11 CHAPTER 10 - RURAL AREAS - Aylesbury Vale

Inspector’s Report Part 2 : Rural Areas

11 CHAPTER 10 - RURAL AREAS

INTRODUCTION AND STRATEGY 11.1 Paragraphs 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3

Supporters: DD0535 Whaddon Parish Council DD1264 Rural Development Commission DD2136 Country Landowners Association DD7926 Whaddon Parish Council

Objectors: DD0764 MAFF DD2525 Hillesden Properties DD4265 Dinton with Ford & Upton Parish Council DD6896 J J Gallagher Ltd DD7945 Hillesden Properties

Principal Issues: 11.1.1 Whether reference should be made to the value of farming in the District.

11.1.2 Whether the rural housing strategy should reflect the flexible approach to employment in rural areas.

11.1.3 Whether reference should be made in paragraph 10.2 to land at Eaton Leys.

11.1.4 Whether the flexible employment strategy would be applied in practice.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.1.5 The Council propose a Change to meet the farming point. There are well-understood

reasons for restrictive rural settlement policies to protect the countryside. I see no reason why they cannot stand alongside a permissive approach to employment development that sustains the rural economy without causing environmental harm. How the latter is operated will be a matter for the Council to judge. I agree that it would be inappropriate for particular rural sites to be referred to in this general statement.

Recommendation: 11.1.6 I recommend that paragraph 10.1 be modified in accordance with PC 10.1.

THE COUNTRYSIDE 11.2 Paragraph 10.4 and Policy RA1

Supporters: DD0109 Pitstone Parish Council DD1970 Wendover Parish Council

DD2137 CLA DD0131 Mrs C Paternoster DD2406 Hulcott Parish Council DD0317 Buckland Parish Council DD2471 Wendover Society DD0536 Whaddon Parish Council DD2884 P Cleasby DD0802 K W Miller DD5896 M Tubb DD0975 Mrs V L Miller DD5918 G J Stewart DD1120 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD6468 W H Carlyle DD1338 B & S A Robson DD6692 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD1419 Bierton with Broughton Parish

Council DD6726 WaddesdonEstate DD6771 National Trust DD1630 Bierton & Broughton Action Group

89


DD7001 Mr & Mrs J P Chantler DD7594 Newton Longville Parish Council

Objectors: DD0757 MAFF DD1575 M Edmonds DD2924 M George DD4281 New Leys Consortium DD6251 Hunting Gate Homes Ltd

Objector to Proposed Change (PC 10.2): CO0152 M Evans

Principal Issues: 11.2.1 Whether paragraph 10.4 should view the productive value of land from a different

perspective.

11.2.2 Whether essential should be reasonably necessary and refer to support for the rural economy.

11.2.3 Whether Broughton Stocklake should be protected for its own sake.

11.2.4 Whether the policy should incorporate the aims of the sustainable strategy.

11.2.5 Whether provision should be made for growth in medium sized villages.

11.2.6 Whether the policy was too restrictive and should not rule out the development of land without designation on the Proposals Map.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.2.7 I agree with the Council that the Plan cannot be expected to redress problems that fall

outside the remit of planning control. On the other hand, paragraph 10.4 is not entirely accurate because it is also national policy to protect good agricultural land. A minor revision would correct this.

11.2.8 The Council propose a Change to meet the second objection, the last part of which was satisfied by the Change to paragraph 10.1. The question in relation to Broughton Stocklake, and other MDAs involving undeveloped rural land, is whether the balance of one interest outweighs another. This is what the Local Plan is all about, and some (difficult) policy choices about where development should go will conflict with objectives that prevent similar development in other locations.

11.2.9 It seems to me that RA.1 is based on the principle of sustainable development but it is concerned with the protection of the countryside and not the settlement strategy, explained in Chapter 3 of the Plan, so I see no reason for it to provide for village growth. I do not regard it as over-restrictive but as the introductory policy for the Rural Areas it ought not to ignore the other aspects of rural development that national policy promotes.

Recommendation 11.2.10 I recommend that:

11.2.11 Paragraph 10.4 be modified by rewording the second sentence as follows:

There is a continuing need to protect the countryside for its own sake, as well as safeguarding the best productive farming land and the quality of life….

11.2.12 Policy RA.1 be modified by rewording as follows:

In dealing with proposals for development in rural areas the Council will give priority to the need to protect the countryside for its own sake.

90


Development will not be permitted in the countryside unless it is necessary for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, or for enterprise, diversification or recreation that benefits the rural economy without harming countryside interests.

COALESCENCE OF SETTLEMENTS 11.3 Policy RA.2, Paragraph 10.7 and Policy RA.3

Supporters: DD0110 Pitstone Parish Council DD0257 A C Gordon DD0122 A Ross DD0259 Mrs D Gordon DD0123 Mrs L G Ross DD0261 P Moss DD0134 R S B Barton DD0263 E Moss DD0136 Mrs E E Barton DD0265 Mrs P S Ratcliffe DD0138 F Salway DD0267 J D Ratcliffe DD0140 Mrs S M Warrington DD0284 J Simmons DD0142 Mrs S M Cummings DD0286 F I Parrott DD0144 B S Cummings DD0288 M Simmons DD0146 H Barrie DD0290 Mrs J Aitken DD0148 Mrs S B A Muggeridge DD0292 Mrs J Barnes DD0150 B Duke DD0294 N A Aitken DD0152 W R Tunnicliffe DD0296 T I Bailey DD0171 Mrs P A Tunnicliffe DD0298 Mr/s K C Malinowski DD0173 P Bray DD0324 Mr & Mrs Brooks DD0175 D Froggatt DD0366 H J Wareham

DD0387 Cllr B M Griffin DD0177 Mrs D Froggatt DD0179 Mrs M Beckwith DD0419 H M Hodgson DD0181 R Dormer DD0421 Mrs M Hobbs DD0183 P J Beckwith DD0423 P A Spooner DD0185 D N Dalton DD0426 Mrs P M Spooner DD0187 Mrs J McBrien DD0428 D Nicholson DD0189 P McBrien DD0430 M Nicholson DD0191 Mrs H Spurge DD0432 B Keir DD0193 Mrs M A Hobday DD0434 J E Porter DD0195 Dr R A Hobday DD0436 J Porter DD0197 D J Bandy DD0438 A Porter DD0199 Mrs M Bandy DD0440 E Porter DD0201 B Warrington DD0442 A E Porter DD0203 Mrs M R Barrie DD0444 R E Porter DD0205 Ms B Duke DD0446 G Powell DD0207 Mr & Mrs D N White DD0448 H Powell DD0209 J O'Sullivan DD0450 Mrs J Fassihi DD0211 M Moss DD0452 H A Adams DD0213 S French DD0454 D C Hayward DD0215 Mrs M French DD0456 Miss F Fassihi DD0225 J Dietsh DD0458 Miss E F Hopson DD0233 H Jones DD0460 A Tucker DD0237 J Morris DD0462 L V Povey DD0235 Ms K Hughes DD0464 E F Oliver DD0239 K Hooper DD0466 Mrs C J Povey DD0241 J E Cox DD0468 Mrs M Erskine-Young DD0243 Joan Cox DD0470 J Hayers & Miss A Hamer DD0245 J Green DD0472 F Fassihi DD0247 Mrs J Pease DD0474 C M Jarman DD0249 C D Wilson DD0476 Mrs C Jarman DD0251 D Collar DD0478 M Farmer DD0253 C Holman DD0537 Whaddon Parish Council DD0255 Mrs S P Garrett DD0724 Mrs M A Ludlow

91


DD0726 R W Ludlow DD0728 Mrs K Welford DD0730 D Welford DD0732 Mrs A Justice DD0734 Dr C Robinson DD0736 Dr J D Robinson DD0738 Mrs E Morley DD0740 P Croney DD0742 Mrs S L Egerton DD0744 Miss S Griggs DD0797 K W Miller DD1315 R A Northedge DD1337 B & S A Robson DD1420 Bierton with Broughton

Parish Council DD1631 Bierton & Broughton

Action Group DD1750 S W Jaworska DD1752 R Jaworski DD1754 Mrs L McGuinness DD1826 Mrs E Smith DD1828 R Winward DD1830 Mrs P A Winward DD1861 Mrs J Bullock DD1864 S Carruthers DD1865 L Bray DD1867 M Carruthers DD1869 Mrs A Metcalfe DD1871 P Metcalfe DD1873 E M Connolly DD1875 P J Connolly DD1877 M Dixon DD1879 S I Dixon DD1881 F E Genaway DD1883 K J Beasley DD1886 A Stewart DD2067 L Teff DD2069 D A Willett DD2071 A F Green DD2073 J Coe DD2075 Mrs E Coe DD2077 Mrs S B Green DD2079 H Magee-Brown DD2081 M Magee-Brown DD2083 Miss E Mikati DD2085 Mr & Mrs V Dudley DD2092 M J Frost DD2847 Mr & Mrs A Roberts DD2869 Cllr J Puddefoot DD2875 Cllr P Vernon DD2913 D McMahon DD5813 Lady Stanier DD5816 Sir Bevvile Stanier

DD5831 D H Spencer DD5833 H Boyett DD5835 Mrs J Spencer DD5837 Mr J Boyett DD5857 Mrs A Graham DD5859 Dr G R Graham DD5881 B & M Hobbs DD5883 Mrs E M Hayward DD5885 F A Hayward DD5887 M & B Hobbs DD5897 M Tubb DD5916 G J Stewart DD5937 A R Willis DD5938 P Willis DD5951 A J Osterberg DD5953 Gp Cpt R D Osterberg DD5956 Mrs J D Osterberg DD5959 I A Osterberg DD5961 N P Fobister DD5963 Mrs J A Fobister DD6010 Mrs S Teff DD6016 Miss K G Webb DD6115 Mrs V Stewart DD6118 L Stewart DD6469 W W H Carlyle DD6528 S R Short DD6530 Mrs B Short DD6532 V Shaghaghi DD6534 Mrs M E Shaghaghi DD6536 J Hoskins DD6538 M L Walker DD6540 Mr & Mrs Stewart DD6542 M Groundes-Peace DD6596 Stoke Mandeville Parish

Council DD6693 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6727 Waddesdon Estate DD6772 National Trust DD6909 Mr & Mrs N J Clark DD7356 E Moss DD7358 R Scott DD7360 R Scott DD7362 Z Scott DD7364 L Scott DD7366 E C Roff DD7368 K Barter DD7370 G Barter DD7572 P Lemagnen DD7595 Newton Longville Parish

Council DD7609 J Cox DD7736 Mrs C Paternoster DD7754 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0605 Howard Hutton &

Associates DD1083 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD1290 All Souls College

DD1423 Bierton with Broughton Parish Council

DD1854 J Baker DD1956 Wendover Parish Council DD2473 Wendover Society

92


DD6252 Hunting Gate Homes Ltd DD6472 W W H Carlyle DD6847 Dunlin Ltd DD7002 Mr & Mrs J P Chantler DD7289 GOSE DD0020 S Hatton DD0119 Mrs L Robinson DD0794 Mr & Mrs I Gibson DD0798 K W Miller DD0974 Mrs V L Miller DD1336 B & S A Robson DD1421 Bierton with Broughton

