representation focuses on the suitability and availability of part of the site for development (as set out in chapter 3). 1.3 The submission is intended to set out the client’s concerns in respect of the emerging policy content generally, the evidence that underpins the draft plan and to promote the land in their ownership for allocation. 1.4 Accordingly, the representation is set out in three parts. The first part will consider the overall development strategy and the need for housing land. The report will then go on to consider the currently preferred strategy for the village of Edlesborough, before stating the reasons to allocate a new site at Leighton Road, Edlesborough. Housing and Economic Needs Assessment 2.3 The Housing Strategy for the VALP is based on a raft of supporting evidence including the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) that sets out the strategic housing needs for the area. There are a number of issues with this document and the conclusions that are drawn. 2.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that: Planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes that the country needs. The NPPF requires that every effort should be made, objectively, to identify and then meet the housing needs of an area and take account of market signals (such as land prices and housing affordability), and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in the local area, taking account of these needs (paragraph 17); local authorities should significantly boost the supply of housing (paragraph 47); planning should deliver a wide choice of quality homes and widen the opportunity for home ownership; the evidence base for the Objective Assessment of Housing Need should be adequate, up-to-date and relevant (paragraph 158) and include Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) for the whole of the Housing Market Area (HMA) taking into account household and population projections including migration and demographic change (paragraph 159); and the Objectively Assessed Need for Housing has to be determined prior to applying any constraints or engaging the Duty to Cooperate (paragraphs 152 and 179).

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 242 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment 2.5 Despite recognising some of these requirements in paragraph 3.7 and 3.8, the VALP goes on to state in paragraph 3.10 that: “The reports produced by ORS, identify that Aylesbury Vale sits within a best-fit housing market area that includes High Wycombe, Chiltern and South Bucks. There was a recognition that Aylesbury town sat within its own area but within a wider strategic housing market area. Aylesbury Vale also has links with housing markets in neighbouring areas, such as Milton Keynes.” 2.6 The report by ORS recognises a stronger link with other housing market areas, that the draft VALP somewhat underplays. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, the ORS report shows that the north of the District is strongly influenced by the Milton Keynes Housing Market Area and the east of the district is firmly within the influence of the Luton Housing Market Area.

VALP16-09-12-01661 Graham Fisher Other Comments - I own and run a business in the centre of Aylesbury, Orange Genie Group, employing 60 staff, and we constantly face disruption by rush congestion and accidents. For example on the 24th August 11 staff were up to 1 hour late starting work as the result of congestion caused by an accident - IT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE that the draft plan will make traffic congestion worse. I am not clear why my local councillors support the plan and note that they have made no attempt to represent the views of the local population who will suffer the consequences of the plan. VALP16-09-12-01663 Daniel and Carly Nichols Other Comments - Whilst we appreciate the difficulties of producing a strategic plan which addresses future housing and planning and Smith needs for the district we believe further consideration and thought is required over some of the assumptions. VALP16-09-13-01672 Derek Bromley Other Comments - We act on behalf of the Hawkins family and the Pitstone Parish Charity, the owners of the site identifiedas PIT001.

The owners support the allocation in the new plan. The site is allocated within the current Local Plan.

After a selection process the owners are entering into agreement with Nicholas King Homes to develop the site. A pre application meeting has been held with Mick Denham the Development Control Officer and a Planning Application will follow within the next few months as soon as the baseline information has been updated such as a topographical survey, ecology reports, tree survey, transport etc. VALP16-09-13-01673 Dr Keith Milmer (Editor, Other Comments - I am writing to comment on the draft VALP. Haddenham.net & Although I am an individual resident of Haddenham, I run the community website and I'm also Chairman of the Patient Participation Chairman, Haddenham Group. Medical Centre PPG) I therefore have very close connections with many organisations and residents of all ages across the whole village community. So, please accept my comments as reflecting a set of similar concerns expressed by wide group of Haddenham residents.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 243 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01674 Nicola Thomas (Milton Other Comments - 8. All of the NEP’s Green Infrastructure “Principles” should be applied to all spatial scales of development across Keynes Natural the District. Environment Partnership) 9. The NEP’s recent State of the Environment Report also advocates that planning for the future must sufficiently take into account and work towards improving the following, for example through policies in Local Plans: - The quality and extent of Buckinghamshire’s natural assets, including priority habitats and local wildlife sites; - Water quality / status of Buckinghamshire’s rivers – and particularly our chalk streams; - Reducing average energy demand and encouraging cleaner energy sources such as renewables to combat climate change – e.g. through strategic planning to building design; - Consumption of resources (e.g. encouraging reduced water use); also waste generated and improving recycling rates; - Opportunities to improve health and wellbeing of our communities – e.g. access to high quality green space through development, and sufficiently-early, GI planning (as outlined above) in striving to maximise the opportunities to provide multiple benefits where most needed’ - Strengthen links between healthy living and the environment; and the economy and the environment – e.g. to encourage physical activity by connecting people to conservation; and encouraging visits to Buckinghamshire. VALP16-09-13-01675 Mike Taylor (Chilmark Other Comments - Further comments in Attachments Consulting Ltd. (on behalf of Barwood Land and Estates Ltd. (BLEL))) VALP16-09-13-01678 Michael Rodrigues Other Comments - Please do let me know if there is another process I should be following in order to lodge my recommendation of a suitable site for extra housing in Grendon Underwood. VALP16-09-13-01688 James Stevens (Home Other Comments - The HBF is the principal representative body of the housebuilding industry in England and Wales and our Builders Federation Ltd) representations reflect the views of discussions with our membership of national and multinational plc’s, through regional developers to small, local builders. Our members account for over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year.

