Wojniak, Olivia
From: Dev. Con Mailbox Sent: 11 April 2016 09:35 To: Wojniak, Olivia Subject: FW: wingrave neighbourhood plan comments Attachments: AVDC planning letter apr 2016 1.docx; planning letter to parish.docx; village dev letter.docx; email nov 15.docx
And another..
Clare
From: Planning Policy Sent: 08 April 2016 17:34 To: Dev. Con Mailbox Subject: FW: wingrave neighbourhood plan comments
From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 08 April 2016 16:02:35 (UTC) Monrovia, Reykjavik To: Planning Policy Subject: wingrave neighbourhood plan comments
Please find attached the letter with our comments regarding the Wingrave & Rowsham neighbourhood plan . We have also attached copies of previous correspondence for your consideration.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of our submission.
Thank you and kind regards,
Grace & Alistair Whitehead
This email and any attachments are strictly confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain information which is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, forward, copy, print or take any action in reliance of this email or any attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible and note that confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost.
The views expressed within this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily those of Aylesbury Vale District Council.
The anti-virus software used by Aylesbury Vale District Council is updated regularly in an effort to minimise the possibility of viruses infecting our systems. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
1 AVDC Feb 16 [email protected]
Re: - Wingrave with Rowsham Neighbourhood Plan
We would like to comment on the above plan to both Aylesbury Vale District Council and the Independent Examiner. Whilst we understand all the hard work and complexities involved we really would appreciate making our opinions known in the hope that our concerns are addressed.
Note: - All references made are from the WINGRAVE NP SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT 2015 12 06 FINAL V2. Page numbers are quoted as necessary.
Lack of involving the Community
The initial consultation and fact finding by the parish, was very vague and just asked general questions – (we were given a questionnaire at the village BBQ (2014) - at no point did we realise that this would have such a detrimental outcome on the proposal for planning. Not all of the criteria or consequences of the original questionnaire were clear, we feel that the outcome for the villagers preferences would have been very different, (i.e. one large development at the outskirts of the village than impinging on several separate sites within the village spoiling the rural feel of the parish and its footpaths). It would have been more transparent at the outset to give the options available i.e. several sites of approximately 30 houses within the village or one larger site etc.
We strongly feel that the community were not properly involved to have their say and indeed some who did not go to the community social events or on social media i.e. village postie etc. and are elderly knew nothing of the proposals (our neighbours being one of them). Something as crucially important as the village neighbourhood plan should have had information put through the doors and ensured all of the community can be involved.
Unfair Cluster Used in the Vote (page 7)
At the vote held at the Methodist church the voting slip was organised in clusters and the villagers did not have an option other than to vote on the sites given in their groupings. The system was undemocratic and unfair because the combination of clusters made no option but to vote for areas in the parish even if you didn’t agree to a particular field being in the parish plan.
Unfair Criteria Process – From the Site Assessment Appendix 1 – Sites Scoring Sheet (page 8)
The criteria used were felt to be flawed as certain items applied to one area in the parish but was not consistently used or ignored altogether. Many parishioners wanted clarification on this point at the meeting held in 2015 at Wingrave School. We did not receive any.
The method of accepting and rejecting sites in favour of one over another on certain fields was unfair and biased to say the least i.e. mention of concerns was made on some sites and yet not on others each proposed field should be measured consistently) some examples are quoted below:-
Traffic impact and access issues especially at peak times (site no. 1) - Also applies to site no 18 but not mentioned in the criteria process).
1
Views across the vale destroyed (site no. 1, 2) Also applies to site no 18 but not mentioned in the criteria process).
Parking issues at peak times especially at school drop off and pick up times (site no. 4, 5) - Also applies to site no 18 but not mentioned in the criteria process).
Impact on current residents (site no. 9, 17, 19) - Also applies to site no 18 but not mentioned in the criteria process).
High volume of on road parking (site no. 10) - Also applies to site no 18 but not mentioned in the criteria process).
Rural nature spoilt (site no. 10, 15, and 16) - Also applies to site no 18 but not mentioned in the criteria process).