Parish Council DD1545 I Pleeth DD1547 M Ford DD1632 Bierton & Broughton

Action Group DD1803 R E Cochrane DD1807 Mrs H Cochrane DD2255 Mrs S Banks DD2407 Hulcott Parish Council DD2848 A Roberts DD2894 Mr & Mrs N J Clark DD5614 Mrs J Burton DD5665 Mrs J W Wooding DD5898 Mark Tubb DD5971 R C Davis DD5972 Mrs D C Davis DD5991 C Tyrrell DD6470 W W H Carlyle DD6801 J Mitchell DD6808 J E Mitchell DD6910 Mr & Mrs N J Clark DD7003 Mr & Mrs J P Chantler DD7737 Mrs C Paternoster DD7755 Buckland Parish Council DD7561 Aylesbury College DD1818 Mr & Mrs F McKenna DD2152 David Wilson Estates Ltd

DD2304 Trustees of W T Bell DD2315 BG plc, Property Division DD4336 Milton Keynes Council DD6663 Watermead Homes Ltd DD6664 Watermead Homes Ltd DD0604 Howard Hutton &

Associates DD0606 Howard Hutton &

Associates DD0663 HBF DD0697 E G Clarke DD1082 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD1289 All Souls College DD1955 Wendover Parish Council DD2180 Alfred McAlpine

Developments Ltd DD2474 Wendover Society DD2475 Wendover Society DD2709 Banner Homes Ltd DD2947 N MacKenzie DD5603 Mrs J Eldon DD6129 Mr & Mrs F McKenna DD6201 Waddesdon Parish

Council DD6253 Hunting Gate Homes Ltd DD6328 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6329 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6672 Crest Strategic Projects DD6838 City & St James Property DD6953 Bryant Homes Ltd DD7099 Armstrong, Collier, Evett,

French & Lowe DD7181 Bellway Homes & Bryant

Homes DD7182 Bryant Homes Ltd DD7427 Laing Homes Strategic

Land DD7562 Aylesbury College DD7723 Bucks County Council

Objectors to Proposed Changes (PC 10.3 and 10.4): CO0053 Mrs H M Hyre CO0111 K W Millar CO0126 Hulcott Parish Council CO0129 Bierton with Broughton

Parish Council CO0131 Mr & Mrs Chantler CO0139 Milton Keynes Council CO0140 Milton Keynes Council

CO0142 Mr I Pleeth CO0143 Mrs M Pleeth CO0145 Bierton with Broughton

Parish Council CO0206 Hives Partnership CO0208 Hives Partnership CO0234 Bryant Homes Technical

Services Ltd

Principal Issues: 11.3.1 Whether RA2 amounted to an instruction rather than a policy.

11.3.2 Whether the introductory words to RA.2 should be omitted.

11.3.3 Whether RA.2 and RA.3 were too restrictive and should not rule out the development of land without designation on the Proposals Map.

11.3.4 Whether RA.2a) should be qualified by reference to the loss of identities of neighbouring settlements.

93


11.3.5 Whether RA.2 was contrary to PPG7.

11.3.6 Whether RA.2 should be replaced by structure plan policy H3(d).

11.3.7 Whether RA.2 would prejudice the viability of Hamden Hall for educational purposes.

11.3.8 Whether there should be a strategic gap between Stoke Mandeville and Aylesbury.

11.3.9 Whether significant should be deleted from RA.2.

11.3.10 Whether RA.2 should be reworded to avoid confusion with Green Belt policy.

11.3.11 Whether paragraph 10.7 concealed a policy.

11.3.12 Whether RA.3 was repetitive and unnecessary.

11.3.13 Whether significantly should be deleted from RA.3.

11.3.14 Whether RA.3 would weaken RA.2.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: Policy RA.2 11.3.15 Various changes were proposed to paragraph 10.7 and policy RA.3, and a new paragraph

was proposed. There were also revisions to the definition of the newly titled Local Green Gaps. Several objections concerned specific Gaps; I deal with these together with other similar objections in the Rural Areas – Counter Proposals chapter of my Report. In this section I consider the generality of RA.2 and RA.3 and the substance of the policies.

11.3.16 The first question that arises is what is the point of policy RA.2? According to paragraph 10.6 it is to protect the identity of neighbouring settlements or communities by avoiding the development of the countryside between them. It also seeks to prevent further linkage between settlements already joined by development, which might result in harm to the separate character or identity of the communities.

11.3.17 If the objective of RA.2 is to protect the countryside between settlements, policy RA.1 would do the job just as well. If it is to protect the separate character or identity of Buckingham or Aylesbury I think it is of no great value because development adjacent to these locations would simply be perceived as a further extension of the suburban outskirts of the towns without any significant impact on their character. So, on those scores I see no serious planning purpose in RA.2.

11.3.18 If, however, the aim is to safeguard the identity of small settlements in danger of being consumed by urban sprawl then, despite the fact that no assessment appears to have been made of the characteristics of the villages concerned, it strikes me as a potentially valid planning interest. But this does not require any special designation on the Proposals Map, especially because there are only limited instances where it might occur. What is required is a clearly worded policy that could, in conjunction with the countryside protection policy, be applied robustly and understood with certainty.

Paragraph 10.7 and Policy RA.3 11.3.19 Paragraph 10.7 and RA.3 develop the principle of RA.2 in relation to specific locations

where the aim explained in the reasoned justification is to provide stronger protection against development pressures and avoid settlement coalescence. At this point things start to unravel because the concept of Strategic Gaps or Local Green Gaps is introduced.

11.3.20 As all the land within the defined Gaps (which in some cases are not gaps at all but expansive tracts of farmland) is countryside of one form or another, RA.1 would again

94


provide an effective means of control. The wording of RA.2 could also be readily adapted to resist development with coalescent tendencies and RA.3 would then be redundant.

11.3.21 This may appear a simplistic way of achieving the policies’ objectives but it is a sound and uncomplicated method of regulating development that might be regarded as having undesirable effects on countryside and rural interests. And, the underlying objectives would be more easily understood by readers of the Plan and provide less scope for unprofitable arguments about whether gaps were gaps, and/or not countryside etc.

11.3.22 The alternative of retaining RA.3 would seek to confer some policy respectability on a designation that would add not one jot of authority to the Plan. Strategic Gap policies were notions developed to replicate green belt policies in areas without green belts and they are a non-statutory designation that is expressly contrary to national guidance in PPG7. They are usually unhelpful in practice because, in apparently elevating the policy status of the areas defined, undesignated locations on the edge of built-up areas can be devalued and left susceptible to arguments that their development would not have coalescent propensities. RA.3 has a particular disadvantage of not being clear about quite what interest is involved – the open character of the gaps or the avoidance of sprawl.

11.3.23 The Council should not conclude that I suggest the Plan should be weakened in some way by the exclusion of RA.3. But I can see no reason why firm development control by the Council under RA.1 and RA.2 could not provide the rural protection required and I strongly believe that the Plan would be discredited by the retention of RA.3 and the designated Gaps. If, contrary to my recommendation, RA.3 is retained it needs recasting because the wording is imprecise and the syntax confused.

Recommendation: 11.3.24 I recommend that:


Other than for specific proposals and land allocations in the Local Plan, new development in the countryside should avoid reducing open land that contributes to the form and character of rural settlements.

In considering applications for building in rural areas the Council will have regard to the desirability of maintaining the individual identity of villages and avoiding extensions to built-up areas that might lead to coalescence between settlements.

11.3.26 The Plan be modified by the deletion of policy RA.3.

11.3.27 Paragraph 10.7 precedes policy RA.2 and is modified in accordance with PC 10.3, but omitting the last sentence.

11.3.28 I suggest that if policy RA.3 is retained it be modified by rewording as follows:

The Proposals Map defines land adjacent to towns that it is important to keep free from building in order to protect the rural characteristics of the countryside between urban zones and villages. The Council will resist development that increases the built-up appearance of these areas and harms their separating function.

95


CURTILAGE EXTENSIONS 11.4 Policy RA.4

Supporters: DD1969 Wendover Parish Council DD6800 Mrs J Mitchell DD6806 J E Mitchell

DD7596 Newton Longville Parish Council

DD7738 Mrs C Paternoster DD7756 Buckland Parish Council

Objector: DD0607 Howard Hutton & Associates

Principal Issues: 11.4.1 Whether the policy wording was contradictory.

11.4.2 Whether Broughton Stocklake MDA conflicted with RA.4.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.4.3 The Change proposed to meet the first objection makes the policy rather less clear. In the

DDLP version RA.4 applied to the extension of curtilages into and having a material impact on the appearance of the countryside. The revised wording would apply to extensions into or materially affecting the countryside. The second of these categories is difficult to define.

11.4.4 Policies RA.1 and RA.2 (and if retained RA.3) could be seen as effective means of controlling changes of use in rural locations, but I accept that the subject and context of RA.4 is slightly different (and would not relate to the Broughton Stocklake MDA, which was introduced by supporting remarks). I think the policy purpose can be met more effectively with another form of words.

Recommendation: 11.4.5 I recommend that policy RA.4 be modified by rewording as follows:

Proposals for the extension of residential and other developed curtilages beyond the built-up area of settlements that would adversely affect the character and appearance of rural areas will be resisted. Where such proposals are permitted, planning conditions may be imposed to regulate the use of the land and any associated building development.

COUNTRYSIDE RECREATION 11.5 Policy RA.5

Supporters: DD2024 D Lowe DD2680 Chiltern Society DD7155 Environment Agency DD7739 Mrs C Paternoster DD7757 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0758 MAFF DD6695 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6729 Waddesdon Estate DD6774 National Trust

96


Principal Issues: 11.5.1 Whether RA.5 should include protection of the best agricultural land.

11.5.2 Whether RA.5 should indicate the suitability of land at Nash for moto-cross.

11.5.3 Whether RA.5 should cross-refer to RA.1 and GP.59.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.5.4 A Change was proposed to include a criterion for agricultural land quality. I agree with

the Council that the cross-references are not necessary. The location-specific objection is not a matter for this Plan-wide policy. I think that this criteria-based statement could be put more simply. It should not include the reference to uses appropriate to a countryside setting, because it is not clear what they might be and the policy criteria should apply to all rural recreation schemes.


In considering proposals for the recreational use of land outside the built-up areas of settlements the Council will have particular regard to:

a) the visual effect of car parking and access roads;

b) the siting and design of any associated buildings;

c) the accessibility of the site, including public transport links and walking or cycling networks; and

e) agricultural land quality and the effect on land drainage.