Conclusion There is still a considerable amount of work to be done for the Council to be able to submit a robust and sound plan to the Secretary of State for public examination. We have highlighted above the key factors that will need to be addressed if the Council is not to be, once again, found wanting in its plan production.

We therefore sincerely hope that these critical issues are robustly addressed by the Council and look forward to further consultation on the next iteration of the plan.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 244 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01691 Roy van de Poll Other Comments - NB I have seen a detailed analysis of the timescales from submission to adoption of all Local Plans adopted in 2015 and 2016 to date, which showed an average timescale well in excess of a year, ranging from 9 months to 25 months. The ‘promise’ in the leaflet available at the VALP roadshows of - The plan should then be submitted to the government’s planning inspector in early March 2017. We anticipate the public examination will be held on the plan soon after that, with adoption of the plan taking place in mid-2017, is surely highly speculative. There is recognition that the “timetable will be in the hands of the government’s planning inspector.” However, one would have expected that the time scale indicated would bear some relationship to reality, which obviously guiding one to expect 4 or 5 months is not. From the data, the average from submission to adoption is in excess of 15 months and the best one might plump for is perhaps 10 months but with the late rush of LPAs to submit their Local Plans in 2017 putting significant extra pressure on the Planning Inspectorate, who can say what a realistic time will be?! Expecting to be able to line up a Planning Inspector and organise an Evidence in Public hearing in a matter of weeks is surely disingenuous, as is the assumption that the Planning Inspector could turn round their Report in weeks and that there would be no delays. For the reasons mentioned, what AVDC is suggesting appears disingenuous and unrealistic. The evidence makes it obvious to me that, with a clear run, if VALP is submitted in March 2017, it would take a minor miracle for VALP to be adopted in the first quarter of 2018. I would maintain that this issue needs urgent clarification.

Planning guidance makes it clear that Local Plans should include detail on the provision of infrastructure and where this is not available indicate fall back positions. Several aspects of the Plan, depend on infrastructure delivery which is by no means certain. When can we expect to see the necessary detail in respect of infrastructure delivery?

Bearing in mind that the draft VALP housing target is 1,600 more than the OAN figure, I would like to see a statement to the effect that any additional housing (etc) delivered over and above the VALP requirements will be taken into account in subsequent revisions or plans. To do otherwise might be seen as penalising communities that ‘voluntarily’ take on an additional share of the development burden.

There are other aspects of the Plan which rely on evidence which is yet to be published. Surely it would be very dangerous to proceed to submission without all of the evidence being available.

Can there be an assurance that submissions made during the consultation process will be responded to either by changes to reflect those submissions or explanations as to why they have not been acted upon? It is recognised, of course, that such responses would need to be ‘generic’ in nature rather than specific to every individual submission. Without clear responses it is likely that the same issues will be raised time and again including at Examination.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 245 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01692 David Wetherill (Turley Other Comments - Conclusion Associates Ltd) These representations have been prepared by Turley on behalf of Cala Homes (Chiltern) Limited in relation to ‘Land at Nup End Lane, Wingrave’, which is being promoted through the emerging Local Plan.

The site has been identified as a proposed allocation in both the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) and Submission Wingrave with Rowsham Parish Neighbourhood Plan. This response focuses on matters pursuant to the inconsistencies between the two proposed allocations, namely the developable area and number of dwellings allocated, as well as commenting on the soundness of the VALP.

As the Neighbourhood Plan is at a more advanced stage than the draft VALP, it is a significant material consideration pertinent to the preparation of the VALP. The allocation for the site in the draft VALP should be informed by and be consistent with the Submission Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2.

We therefore contend that rather than identifying the eastern half of the Site for development, the draft VALP should propose the entire Site for allocation, to be consistent with the Submission Neighbourhood Plan allocation. Site WGR003 should be allocated for approximately 30 dwellings rather than 15 dwellings as suggested.

In a recent appeal at Land East Of A413 Buckingham Road and Watermead, Aylesbury (APP/J0405/A/14/2219574), Communities Secretary Sajid Javid agreed with the Inspector regarding Aylesbury Vale District Council’s current housing land supply, which was found to be only around 3 years. This significant deficit is another material consideration which justifies the delivery of a larger allocation at Land at Nup End Lane.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 246 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment These issues are considered to be relevant to the soundness of the Plan when considered against paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In conclusion, it is considered the draft Local Plan is unsound as it has not been: Positively prepared - The plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed needs. Paragraph 4.73 of the draft VALP establishes that Wingrave falls short of its housing requirement by 12 dwellings. This should be seen a wider context of the Draft Plan’s overarching housing strategy which is contingent on the long-term development of a number of very large allocations and a new settlement, which introduces considerable uncertainty and risk. Justified - The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. The draft VALP broadly identifies the eastern half of the Site for development but does not propose the allocation of the Site in its entirety. This is not the most appropriate strategy considering the following: - As the Neighbourhood Plan is at a more advanced stage than the draft VALP, it is a significant material consideration pertinent to the preparation of the VALP. The allocation for the site in the draft VALP should be consistent with Submission Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2, which allocates the entire site. - In any case, there are no internal boundaries/hedgerows within the site and therefore there is no reason not to allocate the whole site which would have defensible boundaries on all sides.