Well placed for school and sports park (site no. 18)) – only quoted for this one site but applies to most of the village.
Footpath allowance (site no. 18) - only quoted for this one site but applies to most of the village.
All of the above applies to site no.18 – Twelve Leys
No mention on this site was made regarding, traffic and parking especially at peak times, views destroyed, impact on current residents, on road parking, rural nature spoilt,
Twelve Leys has a problem already at school drop off and pick up times, any more traffic issues and there is an accident waiting to happen. This problem has tried to be addressed by the school but to no avail and will only get worse if building is approved.
Mention was made that ‘Twelve Leys is well placed for school and park’ but this is not mentioned in any other sites. Most of Wingrave is well placed it is after all a village.
Also mentioned from the residents initial consultation was the protection of footpaths – site 18 has a public footpath through it and whilst this may become a road with a footpath by it site 18 will not retain its rural feel and therefore will not be protected.
From the Parish Council meeting held on 12th January 16.
As quoted below concerns were made regarding use of a car park and the comment from Cllr Neave was “that would have to be the residents ‘choice” demonstrates a lack of research into having / using a car park. There is no point in planning and including something that will not be used and will not benefit the local residents. Again these types of flippant answers from the councillors exhibits a lack of knowledge about the problems that residents will incur and lack of observance of the real problems that will be faced if the plans go ahead. If the traffic problem is not alleviated then it is not a suitable site. Parking issues and problems will undoubtedly abound.
Designating a car par which most residents felt wouldn’t be used and a parish response “that’s up to the residents” surely won’t help in avoiding parking issues and problems - this is the whole point of a plan what will and won’t work and best practice.
2
Again the volume of traffic which is a real concern (especially near the main entrance to the village school on Twelve Leys and not on Winslow Road) does not alleviate our worries with shallow observation and comments that “no site had perfect access but that development would still need to happen regardless”. Some sites would be more perfect than others - certainly that is the point of the whole planning process. Quote copied below;-
Parish Council Meeting Held on Tuesday 12th January 2016 MINUTES 15. Twelve Leys Development- Cala Homes meeting Cllr Neave advised that an initial meeting had taken place with Cala Homes, who are the representatives for the Twelve Leys site. The next step should be a public consultation and it was stressed that a collaborative relationship with the parish was paramount. The full report will be available on the website and as an appendix. The floor was opened up to parishioners and the following points were noted:
The suggestion that a car park for use by existing residents would not be utilised, Cllr Neave confirmed that that would have to be the residents’ choice. A query over the volume of traffic movements in that area creating access problems was raised to which it was confirmed that no site had perfect access but that development would still need to happen regardless.
Twelve Leys
As stated in the final draft of the plan the criteria used below in relation to site 18 Twelve Leys is clearly going against the wishes of the community especially in the areas we have highlighted in red.
(From page 5) Each site was assessed against a series of measures drawn primarily from the Summer 2014 Consultations, as shown below: Protection of the Rural Nature of the Parish, its Lanes and Footpaths Road Safety, traffic and parking concerns of existing Residents Protection of views to and from the Parish Protection of green spaces and green environment Protection of village amenities Sustain and grow village business Affordable homes (Affordable Housing: social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market – AVDC Local Development Framework – Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document) Market affordable homes More Houses for older residents Avoidance of large developments The saved policies of the AVDC Local Plan, the
Rural Public Footpath
The area at site 18, if developed, will spoil the safe traffic free access used by dog walkers, children and villagers alike. The village plan is an opportunity to preserve footpaths and not convert them into roads with parked cars aligning the route. It would be good to promote safe traffic free routes around the village.
Finally, we have attached copies of the letters sent to the councillors although we did not receive any direct response we would appreciate you viewing our comments to them.
If you have any queries or wish further clarification from us please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Kind regards and yours faithfully,
3
Grace & Alistair Whitehead
Tel 01296 681183
4 [email protected] or in writing to Rebecca Biley, Parish Clerk, 24a Winslow Road, Wingrave HP22 4PS
Parish Clerk Rebecca Biley 24a Winslow Road, Wingrave HP22 4PS Email [email protected] Tel: 07894 729454
Chairman David Neave, The Old Brewhouse, Brewhouse Lane, Rowsham, Aylesbury
Dear Mr Neave,
Firstly, may we thank you and your team for the time and effort put into the development plan and that we appreciate your overriding priority to protect the parish of Wingrave and Rowsham from over development and inappropriate building practice in the years to come.
