Wojniak, Olivia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.