Further comments and plans in attachments

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 247 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01696 Mark Owen (Barton Other Comments - We write on behalf of our client, the Hampden Fields Consortium, in respect to the Draft Vale of Willmore (on behalf of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) document which is currently subject to public consultation. Hampden Fields The Hampden Fields Consortium control land known as 'Hampden Fields' to the south east of Aylesbury (located between the Consortium)) Wendover Road and Aston Clinton Road). An outline planning application for a mixed use development of this site was submitted to Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) in March 2012 which was subsequently dismissed at appeal in January 2015. In February 2016, the Consortium submitted a new outline planning application for this site with the following description of development:

"Outline planning application (with all matters reserved) for a mixed-use sustainable urban extension comprising: up to 3,000 dwellings and a 60 bed care home/extra care facility (Use Class C2/C3); provision of land for a Park and Ride site; a total of 6.90ha of employment land (comprising of up to 29,200 sq.m. B1c/B1/B2/B8 uses); provision of two primary schools (one 2 form entry and one 3 form entry); a mixed use local centre (3.75ha) with provision for a foodstore of up to 1,200 square metres (GFA), further retail (including a pharmacy), restaurant and cafe units, a doctor's surgery, gym, public house with letting rooms, professional services, multi-functional community space and a day nursery, and live work units; multi-functional green infrastructure (totalling 108.43ha) including parkland, sports pitches, sports pavilions, children's play areas, mixed use games areas, including a skate park/BMX facility, informal open space, allotments, community orchards, landscaping; extensions to domestic gardens at Tamarisk Way (0.22ha); strategic flood defences and surface water attenuation; vehicular access points from New Road, Marroway, A413 Wendover Road and A41 Aston Clinton Road; a dualled Southern Link Road between A413 Wendover Road and A41 Aston Clinton Road and a strategic link road between the Southern Link Road and Marroway; internal roads, streets, lanes, squares, footpaths and cycleways and upgrades to Public Rights Of Ways {PRoWs); and car parking related to the above land uses, buildings and facilities."

As explained within the attached representations, we are encouraged that AVDC are progressing a Local Plan which will consider future growth within the District until 2033. We are also pleased that the Council are pursuing a 'Duty to Cooperate' by working with neighbourhood authorities to understand the housing and employment needs across the Housing Market Area.

We are also encouraged that the Hampden Fields site has been included as a potential housing allocation within the Draft VALP, supporting the proposed Aylesbury Garden Town vision and including the provision of a Southern Link Road as a key element of the anticipated transport strategy for the town. In addition, we consider an early determination of the submitted planning application will assist the Council in securing a five year housing land supply in the shorter term as well as providing a significant number of new dwellings and employment opportunities to assist in meeting its housing and employment needs.

Further comments in attachment.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 248 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01697 Jodi Stokes (Persimmon Other Comments - This document constitutes Persimmon Homes Limited’s formal response to the Homes Midlands) consultation on the Vale of Aylesbury Draft Local Plan. We provide comments on the various issues that are relevant to us as one of the largest house builders in the UK, providing Aylesbury Vale District Council with constructive and conclusive feedback that should help advise the Council on taking forward the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2013-2033) to the next stage. VALP16-09-13-01698 Chris and Mary Peeler Other Comments - I visited the Aylesbury Plan meeting in Wendover. I was anxious to know the policy for including social housing within these large building developments. The staff agreed that the need for social housing was very great in this country, but maintain they are unable to attempt to meet this need. Scotland and now Wales have scrapped the right to buy scheme. Why is it so impossible for a caring and compassionate authority to do the same? Brown field sites have existed in Aylesbury for many years. The Dayla site has been derelict a long time. I enclose an article from the Guardian newspaper (11th August Thursday) clearly pointing out urgent reform is needed.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 249 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01700 Buchanan Land and the Other Comments - This representation is made on behalf of Buchanan Land and the West of Haddenham Landowners who West of Haddenham between them own and control 711 acres (illustrated above) of land referred to as Option 3 in the New Settlement Scoping Study (GL Landowners n/a Hearn). (Buchanan Land and the West of Haddenham Following the publication of the VALP and the accompanying GL Hearn report which identified the site, the West Haddenham Landowners) Landowners have agreed to work together with the aim of delivering an exemplar scheme, incorporating the highest standards of design and placemaking, while delivering much needed houses and accompanying infrastructure. Control and a long term stake will be retained in the development process to ensure these objectives are met.

The representation addresses those issues that are most pertinent to the Haddenham Western Expansion. As a consequence, the comments below consider the; •Draft Local Plan’s housing requirement and proposed spatial strategy;

•Suitability of Haddenham as a location for development;

•Potential siting of a new settlement at Haddenham.