Whilst we understand that any decision making process is not easy we have several comments and concerns regarding the process and decisions made thus far.
Bullet Points
• To start we would like to make it clear that we are not in favour of your proposed development plan and would ask you reconsider in favour of one larger development on the edge of the village either by the allotments on Winslow Road, Bell Corner or in Leighton Road. We have read the other comments on the postie in support of this option, in particular those of Alan Frost, and we would concur with these opinions. • We understand that when doing this you felt the need to seek opinion from local residents as a basis on which to perform this task, however we do feel this ‘mandate’ has now been proven to be flawed. We have no specific recollection as to being consulted on this and even if we had been we would unlikely to have been fully aware of the ramifications. Given the choice of a large development as opposed to smaller building developments gave the impression that the building would be a few houses here and a few there. When presented with the reality of the development plan being that three or four sites within the village would all have what I would deem to be significant developments then that makes the original questions raised to need to be considered in a totally different context. Now that the facts are fully known given the choice of one large development on the edge of the village or a number of smaller (but still significant) developments within the village, we would be strongly in favour of the former. It would also appear from the communications we have seen and the people we have spoken to that we are not alone in that opinion. Surely it would be better to ruin one part of the village, preferably with minimal direct impact on residents nearby than to ruin four parts of the village with a much larger impact on a significantly greater number of residents. • We appreciate the efforts to seek the opinions of residents, however, the small number on which these decisions have been made must be reconsidered. Such a massive decision for the village requires a much more thorough consultation process in order for any mandate to be worthwhile. Every house should have been and needs to be written to with an introduction explaining the situation like you did at the open meeting at the school the other week which was very clear and informative. The proposal should then be put that either one development of 100 houses should be considered or a number of smaller developments. The document could detail potential sites for both options i.e. for the larger sites Leighton Road, Bell Corner or the Winslow Road by the allotments and the smaller sites alternatives could include examples of potential sites and the number of houses proposed for each site (these should not necessarily be restricted to the sites the team have identified as some people still dispute the validity of the scoring system and it would be wrong to only include those sites). Every household should be given a copy and the importance stressed of expressing an opinion for either option as it stands in principle. Once everyone has had a chance to express that opinion then the next stage would be to determine the appropriate sites within the category residents have chosen. We realise there have been numerous messages on the postie saying people need to express their opinion before Saturday, however you must remember the postie and the communique are not official purveyors of information to residents. We were speaking to a resident of Twelve Leys only this week who is directly affected by the proposal to build on the A11 site who was totally unaware of what was happening as he is neither on the internet nor does he receive the communique. He stated that he had not received any leaflets either. To obtain a valid mandate on which to operate you need to be seen to have given every resident sufficient opportunity to express their opinion. If you can show that all residents have in fact been written to then whether they then choose to respond or not is their choice but you then have a truly valid mandate in which to operate. • A decision needs to be reached which is the least bad for the majority of the parishioners. • We realise that you are acting based upon restraints being imposed supposedly by National and Local Government, however we should all (including the Parish Council) be making more of an effort to put pressure on these bodies objecting to these building measures being imposed upon local communities. With the vast new building projects already being undertaken around Aylesbury and the massive growth of Milton Keynes in recent years Aylesbury Vale cannot, in our opinion, reasonably be expected to absorb such huge building projects. 30000 new homes equate to approximately 90000 more people and 60000 more cars. The infra-structure around Aylesbury already is totally inadequate and there are insufficient jobs to sustain such expansion. • Residents and local councils should be lobbying the local MPs to protect the local areas from being bulldozed (literally) by developers and not being forced into developments out of sync with what the local communities are able to accept within natural growth. We need a neighbourhood plan with further endorsement / protection from proactive MP’s. We have written to both David Lidington MP and John Bercow MP raising our concerns (copies attached) and we would recommend you encourage the parishioners to do likewise. • Whilst we understood options were put in clusters for ease of maintaining numbers of properties on each development this didn’t help with the selection process as two sites were in the proposals for three of the options. Vote options were very limited especially given the problems with some of the sites if built upon. • It is also a concern that there will be no guarantee and there is no clear vision of the type of properties to be built, the actual house sizes, plot sizes and materials to be used. Again the developers will have the upper hand and ultimately profit driven.