GOLF COURSES 11.6 Policy RA.6

Supporters: DD2681 Chiltern Society DD7688 Mrs C Paternoster DD7695 Buckland Parish Council

Objector: DD7186 NFU

Principal Issue: 11.6.1 Whether only exceptionally ought to be deleted from the policy and paragraph 10.13.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.6.2 I see no case for an embargo on golf courses without demonstrable evidence that they

impair the landscape or other planning interests, which will not be clear until applications are considered. The potential to cause harm is not a sound policy reason for allowing golf courses only on an exceptional basis nor, of itself, would a numerical sufficiency of golfing facilities be a proper reason for refusing permission. The location of existing courses might be a relevant criterion in the determination of new proposals and could be added to RA.7.

97


Recommendation: 11.6.3 I recommend that the Plan be modified by the deletion of policy RA.6.

11.7 Policy RA.7 Supporters:

DD7834 Mrs C Paternoster DD7860 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD2115 Liscombe Holdings Plc DD2885 P Cleasby DD7156 Environment Agency DD7776 MAFF

Principal Issues: 11.7.1 Whether the policy should include other sports and recreations, and appropriate uses.

11.7.2 Whether criterion d) should include the avoidance of light pollution.

11.7.3 Whether the policy should require details of drainage and water abstraction or irrigation and refer to natural features and wildlife corridors.

11.7.4 Whether the policy should include protection of the best agricultural land.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.7.5 RA.7 is a long and complicated policy that begs the question why more of its criteria do

not apply to proposals considered under RA.5. It seeks to protect many interests safeguarded in various General Policies. It also introduces mini-tests within the criteria, like excessive traffic in c), the amenity value of rights of way in g) and farm structures in j). A Change is proposed to simplify the last section, but in my view it does not create an easy working policy or correct its inconsistencies. For example, it would seem from a) that golf courses that damage undesignated landscapes are acceptable. Other sections could create similar misunderstandings. I agree with the Council that the other requested criteria would not improve this topic-specific statement but I consider that RA.7 ought to be condensed and concentrate on the key topic areas likely to arise in golf course applications.


In considering proposals for new golf courses the Council will have particular regard to:

a) the effect on the landscape, the natural environment and wildlife;

b) the accessibility of the site and the suitability of the rural road network;

c) public rights of way affected by the development;

d) the effect on farming processes and the need to adopt a sequential approach to agricultural land-take;

e) the desirability of restricting new building development and using existing buildings for purposes directly related to the golfing project; and

98


f) the availability of other golfing facilities.

Planning permissions may be subject to conditions, or obligations may be sought, to regulate the use and timing of construction of any buildings permitted in association with the golf course.

METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT 11.8 Paragraph 10.14

Supporter: DD2476 Wendover Society

Objector: DD2778 C Cumming

Principal Issue: 11.8.1 Whether the Plan should promote new areas of Green Belt.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.8.2 As the Council notes, Green Belts are normally approved through the Structure Plan

mechanism, and I am not aware of any special circumstances that justify altering the existing boundaries of the Green Belt within the District.

Recommendation: 11.8.3 I recommend that no modification be made in response to this objection.

CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT 11.9 Policy RA.8

Supporters: DD1968 Wendover Parish Council DD2138 CLA DD2477 Wendover Society

DD2677 Chiltern Society DD7835 Mrs C Paternoster DD7861 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD4345 Chiltern District Council DD7187 NFU

Principal Issues: 11.9.1 Whether the policy should include other criteria contained in revised PPG2.

11.9.2 Whether the policy should be more flexible in relation to alternative uses of modern farm buildings.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.9.3 Minor Changes were put forward to adjust RA.8 but, as proposed, it would not strictly

reflect national planning policy in the Green Belt. This may be a matter of semantics, but it would be better to be as accurate as possible. Paragraph 10.16 should also come before RA.8 so that the references in paragraph 3.4 of PPG2 omitted from the policy are understood. I do not see that RA.8 takes an inflexible line with modern farm structures, and there is a dedicated policy later on the re-use of buildings in the countryside.

99




Within the Metropolitan Green Belt there is a presumption against new building development except for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, cemeteries and other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

The re-use of buildings of permanent and substantial construction may be permitted where there is no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the form, bulk and design of any conversion is in keeping with the surroundings and does not involve major or complete reconstruction.

Permission for the re-use of such buildings may include conditions regulating further building extensions, and the use of land associated with the building.

11.9.6 Paragraph 10.16 precedes policy RA.8.

SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS 11.10 Paragraph 10.19

Objector: DD2923 M George

Principal Issue: 11.10.1 Whether the policy should encourage the development of small sustainable schemes to

benefit local rural economies and achieve sustainable biodiversity.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.10.2 I cannot see that paragraph 10.19 prevents this from happening, but it is not the

appropriate place for such a policy to be introduced.

Recommendation: 11.10.3 I recommend that no modification be made in response to this objection.

THE CHILTERNS AREA OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY 11.11 Policy RA.9

Supporters: DD1967 Wendover Parish Council DD6696 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6730 Waddesdon Estate

DD6775 National Trust DD7836 Mrs C Paternoster DD7862 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0664 HBF DD0759 MAFF DD1287 Rural Development Commission DD4348 Chiltern District Council DD6885 J J Gallagher Ltd

100


Principal Issues: 11.11.1 Whether RA.9 should be distinguished in importance from RA.10 and RA.11.

11.11.2 Whether the policy would prevent reasonably necessary agricultural development.

11.11.3 Whether adversely should precede affect.

11.11.4 Whether the meaning of enjoyment was clear.

11.11.5 Whether the policy should take account of ‘the needs of agriculture, forestry, other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of the communities’.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.11.6 With regards to the first objection, the objective of RA.9 is to safeguard a national

planning interest endorsed by the Secretary of State and, on that score, I see no need for its weight in the Plan to be altered. PPG7 records that the primary objective is conservation of the natural beauty of the Area, and the first part of RA.9 addresses this point. It then goes on to embrace other considerations – nature conservation and amenity value - on which PPG7 is silent. I accept that the amenity value of the AONB is a relevant issue. However, whilst nature conservation may be a beneficial consequence of restricting development in order to protect the natural features of the landscape, I am not persuaded that it is an appropriate purpose of the AONB.

11.11.7 It is quite possible that the priority of landscape protection could be a more important consideration than the needs of agricultural development (and other rural industries), but that would depend upon the circumstances of the case and the policy itself does not proscribe requisite farm buildings. I consider that it is not the function of this policy to promote the economic and social wellbeing of AONBs, although such factors might be material considerations in the determination of applications in designated areas.

11.11.8 A Change was proposed to meet the third point and introduce other modifications. I do not think that these improve RA.9. The question of the word enjoyment is potentially difficult and has led to unhelpful planning disputes and arguments in the past, especially in National Parks. My inclination would be to omit the word and recast the sentence. I suggest that this be done along with other minor revisions.


In the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty priority will be given to the conservation of the natural beauty of the designated area. In considering proposals within the AONB the Council will pay special attention to the amenity value of its scenic beauty and natural features. Development that adversely affects these characteristics will be resisted and major industrial or commercial development is unlikely to be permitted.

AREAS OF ATTRACTIVE LANDSCAPE 11.12 Policy RA.10

Supporters: DD1966 Wendover Parish Council DD7837 Mrs C Paternoster DD7863 Buckland Parish Council

101


Objectors: DD0760 MAFF DD2922 M George DD4330 Cala Homes (South) Ltd DD4385 English Sports Council DD6266 Royal Ordnance plc DD6698 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6732 Waddesdon Estate DD6886 J J Gallagher Ltd * objection withdrawn

DD6887 J J Gallagher Ltd DD6888 J J Gallagher Ltd DD6889 J J Gallagher Ltd DD6890 J J Gallagher Ltd DD7290 GOSE DD7603* Templeview

Developments Ltd DD7774 HBF

Principal Issues: 11.12.1 Whether the policy would prevent reasonably necessary agricultural development.

11.12.2 Whether the policy was no more than an attempt to appease the majority.

11.12.3 Whether the policy was too rigid.

11.12.4 Whether the policy should be supported by information about the special characteristics of the designated areas and their application to the countryside.

11.12.5 Whether land at Fenny Stratford, Stoke Hammond and Westcott should be deleted from the AAL.

11.12.6 Whether the policy should also apply to development close to AALs.

11.12.7 Whether RA.10 should be distinguished in importance from RA.9 and RA.11.

11.12.8 Whether the policy duplicated RA.1 and was contrary to PPG7.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.12.9 PPG7 indicates that development plans should state what it is in local countryside

designations like AALs that require extra protection, and why. The Plan fails to do this. It simply says that AALs are identified in the CSP as important landscape areas that demand a high level of protection. In my view this is not good enough. If there is to be an additional layer of development prohibition – which is what RA.10 is all about – then the Plan must make it clear to people why this is necessary and what characteristics are to be protected.

11.12.10 I am strongly against arbitrary designations in local plans because from long experience I am convinced that they do not assist or enhance the control of development. If implemented correctly, policy RA.1 provides ample protection for the countryside, whatever its landscape quality. In the Green Belt and AONB, RA.8 and RA.9 safeguard the identified interests of openness and scenic beauty of these nationally recognised designations. But RA.10 introduces a subjective test based on a survey of 20 years ago with no apparent formal assessment of the qualities of the countryside affected. By its wording it equates AALs with the AONB.

11.12.11 This is not good planning practice. It weakens RA.9 and the AONB protection. And, like the Strategic (Local Green) Gap policy, it opens the door to arguments that in non-AAL zones a lesser standard of care and protection is acceptable. The Council is then left with no policy defence mechanism in these sectors. If the Council applies reasonable and robust countryside protection principles under RA.1, secondary landscape policies are unnecessary. I have no hesitation in recommending the deletion of RA.10. Its retention can only be justified if the Plan can provide a proper explanation of its objectives and the special character, etc, referred to. And this will need to be

102


considerably more than mere subjective comments concerning relative ‘attractiveness’, or indeed unquestioning reliance on work undertaken for the RALP.

11.12.12 I recognise that with the level of local support, there will be pressure for RA.10 to be retained in the Plan. I also understand that a County-wide landscape assessment is being undertaken as part of the CSP Review process, and that SPG may be produced to augment District-wide landscape policies. However, the completion of that work still seams to be some way off. In the longer-term RA.10’s fate may be sealed by the inclusion, omission (or even, possibly, the recommended deletion by the EiP panel) of a parent policy in the Reviewed CSP comparable to LS3 in the current SP. Meantime, I need to deal with the outstanding points raised by objectors.

11.12.13 Various Changes were proposed which, in my view complicate the policy. My comments about landscape priority and agricultural development in connection with RA.9 apply. I agree with the Council that AAL boundaries should not be altered or exclusions made without a detailed re-assessment of the areas. I am not persuaded that the policy should apply to development outside AALs - if the Council could show reasons for refusing permission because of external impact on an AAL its proximity would be a material consideration. My remarks about nature conservation and enjoyment in RA.9 are relevant.



11.12.16 I (reluctantly) suggest that if policy RA.10 is retained it be modified by rewording as follows:

The Plan identifies Areas of Attractive Landscape where the Council will pay particular attention to the protection of the landscape features that provide each area with its individual character. Proposals should respect these characteristics, for which the Council will have regard in deciding planning applications, and development that adversely affects the amenity value of the special landscape qualities will be permitted only exceptionally. Where permission is granted the Council may impose conditions or seek planning obligations to ensure satisfactory mitigation of any harm caused to the landscape interest.