Concluding Remarks

We consider that the Draft Local Plan marks a significant improvement over previous iterations. Greater consideration is given to ‘Duty to Cooperate’ requirements and it is welcome that the Plan is more proactive in seeking to meet the District’s housing requirement. However, it is noted that there are potential shortcomings in terms of the HEDNA’s evaluation of OAN and therefore the overall housing provision may need to increase. However, whilst there is still a considerable amount of work to undertake, it is encouraging that the Plan is now proposing the kind of ambitious interventions that will be required, in order to substantively boost the supply of new housing. The proposal to deliver a new settlement in the District is supported, as is the suggestion that Haddenham is the preferred location for this. We would recommend that, of the new settlement options considered for Haddenham (as laid out in the New Settlement Scoping Study), Option 3 (Western Expansion) is the most logical, sustainable and deliverable. We would strongly recommend that this option is taken forward as the Vale of Aylesbury Plan progresses towards adoption.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 250 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01702 Derek Bromley Other Comments - Wendover is one of the most sustainable places within the district and well placed south of the (Bidwells) district were unmet housing needs arise. The location of our clients site is the most sustainable, accessible and deliverable around Wendover. Sustainability being the 'golden thread' of NPPF. A development of the site provides opportunities for improvements to the sustainable local highway network by virtue of improvements to footpaths and cycle paths for greater connectiveity. The site also provides opportunities of alleviating and mitigating current difficulties relating to existing schools in terms of access and car parking but is also of sufficient scale to meet its own educational needs by the provision of an onsite single form primary/junior school or in the alternative to extend existing educational capacity by providing extra land for the adjoining educational uses. The existing Green Belt boundary is in part arbitrarily drawn in this location through the centre of the playing fields where there is no physical demarcation to identify the boundary. A roll back of the Green Belt as broadly indicated ,in the VALP provides physically definable and defensible boundaries. As the site is close to existing retail provision we do not consider a retail outlet on the site would be viable . In terms of mixed use, the site will provide long term employment opportunities through education provision and care for the elderly. In Appendix 5 is a plan which draws upon some of the points indicated above. Given the submissions indicated above we consider that this site should be identified during the forthcoming plan period as a residential allocation to contribute to meeting the objectively assessed housing needs of the district.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 251 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01703 Merilyn Munson Other Comments - We are very pleased to see the Council proceeding with a new plan that seeks to address the issues that the independent inspector found wanting in the previous draft plan in 2014. It is undesirable for the Council not to have an up to date local plan since this places all of its local communities in the unnecessary position of being open to challenge from un-planned development. We are, therefore, concerned that there are still many details of the spatial strategy yet to be decided and some of the key policies that will demonstrate a sound plan have yet to be agreed. We would urge the Council to make these decision swiftly and decisively if we are to avoid remaining in this unenviable position of having no up to date plan in what is a plan led system. The plan is considerably longer than it needs to be and is thus cumbersome and difficult to comprehend for the average resident of the District. This is because of a considerable amount of unnecessary explanatory text and repetition of national planning policy (as just one example, Policy S1 merely repeats, verbatim, parts of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is unnecessary). The plan would also benefit from a very clear executive summary setting out the plan period, the amount of development proposed and a clear summary of the spatial strategy (including the development targets for each Parish). In effect, this summary should allow a reader to have an overview of the entire plan précised into a few sides of paper. We comment on the specific policies below. VALP16-09-13-01706 Roger Welchman Other Comments - I write on behalf of our clients Bellway Homes, Bellcross Co. Ltd and Fosbern Manufacturing Ltd and their (Armstrong Rigg interests in land west of AVDLP allocation BU.1 (HELAA Ref. BUC043), Moreton Road, Buckingham to provide our representations Planning (on behalf of to the VALP, Summer 2016 consultation, as set out below. Bellway Homes, Bellcross Co. Ltd and Fosbern Manufacturing Ltd))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 252 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01707 Richard Walker Other Comments - Furthermore, that with adoption most likely in 2018/10 the plan period needs to be extended to the end of (Pegasus Group) 2033/34 to ensure a 15-year plan from adoption. On the basis of the current HEDNA figure, for Aylesbury, that will increase the requirement by at least 1,065 to be supplemented by around 600 more overspill units.

Pegasus Group is instructed by Edward Ware Homes to submit representations to the regulation 18 consultation on the Draft Aylesbury Vale Local Plan. Our representations relate to land interests located at Grendon Underwood and Newton Longville and are framed within that context. These representations follow our response to the Issues and Options Consultation at the end of 2015. VALP16-09-13-01708 Rachel Wileman Other Comments - 3.6Detailed comments on proposed plan policies: (Buckinghamshire County Council) •General support for the values identified, particularly for the value around strengthening the quality of life for all residents and pockets of deprivation

Strategic Objectives chapter oPoint 3 – To include access to community facilities such as shops, community buildings oPoint 7.5 –Objective to reference spaces that are designed to respond to winter and summer temperatures

Housing chapter •Paragraph 5.65 Category 2 standard referred should look to cover the standards in lifetime homes. If this standard does not cover lifetime homes, there should be a stronger specification on the quality requirements of the mainstream housing for older people required.

•Within the chapter Built Environment, the plan requires a greater emphasis on the quality standard of the public realm within new developments. This could be included within policy BE2.