Turning now to our specific objections to the choice of the A11 site on Twelve Leys:
• You have stated that the community does not want a large estate, well by adding a further 40 (estimate) homes to the existing Twelve Leys estate this will turn it into one extremely large estate (especially surrounded by Winslow Road, Nup End and Chiltern Road) and will appear as one continuous housing development. It will also reduce access to the countryside for local residents. It does not protect the rural feel of Wingrave, its lanes and footpaths. • The Local Plan indicates a desire to protect paths and improve pedestrian routes within the village yet building here will ruin a country path through an aesthetically pleasing meadow and further exasperate pedestrian routes along Twelve Leys. • The Traffic situation. Let’s avoid the nightmare of Turnfurlong Lane in Aylesbury by the school. Whilst this went through planning regulations lets learn from it as the road clearly doesn’t work from a traffic point of view. Just because it was within planning regulation doesn’t make it necessarily right. The issue of traffic was used to reject certain sites yet it was not applied in relation to the Twelve Leys site. Whilst we appreciate that a small check was made with regards to traffic along this road, as residents, we feel your findings do not truly reflect the actual reality faced by the residents, difficulty occurs not just at school times but throughout. Speeding and parking is a constant issue along Twelve Leys. This will, without a doubt, get worse with an increase of 40 additional homes and therefore approx. 80 cars (on the premise most home owners now have two cars). There is no getting away from the fact that more buildings equates to more cars. • Whilst a private car park may be provided, with the best will in the world residents will always want to park outside their homes (countless examples of this can be seen in several new developments across Aylesbury). At best it will only be the residents of the new houses that may use this facility. • We are extremely concerned and worried about child safety, especially at the school entrance. Children should be encouraged to walk to school and this will be untenable with increased traffic. The school already have safety issues; for example the school’s Jan newsletter Number 17 can be seen on the school website and this refers to the problems already being encountered. • Potential Sewage problems have already been highlighted in an article on the postie and we too were previously told by a builder about these problems. • We appreciate that loss of house value is not considered a factor regarding planning it does however adversely affect residents. We have been told by an estate agent that our house would lose 10% in value should houses be built on that field. Who is going to compensate us for this, the council, the developers? Not likely! So why should we and numerous other residents have to be financially penalised when there are other sites available which would not affect other people’s properties? • All of Wingrave is well placed for the park and school that isn’t a justifiable reason to use this site. • The rural nature of the area would be spoilt by building on this site. The field has agricultural use; livestock have inhabited this field for a considerable number of years. This criterion was used to reject other sites yet this factor applies as much to this site as anywhere else. Again the site behind the allotments would appear to have the least impact on the rural nature of the village. • The field is a valuable open space enjoyed by many residents. • We are not sure if you are aware that the field is inhabited by protected species such as bats which have dwelt in this field for over 20 years now. This is very much a Greenfield Site and we very much wish to retain the rural character of the parish. • With regards to views, we can agree that it is important to negate any unsightly building development to the approach to Wingrave if done unsympathetically, however, the image of the village on the approach from the crossroads would not be de-valued by a well- developed site on that part of the village. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is the existing villagers whose lives are affected detrimentally by the developments inside the village. Personally what we think of our village is more determined by what we see from our homes and as we walk around our village rather than what we see as we approach the village from outside. No consideration appears to have been made to the beauty within the village. Cramming another development attached to existing homes diminishes the rural feel of the village which is detrimental to the local environment. Surely it is more important for residents to have a view and villagers to feel they actually live in a village and not an inner city estate rather than just protecting the view from afar. • By building on this field you will be reducing the green spaces and footpaths in the area whereas we should be encouraging the connecting habitat corridors. We should be linking green spaces for the whole village (for ramblers, dog walkers etc.) and not destroying it.