LOCAL LANDSCAPE AREAS 11.13 Policy RA.11

Supporters: DD2678 Chiltern Society DD6697 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6731 Waddesdon Estate DD6777 National Trust

DD6832 Miss D Haynes DD7689 Mrs C Paternoster DD7696 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0761 MAFF DD2025 D Lowe DD2026 D Lowe DD4337 Milton Keynes Council DD6891 J J Gallagher Ltd DD6892 J J Gallagher Ltd

DD6893 J J Gallagher Ltd DD6894 J J Gallagher Ltd DD7291 GOSE DD7775 HBF DD7815 English Sports Council

103


Principal Issues: 11.13.1 Whether the policy was more stringent than RA.9 and could prejudice necessary

agricultural development.

11.13.2 Whether the LLA designation on land at Nash should be deleted.

11.13.3 Whether the identical protection of RA.11 and RA.10 was contrary to PPG7.

11.13.4 Whether the policy should be supported by information about the special characteristics of the designated areas and their application to the countryside.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.13.5 The Council proposed a Change to delete RA.11 and incorporate it within an amended

version of RA.10. I support this deletion, principally for the reasons explained in my commentary on RA.10 above, and also because there is even less evidence of any forensic justification for the LLAs than the AALs. As the Council will surmise, I do not support the proposed reference to the LLAs in RA.10, but if it is included I cannot see that it makes any great difference to the limited value of either policy. I remain firmly of the view that both should be deleted.

11.13.6 In relation to the land at Nash, the generality of RA.11 is not the place to make individual boundary adjustments.

Recommendation: 11.13.7 I recommend that the Plan be modified by the deletion of policy RA.11.

11.13.8 I (very reluctantly) suggest that if policy RA.10 is retained as recommended above, it be further modified by the addition of ‘and Local Landscape Areas’ after ‘Areas of Attractive Landscape’.

11.14 SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS Inspector's Note

11.14.1 My recommendation that policies RA.10 and RA.11 be deleted will necessitate modifications to both headings and supporting text throughout the Rural Areas chapter and other parts of the Plan. Given the unquestionable legitimacy of the AONB, I suggest that AONB be substituted for special landscape areas throughout.

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY AGRICULTURAL LAND


DD0376 J & E Landon DD1118 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD5763 J M Loveday DD6699 Historic House Hotels Ltd

DD6733 Waddesdon Estate DD6778 National Trust DD7838 Mrs C Paternoster DD7864 Buckland Parish Council


Associates DD0762 MAFF DD1949 Taywood Homes

104


DD2374 McCann Homes DD2478* Wendover Society DD2701 Friends of the Vale of

Aylesbury DD4249 Haddenham Protection

Society

DD4300 Hawes & Webb DD6895* J J Gallagher Ltd

* objection withdrawn

Supporters of Proposed Change (PC 10.14): CO0006 MAFF CO0045 Howard Hutton & Associates

Principal Issues: 11.15.1 Whether the policy distinguished sufficiently between different grades of agricultural

land.

11.15.2 Whether RA.12 should be a General Policy and adopt a sequential approach of ‘worst-first’.

11.15.3 Whether the policy should permit the development of agricultural land in order to achieve other main objectives of the Plan.

11.15.4 Whether the presumption against the loss of agricultural land was outmoded.

11.15.5 Whether the policy should protect farm viability.

11.15.6 Whether the policy should clarify that agricultural land quality was only one criterion on the development scales.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.15.7 The Council proposed a Change to include a sequential approach to the selection of

agricultural land for development. This seems to me reasonable, particularly with the restated emphasis against greenfield development in revised paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 of PPG7. However, the policy should not be absolutely prescriptive because there may be occasions when the protection of very small areas of b&mv land does not make sense. Moreover, the wording of RA.12 as proposed to be changed raises a number of imponderable factors like alternative sites and need; it would be better invested with more certainty.

11.15.8 I agree with the Council that it is unnecessary to relocate RA.12, which will apply to all proposals affecting good farmland. The allocation of agricultural land for other non-agricultural purposes in the Plan is one of the difficult but necessary choices, and I see no need for RA.12 to refer to areas where such development will occur as a matter of policy.

11.15.9 I disagree with the objection suggesting that in this time of quotas and set-aside it is unnecessary to conserve agricultural resources. The best farmland is a national asset that it is Government policy to protect and the Local Plan properly reflects this priority. Farm viability may well be a consideration in individual cases that come before the Council, but I am not persuaded that it represents a significant issue justifying a separate policy reference. Likewise, I do not consider that the policy has to explain that its objective is but one of the sieves though which relevant proposals must pass.

11.15.10 I think that RA.12 could be simplified for easier understanding and implementation without loss of force, and I recommend below how this could be achieved.

105



In considering planning applications the Council will have regard to the need to conserve the best and most versatile farmland, where permission will not be granted without an assessment of alternative sites on previously developed land and land in urban areas. Development proposals should avoid using good farmland as far as possible and will be expected to observe a sequential approach using lower grades of agricultural land in preference to better grades.

AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS 11.16 Policy RA.13

Supporters: DD2408 Hulcott Parish Council DD7839 Mrs C Paternoster DD7865 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0762 MAFF DD7188 NFU

Principal Issue: 11.16.1 Whether the criticism of farm buildings in paragraph 10.30 was unreasonable.

11.16.2 Whether the policy was too restrictive and should take more account of farming needs.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.16.3 The opening sentences of paragraph 10.30 seem to me a fair commentary on agricultural

structures in rural situations. A short Change was proposed to meet part of the second objection. I have no comments.

Recommendation: 11.16.4 I recommend that policy RA.13 be modified in accordance with PC 10.15

INTENSIVE FARMING 11.17 Policy RA.14

Supporters: DD2682 Chiltern Society DD7840 Mrs C Paternoster DD7866 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0609 Howard Hutton & Associates DD0763 MAFF DD7189 NFU DD7292 GOSE

Supporter of Proposed Change (PC 10.16): CO0007 MAFF

106


Principal Issues: 11.17.1 Whether the policy was unduly restrictive and should be less prescriptive, and if b) was

redundant.

11.17.2 Whether the policy duplicated policies RA.9 - RA.11 and would prejudice legitimate food producing activities.

11.17.3 Whether the policy would discourage agricultural development.

11.17.4 Whether the policy was contrary to PPG7.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.17.5 The Council proposed to delete the title of this section and move paragraph 10.32 and the

margin note above RA.13. I see no objection to the principle of a policy that seeks to avoid foreseeable damage to the rural landscape by large buildings, whether or not they house animals. If these structures are a live issue in an agrarian district like Aylesbury Vale it is right that the Plan should address it rather than rely on control through other policies.

11.17.6 I do not see that RA.14 would be inimical to agricultural production although it is possible that some large farm buildings might not be permitted in their preferred locations. This would be a matter of weighing the importance of farming interests and protective objectives for landscape and residential amenity when applications were considered.

11.17.7 I do not accept that the Government Office point is simplistic, as suggested by the Council. The AONB is a national designation made after a detailed public assessment of its merits and boundaries. The AALs and LLAs have not been validated in the same careful way and there is no evidence (in the Plan, at least) that their characteristics are more significant considerations than the scale of some types of buildings customarily found in the countryside.

11.17.8 I am puzzled by b) of the policy because this merely rehearses the opportunities available to the Council under secondary legislation and does not need to be stated as policy. Any details submitted would be considered under the criteria of RA.13. Some re-phrasing of the reasoned justification, the margin note and RA.14 is desirable to provide clarity and flexibility and meet the key policy aims.


11.17.10 Paragraph 10.32 be deleted and text along the following lines be added to the end of paragraph 10.30:

Some agricultural activities involve large-scale buildings that can be intrusive in the countryside and create difficulties for residential occupiers because of noise and smells. Such buildings are not usually appropriate in the most sensitive rural landscapes, or close to built-up areas or dwellings.

11.17.11 The margin note and heading ‘Intensive Farming’ be deleted.


Permission will not be granted for large-scale farm buildings, unconnected with the agricultural use of a substantial area of adjoining open land, that adversely affect the natural beauty of the AONB.

107


Permission may not be granted for large farm buildings in locations close to built-up areas where proper consideration is not shown for the residential amenities of nearby occupiers.

11.17.13 I suggest that if, contrary to my recommendation, policies RA.10 and RA.11 are retained, my above recommended policy be further modified by the inclusion of in AALs and LLAs where the special landscape characteristics of the setting are not respected, or following farm buildings in the second paragraph.

Inspector’s Note 11.17.14 It will be apparent that in practice there is very little difference between the objectives of

policies RA.13 and RA.14. In the interests of brevity I suggest that they be combined.

RE-USE OF BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE 11.18 Paragraphs 10.36 and 10.39 – 10.42

Objectors: DD2607-08 A C Hoy DD0610-13 Howard Hutton & Associates

Principal Issues: 11.18.1 Whether the last sentence of paragraph 10.36, and the first part of the second sentence of

paragraph 10.39, should be deleted.

11.18.2 Whether paragraphs 10.39 – 10.42 concealed policies.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.18.3 These are speculative observations that may or may not be correct but I think that they do

not impair the Plan.

11.18.4 I consider that readers would not be misled by the grain of the justification preceding policies RA.15 and RA.16. The point could probably be met by replacing will with may in appropriate places, but I am not persuaded that this is a fundamental fault.

Recommendation: 11.18.5 I recommend that no modification be made in response to these objections.

11.19 Policies RA.15 and RA.16 Supporters:

DD0752 MAFF DD1265 Rural Development

Commission DD2409 Hulcott Parish Council DD6700 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6734 Waddesdon Estate

DD6779 National Trust DD7690 Mrs C Paternoster DD7697 Buckland Parish Council DD7841 Mrs C Paternoster DD7867 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0051* British Horse Society DD0103 B & E Banfield DD0534 Southern Arts DD1324 British

Telecommunications plc

DD1572 M Edmonds DD1574 M Edmonds DD2116 Liscombe Holdings Plc DD2609 A C Hoy DD2610 A C Hoy

108


DD2851 DC & Mrs GE Rambridge DD4266 Dinton with Ford & Upton

Parish Council DD5809 Jennifer Lampert DD6233 Hives Partnership DD6337 Faulkners DD6396 Molyneux Planning DD6561 Carrington Estates

DD6578 L E Smith DD6590 J Howarth Esq DD7157 Environment Agency DD7190 NFU DD7592 FPD Savills DD7808 DC & Mrs GE Rambridge

*objection withdrawn

Principal Issues: Policy RA.15 11.19.1 Whether the criteria should include provision for nesting sites and roosts.