•Some local authorities have policies to avoid the over concentration of hot food takeaways or location of these shops close to schools which AVDC should consider implementing in the VALP. The need for access to (either locally or good access routes to) healthy foods is also important as this provides health and social benefits to the local community.

•BCC would like AVDC to explore the opportunities for development to provide out of hospital services provided through a community- hub type setting. These community hub facilities should be multi-use and flexible to future proof against changing models of how residents will access care and support.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 253 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment • Within the plan, there are only a few references to health and social care, and the plan is unclear about what it will specifically deliver in terms of health care and social care infrastructure. A policy should include integrating facilities and delivery of services, which includes flexible multiuse buildings in community ownership, co-location of doctors, pharmacy facilities and enhancement and new social care and local healthcare facilities to meet long term health needs.

• BCC expect the draft VALP to implement the recommendations agreed by all County Districts for Older People’s Housing. These recommendations and a copy of the report agreed by Bucks Planning Group on 23 May 2016 is attached in Appendix 2.

3.7 At the time of writing, there was no information available on phasing of individual developments beyond the next 5 years, which is critical in being able to determine infrastructure needs over the short, medium and longer term. This is particularly important in terms of health and education.

8.29 Policy for Allocated Sites We would recommend that all sites should have a standard policy on incorporating sustainable drainage to manage surface water from the site and ensure no increased flood risk outside of the site. For those sites that have surface water and/or groundwater flood risk, we recommend another policy to ask for a sequential approach on site so development is steered away from surface water and/or groundwater risk areas. As above, we recommend giving surface water flood mapping equal weight to the fluvial flood zones in the application of the sequential test.

VALP16-09-13-01710 John Chapman Other Comments - Thank you for consulting Dacorum Borough Council on the Draft Vale of Aylesbury Plan (VALP). We apologise (Dacorum Borough for sending you these comments just after your deadline and trust that this will not cause any problems. Council) We would like to express broad support for the Draft VALP. In particular, the intention to plan not only for Aylesbury Vale’s housing needs but also for unmet needs from nearby authorities is welcomed. The proposal to focus growth on Aylesbury town also appears to be appropriate.

Dacorum welcomes the approach that Aylesbury Vale is taking to the parallel consideration of housing and jobs needs. This reflects the approach that Dacorum (and its neighbouring authorities in SW Herts) has taken through joint work on our Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Economy Studies.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 254 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01711 Michael Warren (South Other Comments - Thank you for consulting South Northamptonshire Council regarding the above Plan. Northamptonshire Council) The consultation has been considered and Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVBC) is advised that South Northamptonshire Council (SNC) wishes to make the following comments.

SNC raises no objection, in principle, and is supportive of the overall development strategy, with particular reference to the following.

Duty to Co-operate SNC welcomes the meetings so far held with AVDC (and some other LPAs) in respect of the Duty to Co-operate, and looks forward to further meetings, as well as to being consulted further, at the appropriate stages of the Local Plan process, and to working with AVDC, particularly in relation to delivery of the Silverstone ‘High-Tech’ employment development.

VALP16-09-13-01715 Susan Fenn Other Comments - As a resident of Grendon Underwood I am concerned that the building of houses is being considered before the building of hospitals, doctors' surgeries, schools, fire stations, police stations etc. Also the roads in the country areas are not maintained to a very high specification and would therefore deteriorate much more quickly with the increased volume of traffic. Public transport is, of course, also a major concern.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 255 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01721 Robert Ellis Other Comments - Outline. Our concerns relate to the plans for the proposed Garden Village near Aston Sandford, where there is a proposal to build 7,000 new homes. The area allocated for the building of such houses in not big enough to accommodate that number of houses without impacting on the surrounding areas, dwellings, farms and villages which are already prone to flooding. Additionally, it will impinge on a number of historical sites in the area.

We have been aware that a local consultation has been taking place about the need for housing development in the Aylesbury Vale area, in the form of the Local Plan. To make ourselves more cognisant of the plans and thinking, we have been looking at the consultation pages on your website. Having worked our way through various pages and documents, our understanding was that sites for a new settlement centred on Winslow and Haddenham, this is stated on your overall pamphlet. It has now come to our notice that there is a proposal to establish a garden ‘village’ on completely rural land at least 3 kilometres from the centre of Haddenham towards Thame and to the north of the A4129 Thame/Longwick road. We have not found within the consultation documents any mention or map of this. Your pages mention that paper maps were available at the various drop-in sessions, but we have been unable to attend any of these. One wonders why the only map that we are now aware of which shows the central area of the new development was not available on your website, whilst dozens of pages of other information, tables, statistics and other maps and statistics are there for viewing? We most strongly object to the proposal for the following reasons. 1/. The name village is identified with as being a small country location. 7000 houses will create a township 3 times the size of Haddenham. That is no village. 2/. Such a size of town will dwarf and likely swamp villages such as Aston Sandford, and Ford. 3/. You have an objective of avoiding inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Whilst the exact area may not be in danger of flood, this is close to the floodplain that the village of Ford lies in. The water run-off from the township will be considerable, and will have a major effect on the water table on the flood plain, so considerably increasing the flood threat to the existing low lieing properties. This does not meet with your objectives. 4/. We fail to see how dumping such a major settlement placed in a wholly rural setting will ‘contribute to the natural and local environment’, or can be part of a ‘positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment’. 5/. The consequences and impact of the additional traffic needs do not seem to have been included in the published plan. This proposal seems to us to have been disguised as much as possible from the close attention of local people, which indicates to us that AVDC have a need to have this included in the plan with as little fuss as possible. That would indicate to us there is much that is known to the officers of this scheme to be undesirable about it. For that and the above reasons , we have much reason to be disturbed about it. VALP16-09-13-01722 Sarah James Other Comments - Save our villages and our green land.