Conclusion In conclusion we believe that there is sufficient doubt over the validity of the mandate you have been working to and that there is a need for a more thorough village consultation to enable your work to have any true representation of the village parishioners. As mentioned above we appeal to you to re-consider and engage the whole village with an information pack as outlined above with details of the options of the one site and multi sites listing the options within either approach so that people can vote with an informed opinion.
Should the multi-site option be chosen then we would request the A11 site not be used for the reasons outlined above.
We would be grateful if you could take our comments and views into account and the growing discontent of the parishioners concerning the selected sites.
Kind regards
Alistair & Grace Whitehead
From :- http://bercow4buckingham.org/buckingham-planning/
Buckingham Planning “I am always happy to set out my objections to unsuitable housing developments, and routinely do so on a great scale, but I rely on local residents making me aware of them as soon as the application is submitted. Working together, I hope that we can ensure that growth should be in the interests of local residents, both current and future, rather than the commercial aspirations of developers.”
John shares the view of most Buckingham constituency residents that new housing should be located where there is local need and should make adequate provision for infrastructure improvements.
There is particular concern about the recent increase in the number of applications to build new housing developments in the Buckingham constituency. A year ago, the Planning Inspector rejected Aylesbury Vale’s Local Plan because AVDC didn’t include enough housing numbers. Every local authority is required to produce, aim to manage housing and economic growth in a sustainable manner, with the views of local residents taken into consideration as to how such growth can be achieved. Whilst the council is underway with an alternative to the original plan, the result of the void left by the rejection of the Plan has been a surge in the number of speculative applications which, more often than not, put profit before people
John is not against building new homes per se – the simple fact is that the population is growing, and new residents will need houses to live in. However, there is a difference between managing such growth with the best interests of the community at heart, and allowing developers motivated by making money to take advantage.
Once we have a Local Plan in place, John hopes that the situation will improve. However, it will not mitigate totally against developers aiming to make a quick profit. In Princes Risborough in the south of the constituency in an area not affected by the rejection of AVDC’s Local Plan, John has objected to several such speculative applications, including one that would build houses on the much-loved Molins Sports Ground, which should remain as a community facility.
The list of areas in the Buckingham constituency affected by developers chancing their luck in the hope of making a quick buck would also be a list of nearly every ward in our area. [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
FAO Rt Hon. John Bercow MP
Dear Mr Bercow
Congratulations on your re-election as our constituency member of parliament.
We have attached a letter for your comments regarding Wingrave with Rowsham Neighbourhood Plan.
It is with grave concern that this area has been put under such enormous pressure for yet more housing and enormous building projects in the Vale of Aylesbury and the surrounding villages (further comments regarding this is attached). It is with even more concern that whilst we accept some housing needs to be catered for, the process, it seems, leads many communities at the will of developers as time is not on our side due to Government force and intensity. It is very disappointing that Aylesbury Vale District Council and Bucks County Council are limited to protect the area from this onslaught.
Wingrave and Rowsham Parish Council are trying to navigate the best they can under this pressure to protect the villages. However, you will see from the attached letter an example of the growing discontent amongst the parishioners. May we draw your attention in particular to the points raised re the following:-
• We realise that you are acting based upon restraints being imposed supposedly by National and Local Government however we should all be making more of an effort to put pressure on these bodies objecting to these building measures being imposed upon local communities. With the vast new building projects already being undertaken around Aylesbury and the massive growth of Milton Keynes in recent years Aylesbury Vale cannot, in our opinion, reasonably be expected to absorb such huge building projects. 30000 new homes equate to approximately 90000 more people and 60000 more cars. The infra-structure around Aylesbury already is totally inadequate and there are insufficient jobs to sustain such expansion. • The village must accept at least 130 houses • Residents and local councils should be lobbying the local MPs to protect the local areas from being bulldozed (literally) by developers and not being forced into developments out of sync with what the local communities are able to accept within natural growth. We need a neighbourhood plan with further endorsement / protection from proactive MP’s. We have written to both David Lidington and John Bercow raising our concerns (copies attached) and we would recommend you encourage the parishioners to do likewise.