11.19.2 Whether the criteria should provide for special needs and abilities.

11.19.3 Whether RA.15 should include uses by artists and craftspeople.

11.19.4 Whether RA.15 should not prefer employment to residential conversions.

11.19.5 Whether d) would be unnecessarily demanding.

11.19.6 Whether g) should allow building conversions, including surplus telephone exchanges, to residential use.

11.19.7 Whether the test of a) was too rigorous.

11.19.8 Whether g) should include lack of commercial viability.

11.19.9 Whether c) should refer to town and village vitality.

11.19.10 Whether g) was contrary to PPG7.

11.19.11 Whether RA.15 was excessive and went beyond national guidance.

11.19.12 Whether RA.15 or another policy should include provision for redundant quarantine kennels.

Policy RA.16 11.19.13 Whether RA.16 conflicted with GP.132, which should be accorded priority.

11.19.14 Whether RA.16 should make allowance for the use of former dwellings to be restored.

11.19.15 Whether RA.16 was contrary to natural justice and prejudiced the development of premises at Tingewick.

11.19.16 Whether RA.16 ignored the beneficial effects of redeveloping old farm buildings.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: Policy RA.15 11.19.17 In relation to the objections to RA.15 I agree with the Council that the needs of wildlife

are dealt with under other policies and do not require separate reference here. The question of the suitability of conversions for people of different abilities is, as noted in other respects, not a matter with which planning is directly involved. The policy does not preclude uses by craft workers.

11.19.18 As to the policy criteria, I do not agree that a) ought to be a determining factor. I understand the Council’s point, but it is possible that an ugly building with many years to stand could be improved by alterations related to its re-use.

109


11.19.19 Criterion c) reflects paragraph 3.14(b) of PPG7. It would be ill considered to operate a re-use policy in contradiction to the settlement strategy. I think that d) is not unreasonable although it ought to be adjusted to avoid the impression that a lower standard of design would be appropriate in non-designated landscape areas.

11.19.20 RA.15f) introduces a series of detailed tests that can be comfortably left to other policies in the Plan. As one of the objectives is to reinforce the economic base of rural areas I agree that the policy should give preference to non-residential uses, although I am satisfied that it is unnecessary to refer to specific buildings to which it would apply.

11.19.21 Overall I consider that RA.15 is a sound policy, but I would suggest recasting it more succinctly for ease of understanding and implementation.

Policy RA.16 11.19.22 In my view there is no conflict with GP.132, although that might prove to be a relevant

policy in any redevelopment proposal. Similarly a previous residential use might be a factor in considering rebuilding for residential purposes, but in the light of the settlement policy it would not be correct for the earlier use to be accorded special significance.

11.19.23 There is an element of pre-judgement in RA.16 and it would be better to use a word like resist rather than not permit. Once again, there should be no explicit references to locations or classes of buildings.

11.19.24 I realise that the aim of RA.16 is to avert abuses of the system that might lead to inappropriate buildings in the countryside, but it raises certain questions of principle. Presumably, the Council would resist the redevelopment of most rural buildings, whether or not they had been previously used for other purposes. So it is not clear to me why there should be a stronger objection to the demolition and rebuilding of a building in the countryside for which permission might have been given under RA.15. I accept that applicants ought to be aware of the Council’s approach, but query whether this justifies a separate policy expression. There seems to me greater merit in linking the point directly to RA.15.



Outside the built-up area of settlements, the Council endorses the conservation and re-use of buildings that are of permanent and substantial construction and generally in keeping with the rural surroundings, for non-residential purposes that fortify the rural economy.

The scale of such schemes should not conflict with the strategy of concentrating development in the main settlements. Conversion works should not involve major reconstruction or significant extensions and should respect the character of the building and its setting.

Proposals should not give rise to other planning objections. Permission for residential re-use is unlikely but may be granted exceptionally as part of an acceptable business conversion scheme, or where genuine attempts to secure business re-use have been unsuccessful. Any subsequent redevelopment proposals will be judged by other relevant policies in the Local Plan.


110


HOUSING 11.20 Paragraph 10.43

Inspector’s Note 11.20.1 There is no paragraph 10.43 (but there are two paragraphs 10.44). No doubt the Council

will find a solution to this conundrum.


DD0107 Pitstone Parish Council DD1271 Rural Development

Commission DD2886 P Cleasby DD6701 Historic House Hotels Ltd

DD6735 Waddesdon Estate DD6780 National Trust DD7842 Mrs C Paternoster DD7868 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD2197 Greg Bacon, Eastern Generation DD2852 DC & Mrs GE Rambridge DD6229 Hives Partnership

Principal Issues: 11.21.1 Whether the policy should include exceptional provision for redundant quarantine

kennels.

11.21.2 Whether replacement farmhouses should be mentioned as a special case.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.21.3 I do not regard the circumstances of the first objection as sufficiently important to justify

a separate policy reference. The last sentence provides flexibility for the Council to deal with the second point. It will all come down to a matter of the weight of the respective factors.


AT SETTLEMENTS OUTSIDE THE METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT 11.22 Paragraphs 10.44 – 10.47

Supporters: DD4268 Dinton with Ford & Upton Parish Council DD6318 Williams & Co DD6320 Williams & Co

Objectors: DD0274 Mentmore P C DD0318 Buckland Parish Council DD0665 HBF DD2559 Old Road Securities plc DD2560 Old Road Securities plc DD2561 Old Road Securities plc DD2562 Old Road Securities plc DD2563 Old Road Securities plc

DD2564 Old Road Securities plc DD2565 Old Road Securities plc DD5812 Jennifer Lampert DD5981 T S Benwell DD6283 M J Jeanes (Group) Ltd DD6287 Hockaday Associates DD6290 Hockaday Associates DD6563 S Masters

111


DD6577 L E Smith DD6586 D S Johnson

DD6593 J Howarth

Principal Issues: 11.22.1 Whether Mentmore and Buckland should be excluded from Appendix 5, Cublington,

Rowsham and Tingewick added, and if Gibraltar was meant to be included.

11.22.2 Whether Aston Clinton, Cheddington, Long Crendon, Newton Longville, Stoke Mandeville, Waddesdon, Wing and Winslow should be given the third tier settlement status proposed in the pre-deposit consultations.

11.22.3 Whether the points of RA.18(b)(i) and RA.20(a) should be deleted from Appendix 5.

11.22.4 Whether the infill definition of paragraph 10.45 was consistent with GP.52 and should not be limited to two dwellings.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.22.5 The key factors for inclusion in Appendix 5 are some facilities and reasonable

accessibility. The consequence may be a limited amount of small-scale development. It is a matter of judgement, but I see no reason to disagree with the Council’ s assessment in the case of the identified villages. I would not expect Gibraltar to be regarded as part of Dinton or Westlington.

11.22.6 I concluded in my consideration of the Rural Development Strategy that I concur with the Council’s approach to the location of development in the Rural Areas, and the identification of Buckingham, Wendover, Haddenham and Winslow as category 2 settlements. Given my recommended residential development at Buckingham, Wendover and Winslow it unnecessary for specific allocations to be made in Appendix 5 villages to meet the housing requirement, and I do not see a case for upgrading the settlements referred to in the second objection or reviving the third tier settlement category. Reference to planned development at Haddenham should be removed.

11.22.7 I deal with the third objection under the policy objections below. As to the question of infilling, the current version of PPG3 eschews any formal definition of the term and I accept that it is appropriate for the Council to provide guidance about how it will deal with the matter. PPG3 was published after the Local Plan and I just wonder, however, if the rural settlement policies capture the Government’s new priorities in relation to the recycling of previously developed land and buildings.

11.22.8 In bald terms, more than half the additional housing provided for in development plans over the next five years should be on previously developed land. The definition of previously developed land includes land in rural settings as well as urban areas so the principle is no less relevant in the villages. It seems to me therefore that in Appendix 5 settlements there should be a sequential priority to land development for housing which starts with brownfield sites rather than finishing with them (paragraph 10.47). In relation to infilling, it is possible that an inflexible approach could lead to a waste of land and I think that the concept, the description of which in paragraph 10.45 is fairly complicated, should provide scope for the right schemes in the right places.

11.22.9 I am also rather uneasy about the rounding-off mentioned in paragraph 10.46. This is not a universally recognised planning concept. It is more difficult to rationalise than infilling and, in the absence of defined settlement boundaries, can give rise to significant disputes about where and how it should apply. I would be inclined to omit the term and rely on the other two categories on land. The Council will always have the discretion to make exceptions in suitable situations. I therefore suggest a reconstruction of the preamble to

112


policies RA.18-RA.20 in the following form, which incorporates the Change proposed by the Council.

Recommendation: 11.22.10 I recommend that pragraphs 10.44 – 10.47 be modified by rewording and renumbering as

follows:

10.44 In the Rural Areas, in addition to the planned development at Buckingham, Wendover and Winslow, it is appropriate to allow limited small-scale development at settlements that have some community facilities like shops, pubs and post offices, are reasonably accessible and may provide some employment opportunities. These settlements are listed in Appendix 5.

10.45 In Appendix 5 settlements priority will be given to proposals for the re-use of small parcels of derelict or under-used land, and previously developed land, that consolidate the settlement form. These development or redevelopment schemes should not generally exceed 5 dwellings, although in Buckingham, Wendover, Haddenham and Winslow the principle of larger developments that conform to other policies may be appropriate. These projects should not detract from any distinctive characteristics of the settlement or prejudice important areas of open space or employment uses.

10.46 Within Appendix 5 settlements infilling development will normally be permitted. For this purpose, infilling is regarded as one or two dwellings in a small gap of a built-up frontage of the settlement. Such development should be consistent with the scale and spacing of residential development in the vicinity of the site and the character of the area. There may be incidences where the number of infilling dwellings could be varied, in the interests of making a better use of land or to enhance the appearance of the surroundings. There may be other cases where the space involved is an important visual feature that should not be developed.

10.47 At the edge of Appendix 5 settlements there may also be scope for small-scale development between the built-up area and the countryside. These opportunities will be very limited – a typical example might be a farmyard - and they should avoid intrusion into the rural setting of the settlement and, where possible, strengthen the interface between the village and the countryside. In all cases of development in Appendix 5 settlements an efficient use should be made of land and wasteful building densities avoided.

10.48 The ‘built-up area’ to which policies RA.18 and RA.19 apply refers to land within the settlement framework principally occupied by permanent buildings. This would not normally include recreation or amenity land, playing fields, allotments or similar open or wooded areas that contribute to the settlement form, or large grounds and gardens on the rural margins of settlements.

