Matter 1: Development Strategy (Spatial Distribution Strategy) Ref 32190 Renshaw Watts (Revera Ltd)

June 2018 | SHF | R.0160 Matter 1: Development Strategy (Spatial Distribution Strategy) Ref 32190 Renshaw Watts (Revera Ltd)

AYLESBURY VALE LOCAL PLAN EXAMINATION

MATTER 1: DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY)

ON BEHALF OF: MR RENSHAW WATTS, REVERA LTD.

©Copyright Pegasus Planning Group Limited 2011. The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of Pegasus Planning Group Limited

CONTENTS:

Page No:

1. MATTER 1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY) 1 1.1 Introduction. 1 1.2 Key points 1

June 2018 | SHF | R.0160

1. MATTER 1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY)

1.1 Introduction. 1.1.1 Pegasus on behalf of Mr Renshaw Watts (Revera ltd) has been invited to participate at the Hearing Session on Matter 1. invited to participate at the Hearing Session on Matter 1. Our representations relevant to this Matter are as follows: para 1.11 – 1.12, Policy S2 Spatial Strategy and Policy S3 Settlement Hierarchy. However, our submission is also relevant to Matter 16e i.e. the justification for Policy D2.

1.1.2 ED34 sets out the list of Matters and Issues (7.05.18) Matter 1 will discuss the justification for the spatial strategy proposed in the plan including whether the strategy of allocation to smaller settlements by capacity is justified and how it was carried out.

1.1.3 Since our representations were submitted in December 2017 the Council have produced a Housing Topic Paper January 2018. It is noted that the Inspector has asked several questions of the Council, the most relevant to this Matter are listed in the Draft Hearings Timetable Version 1 dated 25th May as Questions 29, 45 and 86. However, to date the Council have not responded to these questions.

1.2 Key points

1.2.1 It is considered that additional provision will need to be made in the Plan in order to meet the shortfall against the OAN. Policy S2 makes provision to meet 27,400 new homes in the plan period, however, it is consider that this figure is significantly below the minimum OAN as discussed in Matter 2. As a consequence additional sites need to be identified in this plan.

1.2.2 Pegasus have questioned the overall housing requirement and also the strategy, Policy S2 makes provision for 27,400 dwellings and identifies that the primary focus of strategic levels of growth will be at Aylesbury, Buckingham, Winslow, Wendover and Haddenham. The policy also identifies that development at medium villages, including Bierton will be at scale in keeping with the local character and setting.

1.2.3 According to the Settlement Hierarchy September 2017 Bierton is: “ Fairly large population size and well connected to a large service centre (Aylesbury less than 2 miles away on the A418). Hourly or more bus service but limited employment. No food store or GP facility.”

1.2.4 The Settlement Hierarchy Assessment, September 2017 identifies that Bierton (which meets 6 criteria) is more sustainable than Stewkley (5 criteria) and equally as sustainable as Cheddington, Great Horwood, Maids Moreton, Marsh Gibbon, Newton Longville and Weston Turville, and yet each and every one of these settlements are proposed to receive greater levels of growth.

1.2.5 As referred to in our representations Table 2 indicates that 101 dwellings have already been permitted in the less sustainable settlement of Stewkley which compares to the 23 permitted in Bierton. This provides a strong indication that Bierton should receive (or at the very least be allowed to receive) a level of growth commensurate with its sustainability, in excess of that which has already been sustainability, in excess of that which has already been proved to be sustainable at the less sustainable settlement of Stewkley.

1.2.6 Similarly, in some of the equally sustainable settlements, namely Maids Moreton, Marsh Gibbon and Newton Longville, the number of dwellings permitted is in excess of that at Bierton and yet additional allocations are proposed in these settlements. Indeed, Maids Moreton is planned to receive 171 dwellings, Marsh Gibbon is planned to receive 47 and Newton Longville 48, as compared to the 23 dwellings at Bierton.

1.2.7 It is considered that the definition of the proposed settlement hierarchy as worded in Table 2 of the Settlement Hierarchy September 2017(CD/MIS/003) is inconsistent. Larger villages are defined as: “Larger, more sustainable villages that have at least a reasonable access to facilities and services and public transport, making them sustainable locations for development.” (my emphasis)

1.2.8 Whereas medium villages are defined as: “Medium villages with some provision of key services and facilities, making them moderately sustainable locations for development.”

1.2.9 There is no mention in the definition of larger villages of any provision of key services and facilities. For Medium villages there is no mention of “at least a reasonable access to facilities and services and public transport”. It is considered that Bierton has a reasonable access to facilities and services being only 1.8 miles for Aylesbury and also close to the new urban extension of Kingsbrook and will be able to take advantage of any improvements to public transport as a result of the urban extension. The Aylesbury Transport Strategy (January 2017) Table 6.9 refers to Town Centre Transport Improvements lists the transport improvements one of which is to “Provide or upgrade active travel information” “Upgrading the existing pedestrian and cycling signage within/around Aylesbury Town Centre (e.g. walking times signposted and walking/cycling maps displayed at key locations with a consistent branding, similar to the Legible London example). This should link to the wider public transport/cycling/walking strategies in Aylesbury.” (My emphasis).

