Meeting documents

To consider the report attached as an Appendix

Contact Officer: 01296 585208

A Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Issues and Options consultation was undertaken in 2015 which resulted in 700 replies containing over 4,500 response to the questions posed in the consultation. These were summarised and the summary put on the Councils website. A further summary of the main issues raised had been attached as an appendix to the report.

The responses largely focused on the amount of housing being proposed and the role of unmet need in that figure.

The main response was that the number should be lower without any unmet need, however some responses suggested that any unmet need from the south of the county should not be accommodated in the north of the Vale. Any comments on the content of the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) were passed to the council’s consultants. There had also need a significant number of comments on the implications of the village hierarchy.

It was noted that under the duty to co-operate it was important that the comments of adjacent authorities were taken into account. A summary of the responses were set out in appendix 2 of the report. The Vale was a potential location for unmet need from several adjacent council areas and this formed a significant part of the responses.

Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC) had also made significant comments in response to the consultation and their responses were set out in appendix 3 to the report, together with the reply to these from AVDC officers. On the whole BCC considered that the overall strategy should be reconsidered to direct more development away from the smaller settlements to Buckingham and the southern part of the Vale, and that Haddenham could be a location for a new settlement.

Members made a number of comments on the summary and put questions to the officers. These can be summarised as follows:-

·         It would have been helpful for the Scrutiny committee to have had sight of full reports on what Forward Planning were doing in response to comments and the Draft Plan before the meeting rather than just a summary of responses.

·         Members were concerned that Bucks County Council (BCC) were trying to influence AVDC in its decision on where strategic settlements should be. Members referred to the comments made on pages 55 and 56 of the report including BCC’s comments on "Urban Sprawl" (Option D comment). Members were also concerned that BCC would restate the same views at the Draft Plan stage.

·         Although Winslow will get a railway station in future, most travel there at present is by car, unlike Haddenham which already has a station.

·         There seemed to be a mixed response to the issue of unmet need. Developers were reporting there was not enough and individuals saying there was too much. There was concern regarding AVDC "having" to take unmet housing need from other Local Authorities.

·         How were the figures for unmet need put in by neighbouring authorities to be challenged and would London’s be included.

·         Neighbourhood Plans (NP), including those completed or in the pipeline, should be taken into consideration. It was suggested that communities with NPs should help decide where additional growth should go in their community and then revise the NP.

·         Had the impact of HS2 on any development been taken into consideration?

·         It was felt that infrastructure should be put in place before any major development was undertaken.

·         Chiltern/South Bucks DCs had welcomed the recognition of need to accommodate 10,000 dwellings for unmet need. How would the figures change if they came up with more development.

·         It was felt that there would be more support for pro-rata development of sites rather than going for very large development areas. These would likely to be objected to during the consultation stage of the Draft Plan.

·         There had been recent changes in planning with regard to gypsy and traveller sites (Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS). How were they now classified under planning and what affect would there be on pitch numbers? There were a number of sites that were mostly in other authorities, such as Central Bedfordshire but had an impact on settlements in AVDC. A clear understanding would be needed on where responsibility for the sites lay.

·         The settlement hierarchy had been criticised, particularly with the parishes. It was suggested that a minimum percentage growth figure tailored for each settlement be used instead. Although there could be exceptions to the rule.

·         The Forward Plans team were to be congratulated on their work on the Draft Plan.

In reply to the comments above it was confirmed the committee would have site of the Draft Plan by 31 May. Bucks County Council were Statutory Consultees but AVDC’s Council would have the final say on the Draft Plan before submission. However, it was recognised that similar views could be expressed during the consultation for the Draft Plan. Officers were continuing to look at figures produced by other authorities with regard to unmet need. London’s unmet need would not be considered in this Local Plan but could be included in a future updated plan.

If there was more development in adjoining authorities then it was hoped the figure of unmet need would decrease. However, other authorities were also looking at AVDC’s figures to make adjustments to theirs.

The impact of HS2 had been incorporated into the Draft Plan as had any infrastructure.

AVDC still liaised with the Oxon and Bucks Gypsy and Traveller Service, but it was acknowledged that this would not help with Central Bedfordshire sites. There would be a need to look at the 52 temporary permissions in the Vale and whether these could be made permanent.

The option of minimum percentage growth could be looked into and a revised settlement hierarchy would be in the draft plan.

The Draft Plan would be published on 7 July 2016 and out for consultation for a period of over eight weeks ending on Monday 5 September 2016.

RESOLVED –

1.    That Members noted the contents of the report, and its attachment, accepted the Summary of Comments on VALP Issues and Options in principle and requested that officers act in accordance with their comments and concerns.