11.23 Policies RA.18, RA.19 and RA.20 Supporters:

DD0377 J & E Landon DD1119 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD1272 Rural Development

Commission

DD1273 Rural Development Commission


DD2032 W R & W E Carslake

113


DD2330 WR & W E Carslake DD2331 WR & W E Carslake DD2410 Hulcott Parish Council DD2887 P Cleasby

DD6597 Stoke Mandeville Parish Council

DD6702 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6703 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6704 Historic House Hotels Ltd

DD6736 Waddesdon Estate DD6737 Waddesdon Estate DD6738 Waddesdon Estate DD6781 National Trust DD6782 National Trust DD6783 National Trust DD7726 Pitstone Parish Council

DD7843 Mrs C Paternoster DD7844 Mrs C Paternoster DD7845 Mrs C Paternoster DD7869 Buckland Parish Council DD7870 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors:DD0111 Pitstone Parish Council

DD0112 Pitstone Parish Council DD0327 Mrs C McAllister DD0358 Mrs C McAllister DD0614 Howard Hutton &


Associates DD0666 HBF DD1042 Carter Commercial

Developments Ltd DD1081 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD1325 British Tele-

communications plc DD1571 M Edmonds DD1573 M Edmonds DD1664 Genesis Homes DD1665 Genesis Homes DD1666 Genesis Homes DD1670 Genesis Homes DD1671 Genesis Homes DD1672 Genesis Homes DD1673 Genesis Homes DD1675 Trustees of Hibberd and

Mr/s Sear DD1676 Trustees of Hibberd and

Mr/s Sear DD1677 Trustees of Hibberd and

Mr/s Sear DD1684 Gibbard & Co Ltd DD1685 Gibbard & Co Ltd DD1686 Gibbard & Co Ltd DD1687 Gibbard & Co Ltd DD1688 Gibbard & Co Ltd DD1689 Gibbard & Co Ltd DD1693 Sandra Redhouse

Developments Ltd DD1694 Sandra Redhouse




Developments Ltd

DD1698 Sandra Redhouse Developments Ltd

DD1700 Banner Homes Ltd DD1701 Banner Homes Ltd DD1702 Banner Homes Ltd DD1856 J Baker DD1907 Amberley Properties Ltd DD1908 Amberley Properties Ltd DD1909 Amberley Properties Ltd DD1953 Wendover Parish Council DD1954 Wendover Parish Council DD2033 WR & WM Carslake DD2087* John Drake & Co DD2088 John Drake & Co DD2167* University of Buckingham DD2263 Wilcon Homes DD2316 A R Taylor DD2318 Chearsley Parish Council DD2422 Old Road Securities plc DD2479 Wendover Society DD2558 Old Road Securities plc DD2569 Deans Farm Ltd DD2570 Deans Farm Ltd DD2571 Deans Farm Ltd DD2611 A C Hoy DD2612 A C Hoy DD2613 A C Hoy DD2702 Friends of the Vale of

Aylesbury DD2718 Banner Homes Ltd DD2859 Barker Parry Town

Planning DD2888 P Cleasby DD2906 Stone with Bishopstone &

Hartwell Parish Council DD4250 Haddenham Protection

Society DD5699 R Pollard DD5600 R Pollard DD5810 Jennifer Lampert DD5811 Jennifer Lampert DD6024 Miss G M Simmons DD6031 Ewelme Almshouse

Trustees DD6032 Ewelme Almshouse

Trustees

114


DD6040 R Currey DD6041 R Currey DD6227 M Evans DD6228 M Evans DD6236 Hives Partnership DD6237 Hives Partnership DD6254 Hunting Gate Homes Ltd DD6259 Royal Ordnance plc DD6285 Hockaday Associates DD6286 Hockaday Associates DD6288 Hockaday Associates DD6289 Hockaday Associates DD6319 Williams & Co DD6321 Williams & Co DD6330 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6331 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6332 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6335 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6336 Bovis Homes Ltd DD6339 Faulkners DD6340 Faulkners DD6341 Faulkners DD6395 Molyneux Planning DD6562 Carrington Estates DD6568 Mr & Mrs C Partridge DD6575 L E Smith DD6576 L E Smith DD6579 L E Smith DD6584 D S Johnson DD6585 D S Johnson DD6591 J Howarth DD6592 J Howarth DD6670 Crest Strategic Projects

Ltd DD6671 Crest Strategic Projects

Ltd

DD6839 City & St James Property Ltd

DD6840 City & St James Property Ltd

DD6916 Kemp & Kemp DD6917 Crest Homes Eastern DD6923 Wimpey Homes Holdings

Ltd DD6946 Martin Grant Homes Ltd DD6949 S W Reading-Kitchen DD6950 S W Reading-Kitchen DD7043 Station Road Trust DD7044 Station Road Trust DD7059 Castle Cement Ltd DD7060 Castle Cement Ltd DD7100 Armstrong, Collier, Evett,

French & Lowe DD7101 Armstrong, Collier, Evett,

French & Lowe DD7102 Armstrong, Collier, Evett,

French & Lowe DD7191 NFU DD7455 R Hammond DD7563 Trustees of Mrs F M Mills

Deceased DD7565 Trustees of Mrs F M Mills

Deceased DD7566 Trustees of Mrs F M Mills

Deceased DD7806 Banner Homes Ltd DD7807 Banner Homes Ltd DD7989 Barker Parry Town

Planning


Objectors to Proposed Changes (PC10.17 and 10.19): CO0153 M Evans CO0080 Williams & Co CO0154 M Evans CO0193 Shoosmiths CO0251 Little Horwood Parish Council

Principal Issues: 11.23.1 Whether RA.18 - RA.20 should permit greater scope for consolidation within village

boundaries or be replaced by a more flexible policy framework within village confines.

11.23.2 Whether RA.18b)(ii) conflicts with GP.16 and GP.132.

11.23.3 Whether the limitation of five dwellings in RA.18b)(i) was over-restrictive and conflicted with GP.52.

11.23.4 Whether RA.18 - RA.20 should allow more development at Buckingham, Little Horwood, Maids Moreton, Newton Longville, Pitstone, Preston Bissett, Weston Turville and Wescott.

11.23.5 Whether RA.18 would adversely affect the character of Wendover and Cheasley

11.23.6 Whether street scenes should be a criterion for infill development.

115


11.23.7 Whether RA.18 should apply to all settlements subject only to a) and b)(ii).

11.23.8 Whether a ‘large’ settlement category should be introduced for more substantial development.

11.23.9 Whether Stone should be excluded from Appendix 5.

11.23.10 Whether RA.18b)(ii) was contrary to national guidance.

11.23.11 Whether there should be a third-tier settlement category, which included Bierton, Wingrave and Aston Clinton.

11.23.12 Whether the definition of infill was too restrictive.

11.23.13 Whether Haddenham should be excluded from RA.18b)(i).

11.23.14 Whether RA.18 - RA.20 should related to settlement boundaries to be drawn on the Proposals Map, and include land off Broughton Lane.

11.23.15 Whether the requirements of RA.19 and RA.20 for sites to be bounded on three sides should be deleted or revised to 70% of site boundary sides, or amended to two sides.

11.23.16 Whether RA.19 should take account of the appearance and amenity benefits of farmyard redevelopment.

11.23.17 Whether RA.19 should be linked to RA.18.

11.23.18 Whether RA.20 should exclude infilling between settlements and new roads.

11.23.19 Whether RA.20 was unreasonable and should be omitted.

11.23.20 Whether RA.20 should relate to sites bounded on two sides, contain no size restrictions and include small-scale rounding-off, particularly at Buckland, Stoke Hammond and Wendover.

11.23.21 Whether RA.20 would encourage development creep.

11.23.22 Whether Appendix 5 settlements should be deleted from RA.20 along with criterion a) and built in b), or whether built should be non-agricultural.

11.23.23 Whether RA.20 should exclude edge of settlement development and outward extensions.

11.23.24 Whether RA.20b) should include committed development.

11.23.25 Whether RA.20 should allow for freedom to develop land not otherwise designated or allocated in the Plan, and if the policy criteria should be reworded.

11.23.26 Whether RA.18 and RA.20 should allow sites of up to 1 hectare or 25 dwellings in rural settlements.

11.23.27 Whether RA.20b) should relate to the ‘built-up area’ and d) to ‘open countryside’.

11.23.28 Whether RA.20 should permit development on edge of settlement brownfield sites.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.23.29 I think that it is convenient to deal with these related policy topics and objections

together. The Council put forward a range of Changes to each policy and I have taken these into account. As far as site or settlement-specific objections area concerned, my comments below apply where they are not dealt with under omission objections.

11.23.30 Bearing in mind the absence of an urgent need for housing provision in the Rural Areas to meet CSP requirements, and the sustainable outlook of the Plan, I see no fundamental objection to a limitation on development in the Appendix 5 settlements. Having regard to

116


the inventiveness and ingenuity of developers I daresay that even with this restrictive approach there will still be ample scope for housing opportunities under policies RA.18 – RA.20.

11.23.31 In most village cases, five dwellings strike me as a reasonable quantum of small-scale housing development. Others have argued differently but usually because they are promoting particular sites that are capable of accommodating more. I put the Council’s figure on the higher plane of objectivity. In conjunction with the reference to a site area it would bring things more into line with the ambitions of PPG3 regarding land efficiency, which does not apply only to urban situations.

11.23.32 I consider there would be no conflict between RA.18 and the other policies mentioned or national guidance - where more than one applied it would be a question of weight and primacy according to the case: such decisions are not unusual. Street scenes may be relevant, but I agree with the Council that they are subsumed in the settlement character criterion. That said, RA.18iii) and iv) contain a series of tests that could benefit from being expressed more neutrally. I have earlier concluded on the principles of the Rural Areas Development Strategy, and hence can see no reason to introduce an extra layer of settlements where more extensive development would be contemplated. The policy parameters of the built-up areas of settlements would regulate infilling and consolidating development to a scale reflective of the size of the village. I think that this method would be as effective in development control as the use of ‘village confines’ or ‘village envelopes’, which would be just as contentious. I am not persuaded that the infill criterion is over-restrictive.

11.23.33 There is a good case for incorporating RA.19 with RA.20 because the aims are similar and they address the same kind of edge-of-settlement location. I find it difficult to imagine that farmyards in such situations are so common as to require a separate policy reference. RA.19 would be more appropriate in the reasoned justification because it is hardly a policy position.

11.23.34 RA.20 deals with a settlement situation where development that does not amount to infilling or augmentation of the village form may be permitted without harming village or countryside amenities. I do not regard RA.20 as unreasonable. Most of the objections relate to the policy criteria and definitions, which are elaborate and could be capable of turning many one-day inquiries into two-day events. It is entirely correct that the Council should provide as much assistance as possible for developers and interested persons. However, I think the tests of RA.20a) - f) ought to be simplified and establish broader points that need to be made, relative to the policy objectives, without being too prescriptive or over-detailed. The ways of interpreting RA.20 by applicants and the Council may not be affected, because they will be coloured by the diverse points of view and motives, but that does not absolve the policy from being as clear as possible.

11.23.35 I am satisfied that outside the towns and larger rural settlements, greater numbers of dwellings or bigger sites would not accord with the Rural Areas Development Strategy. With firm implementation I see no reason why RA.20 should have the undesirable effects suggested by several objectors. I therefore suggest a recasting of these policies to focus on the key locations of sites within the settlements and sites on the edge, and a sharpening of the criteria.

117


Recommendation:

11.23.36 I recommend that:


Within the built-up areas of settlements listed in Appendix 5 of the Plan precedence will be given to the development of derelict, under-used and previously developed land.

Residential infilling of small gaps in developed frontages with one or two dwellings in keeping with the scale and spacing of nearby dwellings and the character of the surroundings will be permitted.