1.2.10 Pegasus has objected to the re-assessment of Bierton and its “down grading” from a Larger Settlement to a Medium Settlement. Bierton is a sustainable location being located along the A418 approximately 1.8 miles from Aylesbury, it is also close to the new development at land east of Aylesbury at Kingsbrook. Kingsbrook, Aylesbury is a major urban extension on the eastern side of Aylesbury on 306ha of land between Bierton and the Aylesbury Arm of the of land between Bierton and the Aylesbury Arm of the Grand Union Canal. (para 4.89 of the Proposed Submission Plan – November 2017).

1.2.11 Outline planning permission was granted in 2013 for 2,450 dwellings, 10 ha employment land, neighbourhood centre, two primary schools, construction of the Eastern link Road (northern part) and the Stocklake Link Road (rural section), green infrastructure including a major wetland, associated community facilities and supporting infrastructure. Para 4.91 of the Submission Plan states: “The housing development is based on the principle of creating three villages within the overall framework of the site. Reserved matters have been approved for two of the three villages, Oakfield Village and Orchard Green, comprising 1,353 dwellings of which some 300 are complete or under construction. Key elements of transport infrastructure including the Eastern Link Road and Stocklake Link are also well under way.”

1.2.12 The site is located to the east of Aylesbury. Para 4.92 states: “To the north lies the village of Bierton with the application site joining the A418 to the north-east.”

1.2.13 It is noted in paragraph 4.99 of the Proposed Submission Plan that Phase 1 of the development includes: “Access to phase 1 will primarily be achieved through delivery of the initial section of the Stockdale Link Road, from its junction with Douglas Road and Oakfield Road. The first phase will see construction of the Stockdale Link Road to the east, beyond its junction with Broughton Lane, thus the proposed junction arrangements for Broughton Lane and Burcott Lane are also to be delivered in phase 1. Also in Phase 1 the remainder of the Stocklake Link Road and the northern section of the Eastern Link Road, from its junction with the A418 to the Stocklake Link Road, will be constructed.”

1.2.14 The vision and objectives for the development also include a traffic calming scheme for the village of Bierton to improve road safety and the quality of life for existing residents.

1.2.15 The A418 and the Eastern Link Road join at Bierton, it is note that the junction is designed to encourage use of the ELR and SLR and reduce traffic through Bierton. This is achieved by providing a slip road from north-east to south- west, and two lanes for right turning traffic in the opposite direction. The use of a signalised junction also allows control of traffic flows through the setting of signal timings. There will be pedestrian crossing facilities on all approaches, as well as cycle facilities in the form of ‘advance stop lines’. Footways from the ELR are extended on to Bierton Road and connect through to the existing southbound bus stop. A new footway is also introduced on southbound bus stop. A new footway is also introduced on the northern side of the Bierton Road, between Rowsham Road and the new junction.

1.2.16 In 2016, BCC adopted the Aylesbury Transport Strategy, which considers the long term transport strategy for the town. Using outputs from the Countywide Transport Model, the Aylesbury Transport Strategy proposes a series of measures to mitigate the impact of development on the roads in Aylesbury.

1.2.17 One of the proposals in the Aylesbury Transport Strategy is to create a series of link roads around Aylesbury to divert cross and through traffic out of the town centre. Parts of the link road network have been already delivered (for example, Berryfields Western Link) or are under construction (for example Stocklake Rural Link as part of the Kingsbrook development).

1.2.18 The North-East Link Road (between A413 heading North and A418 heading toward Milton Keynes). This section of link road remains aspirational.

1.2.19 However, the development of the urban extension at Kingsbrook provides a range of facilities and services which will be even closer than those provided at Aylesbury which in itself is only 1.8 miles away.

1.2.20 Given the proximity to Aylesbury and to the major urban extension the downgrading of Beirton on the basis of the settlement hierarchy assessment is unsound and cannot be justified. Bierton is only 1.8 miles from Aylesbury and has a frequent public transport service to the centre of Aylesbury, notably service 165 and 150. Furthermore the sustainability of Bierton will only improve as a result of the settlement being adjacent to the urban extension of Kingsbrook where it can access the facilities and services at the urban extension in addition to those at Aylesbury. Bierton should therefore be reclassified as originally assessed as a larger village.

1.2.21 It is considered that the proposed distribution in the VALP does not reflect the sustainability of settlements and is therefore unsound as it cannot be justified. Additional provisions, either in the form of allocations and/or mechanisms to allow development beyond the settlement envelope should be embedded in the VALP.

1.2.22 We have demonstrated in our representations that our client’s sites are not subject to any statutory environmental or landscape designations and nor are they located in any Local Landscape Area or Area of Attractive Landscape. The sites have continuously been promoted to the Council in the Call for Sites.

1.2.23 It is acknowledged 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 as to ensure those locations have the ability to respond positively, within the context of their locational specific circumstances, to opportunities for development.

1.2.24 We have in our representations made comments on the wording of Policy S3 and consider that the current wording, is not consistent with the NPPF, it is not justified and it will not be effective as it could be used to undermine the required development.

June 2018 | SHF | R.0160 Page 5