We look forward to your comments and help to protect our environment and green spaces, rural life and infrastructure.
Yours sincerely,
Grace & Alistair Whitehead
Enc
FAO Rt Hon. David Lidington MP
Dear Mr Lidington MP
We feel it necessary to include you in the matters concerning Wingrave with Rowsham Neighbourhood Plan as the Vale of Aylesbury is within your constituency. Please find attached a letter to our constituency MP Rt Hon. John Bercow and one to our parish councillor. May we draw your attention in particular to the points raised re the following:-
• We realise that you are acting based upon restraints being imposed supposedly by National and Local Government however we should all be making more of an effort to put pressure on these bodies objecting to these building measures being imposed upon local communities. With the vast new building projects already being undertaken around Aylesbury and the massive growth of Milton Keynes in recent years Aylesbury Vale cannot, in our opinion, reasonably be expected to absorb such huge building projects. 30000 new homes equate to approximately 90000 more people and 60000 more cars. The infra-structure around Aylesbury already is totally inadequate and there are insufficient jobs to sustain such expansion. • Residents and local councils should be lobbying the local MPs to protect the local areas from being bulldozed (literally) by developers and not being forced into developments out of sync with what the local communities are able to accept within natural growth. We need a neighbourhood plan with further endorsement / protection from proactive MP’s. We have written to both David Lidington and John Bercow raising our concerns (copies attached) and we would recommend you encourage the parishioners to do likewise.
Your comments would be very much appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Grace & Alistair Whitehead
Enc
Mr Alistair Whitehead 8 Stookslade Wingrave Bucks HP22 4QW
20 March 2015
FAO Deborah Martin Parish Clerk Wingrave with Rowsham Parish Council
Thank you for the information on the recent email with regards to the sites for potential development.
I have a few questions that I hope you can answer with reference to the procedure involved and the timescales being put forward regarding the field off Twelve Leys and adjacent to Nup End.
I would also like to know if the residents on Twelve Leys and the surrounding cul-de-sacs together with the village school will be contacted with reference to the increased volume of traffic along this road which would greatly impinge on an already busy road, especially during the school run in term times. As at this stage the residents may well be unaware as to the access route to the proposed field involved. Indeed, have any considerations been made to avoid the potential hazards that this development will undoubtingly cause not only during construction but also thereafter.
Furthermore is any consideration given to the loss of property value that any new development might cause to residents that it will affect and if so what are they and the process involved.
I appreciate you time on this and look forward to your comments.
Many thanks and kind regards.
Alistair Whitehead
Dear Sir/Madam,
With regards to the draft Neighbourhood plan we would like it placed on record our views that we are opposed to the site selection as detailed.
We would agree with the thoughts put forward by Mrs O'Carroll in her email of 9th November in which she stated that the scoring system is flawed unless full transparency can be shown as to how a score is arrived at and how that figure can be different to that given to another site. We noticed that for one site a statement was made that site was used 'heavily' for dog walking, what constitutes heavy? Has someone sat and watched how many people walk across the field? On the other hand we know that another site is frequently used by dog walkers yet in your site assessment it has not even been mentioned that it is used at all for dog walking. Is it co-incidence that the field used 'heavily' has not been selected whereas the one which apparently is not used has been. It appears that such discrepancies are misleading people into accepting your chosen sites.
There does not appear to be any consideration given in the scoring to that of protected species such as Bats and Newts living in some of these sites which surely must have an impact when selecting one site over another.
How do we as parishioners get assurance that the scores given are appropriate and not just based on amateur assessments? It has been stated that an independent assessor has overseen the scoring assessments but what are his credentials for providing this assessment? Does this person have professional expertise he can rely on or are they just another councillor from a different parish/ward that the council have approached to give your selections credibility? Our understanding is that this person has not even been to inspect the sites personally but has merely looked at the theory behind the selection process.
Without a clearer understanding of exactly how the scores were arrived at we will be unable to support the draft plan as and when it goes to the referendum.
We await your response to the matters raised.
Regards
Alistair