VALP16-09-13-01731 Stephanie Schneider Other Comments - SUMMARY The VALP is incomplete in some key areas particularly traffic and infrastructure. If it is true that ‘Our Plan Is Your Plan’ then the plan process should be paused until the housing numbers are reviewed and genuine options have been considered on appropriate evidence (particularly a full and publicly consulted Aylesbury Transport Strategy)

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 256 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01735 M Badhan Other Comments - I wish to forward on my objections to the proposed developments in the Whaddon and Great Horwood areas for an extra 2000 homes.

I feel that this would be putting on a huge strain on the existing infrastructure in the local area and make it more of a problem for people moving around in that area. The A421 leading into Milton Keynes is busy enough already without increasing the volume of traffic. Also where will extra drainage, medical services, footpaths, cycle routes, shops and schools will be needed and again where will all these go and who will pay for these? We feel that an overall increase of 350% in housing in Whaddon is unacceptable for one small village to accommodate.

We hope that our views are taken into consideration and considered. VALP16-09-13-01736 Alan Wheeler Other Comments - As a Winslow resident I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal for aggressive housing growth in the town.

The proposal for thousands of houses in the area between Winslow and the Horwoods , and to the west of the town, would not only destroy this historic market town, but is by any measure unsustainable. Winslow has neither the transport or infrastructure to support any additional growth.

Your sights should be set on completing the growth in Aylesbury, MK and Haddenham who are far better suited to cope with growth

You have a chance to work harder on fixing the problems you have already caused to our beautiful county. Do not let your legacy be the absolute destruction of yet another one of our historic and beautiful towns

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 257 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01755 Michael Richfield Other Comments - Are you going to build a new dual carriageway and flyover into Ayllesbury. You do not have the Road Rail Infrastructure for such a huge development of Houses/People. Plus Hospitals Doctors Schools The same applies to any additional houses near The A421. You will ruin the County Stop It NOW!!! VALP16-09-13-01770 E. A. Lock Other Comments - Winslow is being considered as an alternative to Haddenham with a new station due in 2018. Not only is Winslow a town with a town centre and town amenities Chiltern Railways could build a station and car park to meet the needs of a large settlement. VALP16-09-13-01772 Steve Taylor Other Comments - As a resident of Kingsmead I fully endorse and agree with the concerns raised in the mail below. Not only I am concerned about the effect a major build on green belt land would have on the environment, I am worried about the additional stress the number of homes would put on the surrounding area (specifically Milton Keynes) in terms of infrastructure. Effectively, your proposals are extending MK, without considering the pressures the city already have, (doctors, schools etc) In addition, prevailing winds are from the west, how are you proposing to minimise the disruption caused by noise and dust etc, to the residents of Kingsmead, should a build go ahead. Rest assured I am 100% against this proposal and will actively support any objections made to it.

VALP16-09-13-01784 Barbara Blundell Other Comments - You have no infrastructure plans showing how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 258 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01795 Iain Rodger Other Comments - Dear Sir / Madam,

I write to oppose in the strongest terms the proposal in the draft AVDC Local Plan to build 5,000+ new houses on green fields between Haddenham and Thame. The impact of this on services and infrastructure in the area would be highly undesirable, especially when combined with other proposed large scale house building schemes in neighbouring districts. It would also have a negative impact on the amenity of the area and would unaccountably involve building on high grade agricultural land when more suitable sites are available within AVDC.

The proposal to build so many houses near Haddenham could be deleted from the draft Local Plan at a stroke if Wycombe District Council's request for AVDC to accept one-third of their new housing allocation were given the short shrift it deserves. WDC should have to demonstrate that it has done all it can to meet its own allocation before seeking to pass on housing needs. It is clear that at present it is a long way from having done so. It should be a simple matter of proper process for WDC to do everything possible to absorb its own allocation before passing on housing to other councils.

WDC has proposed lower growth for High Wycombe than AVDC is planning for Aylesbury, and has set much lower building densities than those in AVDC. Also, WDC has not given enough consideration to releasing appropriate parcels of green belt land, which are designated to help control development and not because of the quality of the landscape. It would be shameful if Haddenham and Thame were to be joined together by a vast housing estate built on green fields simply to spare WDC the trouble of looking hard at its own options. Given that AVDC has been asked to accept an additional 7,000 new houses from Chiltern and South Bucks, it would seem there is a lot of scope to remove the need for 5,000+ houses at Haddenham by resisting pressure to accept passed on allocations.