Permission may also be granted for residential or mixed-use development of up to 5 dwellings on sites not exceeding 0.2ha that consolidate existing settlement patterns without harming important settlement characteristics, and does not comprise the partial development of a larger site. Such development should use land efficiently and safeguard existing employment uses and significant open spaces and buildings. In Buckingham, Wendover, Haddenham and Winslow larger schemes may be permitted.



On the edge of the built-up areas of settlements listed in Appendix 5 of the Plan permission may be granted for residential or mixed–use development of up to 5 dwellings on sites not exceeding 0.2ha substantially enclosed by existing development, where the proposals would satisfactorily complete the settlement pattern without intruding into the countryside, and does not comprise the partial development of a larger site.

Proposals should use land efficiently and create a well-defined boundary between the settlement and the countryside. Permission will not be granted for development that impairs the character or identity of the settlement or the adjoining rural area.

IN THE COUNTRYSIDE 11.24 Policy RA.21

Supporters: DD6705 Historic House Hotels Ltd DD6739 Waddesdon Estate DD6784 National Trust

DD7691 Mrs C Paternoster DD7746 Pitstone Parish Council DD7871 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0104 Mr & Mrs Banfield DD0616 Howard Hutton &

Associates DD2119* John Drake & Co DD2411 Hulcott Parish Council DD4279 New Leys Consortium

DD6234 Hives Partnership DD6235 Hives Partnership DD6342 Faulkners DD7564 Trustees of Mrs F M Mills DD7593 FPD Savills


Principal Issues: 11.24.1 Whether reference should be made to accessibility for people with mobility difficulties.

118


11.24.2 Whether the policy conflicted with case law on replacing dwellings.

11.24.3 Whether the policy criteria were too restrictive.

11.24.4 Whether criterion b) should have regard to paragraphs 10.44 and 10.45.

11.24.5 Whether the policy should allow for strategic large-scale housing exceptions.

11.24.6 Whether the policy should clarify that it would not prohibit justified agricultural dwellings.

11.24.7 Whether there should be a policy for the redevelopment of non-conforming sites in the rural areas.

11.24.8 Whether the reference to Appendix 5 should be deleted.

11.24.9 Whether the policy should allow for the conversion of existing buildings.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.24.10 I am satisfied that the general housing needs of the District will be met through the

allocations in the Plan and small scale development in urban areas and rural settlements. Other policies provide for rural exception housing and dwellings for people who are obliged to live in the countryside because of their work. So, residential development in the countryside can be expected to be extremely limited, and I think it is helpful for the Plan to indicate under what other circumstance permission might be granted.

11.24.11 To the extent that disabled accessibility may be a planning consideration, I find it unnecessary to refer to it in RA.21. The habitability test is a difficult area because an uninhabitable dwelling may still retain use rights and the policy should avoid being over-specific. I agree with the Council that it would be inappropriate to link large rural brownfield sites with RA.21 – those areas raise major questions of sustainability and strategic policy and are not the point of RA.21.

11.24.12 As to criterion b), it would be better for the policy to stand alone without cross-references to other parts of the Plan. Building conversions are dealt with elsewhere. I note the Change proposed but recommend a rewording of the policy for clarity and more precise development control.


In the rural areas beyond the Green Belt and outside the built-up areas of settlements listed in Appendix 5 permission for the construction of new dwellings, other than for those for which specific provision is made in the Local Plan, will be granted only exceptionally.

Permission may be granted for small-scale infilling within groups of rural houses, and for the replacement of existing dwellings in their original curtilage, where there would be no adverse effect on the character of the countryside or other planning interests.

119


IN THE METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT 11.25 Policy RA.22

Supporters: DD7698 Buckland Parish Council DD7727 Pitstone Parish Council DD7846 Mrs C Paternoster

Inspector’s Note 11.25.1 There were no objections, but I suggest that RA.22 be reworded to conform to paragraph

2 of RA.18 as recommended, and avoid the read-across with paragraph 10.45. The effect is substantially the same.

REPLACEMENT DWELLINGS IN THE METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT & SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS


DD1964 Wendover Parish Council DD1965 Wendover Parish Council DD7847 Mrs C Paternoster DD7848 Mrs C Paternoster DD7873 Buckland Parish Council DD7874 Buckland Parish Council

Objector: DD4346 Chiltern District Council DD7920 Chiltern District Council

Principal Issue: 11.26.1 Whether the policies should be combined and give more specific guidance.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.26.2 The Council agreed that the policies should be combined. To my mind the first version

of RA.23 was very intricate. It is not made easier by the Change and should be simplified so that the key objective is more clearly understood, leaving analysis of the detail for the time when applications are considered.

11.26.3 I have earlier strongly recommended against the retention of policies RA.10 and RA.11 and their associated AAL and LLA designations. If, however, RA.10 (in the alternative form suggested) is retained, it is important to ensure that RA.23 does not, by linking the Green Belt and special landscape areas, confuse the planning objectives that apply. The key aim in the Green Belt is to conserve its openness; the stated aim of the special landscape areas (including the AONB, which it is entirely legitimate to protect) are the protection and enhancement of their scenic quality, etc. These are different objectives and they ought not to be mixed.



The replacement of existing dwellings in the Green Belt by new dwellings that are not significantly larger in area or volume, and which do not have a greater effect

120


on the openness of the Green Belt, may be permitted subject to other relevant policies of the Plan.

Within the AONB similar replacement dwellings that do not harm the natural beauty of the Area may also be permitted.


11.26.7 I suggest that if policy RA.10 is retained in the alternative form suggested, the following be substituted for the second paragraph of recommended replacement policy RA.23:

Within the special landscape areas, similar replacement dwellings that do not harm the natural beauty of the AONB or the individual landscape features and characteristics of the AALs and LLAs may also be permitted.

EXTENSIONS TO DWELLINGS IN THE METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT & SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS


DD1963 Wendover Parish Council DD7849 Mrs C Paternoster DD7875 Buckland Parish Council

Objector: DD4347 Chiltern District Council

Principal Issue: 11.27.1 Whether the size of any extension should be more specifically restricted, and if parts of

the justification should be included in the policy.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.27.2 I generally agree with the Council’s response to the objection although, as in RA.23, I

think that the separation of the Green Belt and special landscape areas is desirable. In the latter (which should comprise solely AONBs, given my recommended deletion of AALs and LLAs) there should be no suggestion that extensions to dwellings are, of themselves, unacceptable.


Extensions and alterations to dwellings in the Green Belt that are not out of proportion or character with the original building and which do not materially reduce the openness of the Green Belt may be permitted.

Within the AONB the scale, form and location of proposed dwelling extensions should have regard, as will the Council, to the conservation of the natural beauty of the Area.

11.27.4 I suggest that if policy RA.10 is retained in the alternative form suggested, the following be substituted for the second paragraph of recommended replacement policy RA.25:

Within the special landscape areas the scale, form and location of proposed dwelling extensions should have regard, as will the Council, to the conservation of

121


the natural beauty of the AONB and to the protection of important landscape features and characteristics of the AALs and LLAs.

DWELLINGS FOR AGRICULTURAL OR FORESTRY WORKERS Permanent dwellings




DD2683 Chiltern Society

DD7692 Mrs C Paternoster DD7699 Buckland Parish Council DD7850 Mrs C Paternoster DD7876 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD6230 Hives Partnership DD1766 Hutchinsons DD2412 Hulcott Parish Council

Principal Issues: 11.28.1 Whether RA.26 should allow for replacement farmhouses for any taken over by other

allocations of the Plan.

11.28.2 Whether RA.27 was clear and if withdrawal of permitted development rights was justified.

11.28.3 Whether a criterion of RA.27 should be village impact.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.28.4 I agree with the Council that the replacement of farmhouses incorporated into MDAs

does not raise special matters for consideration outside the ambit of RA.26. The reference to permitted development rights is not part of the policy and the Council proposed a Change to paragraph 10.54 to meet the objection – but the point should also be made in the policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood the last objection but I find it difficult to imagine circumstances under which a new country worker’s dwelling might adversely affect a settlement, and I do not regard it as a necessary test.

11.28.5 I have bracketted policies RA.26 and RA.27 together because I consider that they contain much common ground. As cast, they are rather too complex and include too many qualifications. They could be combined and rephrased for greater directness and brevity and to provide a clearer statement of intent.

11.28.6 I have retained reference to forestry workers in the recommended text. But would be surprised if the Council were ever to receive an application for a forestry worker's dwelling. And positively amazed if one could be justified anywhere in the District in compliance with reworded RA.26.



Planning permission will be granted for dwellings in the countryside for agricultural or forestry workers who are genuinely obliged to live close to their

122


occupations in the interests of the proper working of a viable farm or forestry enterprise. Permission will not be granted if the accommodation could be equally well provided in a settlement or by building conversion.

The scale and location of the dwelling should be related to the functional need of the unit, and other buildings, and its siting and appearance should respect the rural characteristics of the surroundings. Where permission is granted conditions may be imposed to regulate subsequent increases in the size of the dwelling.

11.28.9 Paragraph 10.54 be modified in accordance with PC 10.22.


11.28.11 Paragraphs 10.54 and 10.55 be moved to precede policy RA.26.

Occupancy Conditions 11.29 Policy RA.28, Paragraphs 10.58 and 10.59 and Policy RA.29

Supporters: DD1268 Rural Development Commission DD1269 Rural Development Commission DD7851 Mrs C Paternoster DD7852 Mrs C Paternoster DD7877 Buckland Parish Council DD7878 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0617 Howard Hutton & Associates DD0618 Howard Hutton & Associates DD2139 CLA DD6231 Hives Partnership

Principal Issues: 11.29.1 Whether RA.28 was unduly restrictive in relation to farmhouses replaced in MDAs.

11.29.2 Whether paragraphs 10.58 and 10.59 were policy statements rather than justification.

11.29.3 Whether more guidance should be provided about the relaxation and removal of agricultural occupancy conditions.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.29.4 I consider that the described situation in MDAs is not sufficiently exceptional to relax the

requirement for an agricultural occupancy condition. Paragraphs 10.58 and 10.59 reflect the kind of tests likely to apply if relaxations are sought, but as worded they are too prescriptive and without adequate explanation for the standards applied and ought to be less specific. This would partly meet the last objection. I would again suggest that because of their common topic area the Plan would benefit from policies RA.28 and RA.29 being combined and put in more positive terms.


11.29.6 Paragraph 10.58 be modified by the deletion of the words within a radius of eight miles at the end of the final sentence.

123


11.29.7 Paragraph 10.59 be modified by the replacement of the words over a period of at least twelve months with over a reasonable period of time.


The occupation of all permitted agricultural or forestry workers’ dwellings will be restricted by condition to ensure that the dwelling remains available to meet the essential needs of farming or forestry in the locality.

In granting permission conditions may also be imposed, or obligations sought, to regulate the occupation of other dwellings on the relevant holding.

Agricultural and forestry occupancy conditions may be relaxed or removed where it can be demonstrated that the needs of the area as a whole no longer justify their reservation for that purpose.