In so far as the "duty to co-operate" with neighbouring district councils is concerned, while one element of this can be interpreted as accepting passed on housing allocation, a greater duty to co-operate is to have a unified planning approach with a clear and detailed assessment of impacts across district boundaries. There is little evidence that this level of co-operation has taken place with respect to Haddenham, with the result that the combined impact of proposed growth in AVDC and all neighbouring districts would be catastrophic for local infrastructure and services.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 259 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment The Local Plans of all districts must comply with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. One of its fundamental principles is to provide sustainable development and this includes "improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure". It is very difficult to see how AVDC's draft Local Plan could be said to comply with this requirement. On the travel side alone, the A418 is already very congested and does not have capacity to address the growth proposed, nor do the routes linking to the M40, which is itself already in heavy use. The AVDC plan does not allocate significant development areas for employment locally so it is clearly anticipated that the residents of the thousands of new houses will travel to work. The new residents will also want to send their children to schools already at capacity and will expect to have access to medical facilities suffering the same plight.

It is unrealistic to suggest that the infrastructure would grow to meet demand because it would be far too expensive. A few million pounds spent on roundabouts will not make the A418 flow freely, and a glance at the recent track record of developing local infrastructure shows that even the creation of a much-needed cycle path between Haddenham and Thame has repeatedly failed despite more than 10 years of vigorous lobbying.

The reality is that if the 5000+ additional houses were to be built at Haddenham, high grade agricultural land would be lost to the economy, a small number of people would make a huge amount of money and the local community would pay the price indefinitely through poorer conditions in which to live, work, travel and take leisure – the very opposite of the aim stated in the NPPF.

Another very clear directive in the NPPF is that "Allocations of land for development should prefer land of lesser environmental value." In this respect, building houses at Winslow, for example, where much of the land in question is a disused airfield, would comply with the NPPF. This advantage is observed in AVDC's own Scoping Study, as is the potential to "strengthen the provision of services and infrastructure and enhance the employment offer."

There is the opportunity to regenerate disused unproductive land, it would be more scalable, local services (e.g. schools) have capacity to expand and would potentially welcome it, and the injection of development would stand a good chance of improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure. This is especially so if the Milton Keynes strategy to 2050 is taken into account (surprisingly not mentioned in the Scoping Study), in which growth is vigorously encouraged and large numbers of new potential employees will be needed nearby.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 260 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment So there are overwhelming reasons to remove the proposal to build 5,000+ houses west of Haddenham from the AVDC Local Plan. The houses could be relocated back to the original districts which have attempted to pass them on to AVDC or they could be relocated to a more suitable site such as Winslow. What is clear is that there is absolutely no supportable case for creating a vast housing estate on high grade agricultural land between Haddenham and Thame resulting in a devastating negative impact on local amenity, infrastructure and services.

Yours faithfully,

Mr I Rodger Scotsgrove, nr Haddenham VALP16-09-13-01796 Simon Elcock Other Comments - Please see attached file

VALP16-09-13-01799 Giles Newman Other Comments - I would like to add my vote to the rejection of the proposed over development of Haddenham Village, not that it will do much good as AVDC have always gone ahead with what they want to do anyways, let’s not mention the Local Plan scheme that you promote and then swiftly lob in the bin.

Moving on,

Haddenham is a village and should remain one for the very reasons listed by the Parish Council together with all the practical ones making it entirely unsuitable for such huge developments.

In fact I often wonder if staff from AVDC actually ever visit potential sites and think about what the impact is on the places they allow thoughtless developers to wreak havoc? Has anyone been down Thame Road during a working day and actual seen the impact of the parking not only on the main road itself but people's homes on the roads near to the station? - I know people that have been driven to despair with parking in their street, and this is Haddenham now prior to proposed doubling in size. Is there any sane developer that isn't purely money driven that could place their hand on their heart and say 'yes the infrastructure in Haddenham can support this magnitude of housing development'.

We've heard all the stories a dozen time about how many houses the government is forcing you to build, and how Winslow is taking its fair share... for one Winslow is a town, not a village as AVDC seem to think it is - it has a Market Square, always has - which makes it a Market Town, in fact its marked in Wikipedia as an Ancient Market Town, so its progression from a village to a town wasn't anytime recent, Haddenham has a Village Green and has always been a village and is half the size, Milton Keynes is crying out for housing - so it begs the question why are you planning to wreck a village?

VALP16-09-13-01801 Frazer Hickling (Phillips Other Comments - Additional comments in attached file. Planning Services Ltd (on behalf of Mr and Mrs Collier))

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 261 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01802 Jeremy Houghton Other Comments - I live in Grendon underwood and have some concerns about the local planned development that I would like to share with the relevant department. If I have included anyone that is not involved I apologise but please could this email be directed towards the relevant persons?

I understand that as a village we need to grow and we have no choice but to find the space for 80 new houses, of which we only need to confirm the final 29 houses. However I am very concerned that proposals are being taken into consideration that previously the local council would have never considered and have been actively against. My main concern is the proposal in the South West of the village behind Rumptons Paddock. Having lived in the village for a number of years I am fully aware of proposals for developments in the past where developers or individuals have tried to build behind other properties. Many of these proposals have been dismissed on the grounds that the village is a linear village (or ribbon village) and therefore development is to be carried out along the length of the village and not back filling development. By keeping a tight control on this type of development within the village, the council and the villages have managed to keep the attractive single street style village which is a reason why the village is so attractive to many people settling here. This proposed development therefore turns the whole idea on its head and goes against everything that the council and village have fought for in the past. By allowing this type of development it creates a whole new shape to the village and leave the village exposed to further back fill developments, ruining the traditional Linear village that the community is shape around.

Having read the proposal on "newhomesforgrendonunderwood" I immediately spotted an error in their surveying of the land by the comment that the field doesn't flood. Anyone with any local knowledge knows that this field floods every year, and by just looking at the land surrounding this area it's clear to see that the fields all slope towards this area, making it quite obvious that water will run to and gather in this area (which it does do, all winter).

This land is grazing land. It is currently being used for grazing and has always been used for grazing, so a development of this scale in such an area has a huge effect on green belt land, again going against everything the local council has spent years trying to protect. The suggestion that the development would help towards traffic calming down the Broadway is a cheap shot. The entrance to the development will lead out onto a dangerous part of this stretch of road, way before any "traffic calming" is put in place. Someone just needs to spend one evening in that location to realise the risk that pulling out of the proposed road is to the safety of any driver.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 262 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment I have read AVDC comments on the Grendon Facebook page suggesting that a plan needs to be put in place by the village that would best suit the community. Having heard many people's opinions on the proposals everyone seems to be in agreement that developments along the linear village would be the preferred option. There is more than enough land heading out of the village to the East towards Kingswood and this is in keeping with the current style of development, as well as not encroaching on other villagers space. However this area seems to have been dismissed or not being considered as an option even though it is many people preference.

My final question is regarding the latest application for development at the bottom of Spring Hill on the old playing field. Here they are proposing the development of 75 houses, so if this planning permission is granted would this mean that there would be no requirement for the development behind Rumptons Paddock? 75 houses is already 46 more houses than the village is required to take so surely if the government feels that the village has the capacity to take in 80 new families in total, then accepting both of these proposed developments would more than double the number of new families within the village, therefore creating unnecessary pressure on such areas as the local Primary School.

I hope you take the time to consider some of my points and I look forward to hearing yours and other members of the communities opinions. Many thanks

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 263 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-13-01817 Simon Proctor (Proctor Other Comments - Newton Longville - Allocations are required for 140 new homes in Newton Longville. The HELAA identifies sites Surveyors (Newton for 100 homes, and so it is proposed that these sites are allocated for housing. This leaves a shortfall of 40 homes still to be Longville)) identified.

Additional site to be promoted - Land to rear 58 Westbrook End, Newton Longville, MK17 0DF

See plan attached

The site is located to the west of the village of Newton Longville. Whilst on the rural settlement edge the site is well screened especially from the west with existing hedging mitigating against the locally exposed settlement edges and poorly integrated rear garden boundaries. To the north are existing agricultural buildings, with land associated with domestic paraphernalia to the south. This coupled with the “equestrian development” on the site and existing buildings lead to its character being considered as part developed rather than open countryside. Views into and out of the site are generally contained by existing trees and hedging and there are no ready visual or physical linkages to open countryside. No public rights of way offer significant views into the site. One right of way passes to the north but is screened by the agricultural buildings. Development of the land would be consistent with settlement patterns in the village. The character of the wider settlement is unlikely to be affected as there is limited inter-visibility with the rest of the village. There would be no elevations facing onto key roads, pedestrian routes or major residential streets. The topography of the site is predominately level and not within a flood zone. There are no known ecological constraints. Access to the site could be taken from the existing public highway, Westbrook End, and there would be minimal need for significant highway “engineering”. Westbrook End provides a mix of property styles and ages, appropriate redevelopment of the existing dwelling fronting Westbrook End would allow for an attractive and sympathetic entrance to the site. In light of the above it is contended that this site would be suitable for the provision of some of the identified residential need in Newton Longville.

VALP16-09-14-01712 Roger Welchman Other Comments - I write on behalf of our clients Taylor Wimpey South Midlands and their interests in land at Harebridge Lane, (Armstrong Rigg Halton to provide our representations to the VALP, Summer 2016 consultation. Where amendments are recommended to text in the Planning (on behalf of draft VALP it has been shown underlined. Our comments on the draft VALP are as follows: Taylor Wimpey South Midlands)) Further Comments in attachment VALP16-09-19-01830 L P Conybeare Other Comments - I appreicate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previosuly identified largely brown- field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 264 of 265 VALP Summer 2016 Consultation Responses – Other Comments

ID Name Comment VALP16-09-19-01831 N P Conybeare Other Comments - I appreicate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previosuly identified largely brown- field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

VALP16-09-19-01832 Joanna Conybeare Other Comments - I appreicate that new housing has to be built for an ever-growing population, but I am appalled that a green-field site is being considered when far more suitable brown-field sites are available for development. In view of this I would like to ask you to review the Local Plan concerning Marsworth and amend it in two respects. Firstly, to revisit the issue of the designation of Marsworth as a medium sized village and return its designation to that of a small village. Secondly to review the area designated for housing and instead designate previosuly identified largely brown- field, which are significantly more suitable for development.

25/11/2016 Project Number: 1664569/A0 Page 265 of 265