11.29.10 Paragraphs 10.57 - 10.59 be moved to precede policy RA.28.

Temporary Accommodation 11.30 Policy RA.30

Supporters: DD1270 Rural Development Commission DD7853 Mrs C Paternoster DD7879 Buckland Parish Council

Objector: DD0619 Howard Hutton & Associates

Principal Issue: 11.30.1 Whether RA.30 should be interchanged with paragraph 10.60.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.30.2 I see no objection to the policy and explanatory text.


EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT IN SETTLEMENTS


DD0108 Pitstone Parish Council DD1275 Rural Development

Commission DD1276 Rural Development

Commission DD7516 Thames Valley CCI DD7517 Thames Valley CCI

DD7728 Pitstone Parish Council DD7856 Mrs C Paternoster DD7857 Mrs C Paternoster DD7882 Buckland Parish Council DD7883 Buckland Parish Council

124


Objectors: DD0620 Howard Hutton & Associates DD0621 Howard Hutton & Associates DD2421 Old Road Securities plc DD4251 Haddenham Protection Society DD4252 Haddenham Protection Society DD4282 New Leys Consortium

Principal Issues: 11.31.1 Whether RA.34 was an achievable planning objective.

11.31.2 Whether RA.34 ignored opportunities for improvements and should refer to the possibility of redevelopment of unneighbourly uses.

11.31.3 Whether RA.35 should be related to GP.131, be qualified in respect of unneighbourly uses and include reference to edge of settlement sites.

11.31.4 Whether RA.35 was unclear because of the absence of defined settlement boundaries.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.31.5 The first objection has a point. RA.34 may be an understandable corporate aim but

planning powers can only go so far and could not, for example, compel an industrial owner to keep a business open. It is also true that in some cases the replacement of an unsatisfactory employment use might, notwithstanding any loss of jobs, be better for people living in rural towns and villages.

11.31.6 I consider that the lack of envelopes for rural settlements does not make RA.35 unworkable - on most occasions the extent of the built-up area should be plain. However this policy is a planning black hole because it could compel the Council to approve every employment proposal in a settlement whatever its effects on other planning interests. The context of RA.35 is almost entirely corporate and I question whether it should be expressed as a local plan objective in this form because of its clear shortcomings in application to planning proposals. If it is retained it ought to be reworded to avoid that undesirable interpretation. And in that case, from the close topic link between RA.34 and RA.35, I also think there would be merit in combining the policies and recasting them as criteria-based expressions.



Within the built-up areas of rural settlements the Council will resist proposals which lead to the loss of viable employment uses that do not cause significant environmental harm.


11.31.10 I suggest that if the Council wish to retain the objective of RA.35, it be replaced by a further modification of RA.34 worded as follows:

In these locations the Council will agree to new employment uses, and expansion of existing employment uses, on appropriate sites where other planning interests would not be unacceptably impaired.

125


EMPLOYMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE 11.32 Paragraphs 10.65 and 10.68 and Policy RA.36

Supporters: DD1277 Rural Development Commission DD7694 Mrs C Paternoster DD7729 Pitstone Parish Council DD7884 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0622 Howard Hutton & Associates DD0623 Howard Hutton & Associates DD0624 Howard Hutton & Associates DD2114 Liscombe Holdings Plc DD2413 Hulcott Parish Council

Principal Issues: 11.32.1 Whether there was evidence to justify the assertion in paragraph 10.65.

11.32.2 Whether cottage industries should be ancillary to main dwelling uses to avoid the loss of dwellings.

11.32.3 Whether RA.36 should reflect the potential for rural building re-use set out in RA.15 and PPG7.

11.32.4 Whether adverse effect from cottage industries could be avoided.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.32.5 Whether or not there is evidential justification for paragraph 10.65 it strikes me as an

uncontentious aspiration. However, there is actually very little in paragraphs 10.64 - 10.67 that has much to do with policy RA.36 which, once again, is a statement of corporate intent fraught with development control problems, not least in deciding what is a cottage and industry and where existing dwellings would be located. As written, RA.36 also applies to urban areas. I understand what the Council wishes to accomplish and I think that it is a different matter to the point of RA.15. But RA.36 has to be changed to become an effective planning instrument. This would partly meet the basis of the objections.



The Council is in favour of small-scale commercial activities undertaken in conjunction with the residential use of dwellings in rural areas.

In considering applications for such uses the Council will have regard to their employment and social benefits along with any effect of the business on other planning interests, especially neighbourly amenity. Where permission is granted conditions may be imposed, or planning obligations sought, to regulate the nature and extent of the approved use.

11.32.8 There might also be a case in logic for relocating policy RA.36 in front of paragraph 10.67, and redrafting the last two sentences of paragraph 10.68 and adding them to the end of paragraph 10.66.

126


11.33 Paragraphs 10.69 and 10.70 and Policies RA.37 and RA.38 Supporters:



DD6114 Wingrave Parish Council DD7518 Thames Valley CCI

DD7701 Buckland Parish Council DD7730 Pitstone Parish Council DD7731 Pitstone Parish Council DD7858 Mrs C Paternoster DD7859 Mrs C Paternoster DD7885 Buckland Parish Council

Objectors: DD0354 Wyevale Garden Centres

plc DD0625 Howard Hutton &




Associates DD1644 Defence Estate

Organisation South East

DD1679 Crendon Timber Engineering

DD1680 Crendon Timber Engineering

DD2419 Old Road Securities plc DD6014 Hinton International Ltd DD6256 Thame Estates Ltd DD6898 Hinton International Ltd DD7192 NFU DD7794 Liscombe Holdings Plc DD7795 Liscombe Holdings Plc DD7817* Wingrave Parish Council

* objection withdrawn

Principal Issues: 11.33.1 Whether paragraphs 10.69 and 10.70 were policies.

11.33.2 Whether RA.37 and RA.38 should be reworded.

11.33.3 Whether RA.37 should allow development in sustainable locations.

11.33.4 Whether RA.37 and RA.38 should provide for exceptions for employment activities requiring a rural location.

11.33.5 Whether RA.37 would work without defined settlement boundaries.

11.33.6 Whether RA.37 was contrary to PPG7 and inconsistent with RA.15.

11.33.7 Whether RA.37 and RA.38 should reflect the potential for rural building re-use set out in RA.15 and PPG7.

11.33.8 Whether RA.38 should apply to all employment generating sites in the countryside.

11.33.9 Whether RA.38 should include reference to the Long Crendon Industrial Estate.

11.33.10 Whether support for village employment sites should be more positively stated

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.33.11 The Council proposed Changes to paragraph 10.70 and both policies. My first

observation is that RA.37 is far too prescriptive. There are sound reasons for protecting the countryside from incongruous employment development that might lead to unsustainable transport movements but that is not to say that the Council would refuse all applications for businesses in rural areas. Proposals for tourist and recreational development especially in connection with farming diversification, which are employing development, might have benefits that could be balanced against other disadvantages. Moreover, new employment uses would include those falling under RA.15 so there is a potential for confusion.

127


11.33.12 RA.37 needs rewording in a way that retains flexibility but not, in my opinion, so as to open a door to new building development that ought to be located in towns or rural settlements. Indeed, because of the opportunities for the employment re-use of rural buildings RA.37 ought to concentrate on building development rather than changes of use. I think that the revisions proposed do not provide a satisfactory solution and suggest below how the objective could be met in a combined policy. Paragraphs 10.69 and 10.70 repeat much of what is said in 10.67 and 10.68 and could be omitted without affecting the sense of this section.

11.33.13 It would be inappropriate to identify a specific Industrial Estate in a general employment policy.

11.33.14 Finally, for clarity of purpose, RA.37 and RA.38 should be combined to form a single policy.



Except where otherwise allowed for in the Local Plan, outside the built-up areas of settlements and identified Employment Areas, the Council will resist proposals for new employment buildings and for the expansion of established employment sites into the countryside.

At existing employment sites in the countryside permission may be granted for limited building extensions or redevelopments that are not out of keeping with the existing use or characteristics of the locality and do not lead to excessive traffic generation.


11.33.18 The Plan be modified by the deletion of paragraphs 10.69 and 10.70.

SILVERSTONE MOTOR RACING CIRCUIT 11.34 Policy RA.39

Supporters: DD0328 Northants County Council DD1280 Rural Development Commission DD7015 Buckingham Business Club

Objectors: DD2301 South Northamptonshire Council DD6785 National Trust DD7046 Silverstone Circuits Ltd DD7241 County Archaeological Service DD7293 GOSE

Principal Issues: 11.34.1 Whether the policy should refer to a joint working party planned to consider the future of

the circuit.

11.34.2 Whether d) should exclude reference to redevelopment and consolidation, and if iv) should be part of the justification.

128


11.34.3 Whether provision should be made for an archaeological evaluation.

11.34.4 Whether the National Trust should be a named consultee.

11.34.5 Whether the criteria for development proposals should be clarified.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.34.6 The Council proposed a Change to add the need for an archaeological evaluation. RA.39

is a long and complex policy that contains many difficult sub-tests and affects three defined policy areas – the circuit, the Employment Area and the Employment Expansion Area. I do not disagree with the Council’s stance in relation to this internationally important enterprise, but some of the policy wording refers to matters that are not land-use based and some introduce awkward planning concepts. I do not agree with the objectors that RA.39 should concern itself with working parties or named organisations; these may flow naturally from implementation of the policy but they are administrative considerations which need only be reported in the reasoned justification.

11.34.7 If the Expansion Area is formally defined as an employment zone it may be difficult in practice (especially as an existing designation of the development plan) to phase development until after redevelopment of the existing Employment Area – what planning interest would be harmed by development beforehand? And, as the objector points out, it might be necessary to draw upon the Expansion Zone for decanting uses whilst renewal of the Employment Area takes place. I have found nothing in the Plan to suggest that new employment opportunities should be deferred until the RALP employment allocations are taken up.

11.34.8 It seems to me that the only appropriate way of delaying development in the Expansion Area, whilst retaining its potential and opportunities, would be to redefine it as a Reserve Area with a tailored policy. In order to simplify matters therefore I have divided the objectives of RA.39 into three criteria-based policies and in constructing them I have endeavoured to clarify the key issues involved so that the significance of the circuit is acknowledged and balanced with other material factors that might apply. The archaeological topic sounds as though it ought to be mentioned.



The Council endorses the improvement of motor sport and spectator facilities within the defined area of Silverstone Motor Racing Circuit.

Proposals for new development, including leisure and recreational activities complementary to the main motor sport use, should have particular regard to:

a) the need to avoid serious additional disturbance to those who live in the area;

b) the need to protect the rural and visual character of the countryside adjacent to the circuit;

c) the need to avoid traffic increases and traffic routing unsuited to rural roads in the locality; and

d) the archaeological significance of Luffield Priory.

129


11.34.11 The Plan be modified by a new policy RA.xx worded as follows:

Within the defined area of Silverstone Employment Area permission may, subject to other relevant policies of the Local Plan, be expected to be granted for the redevelopment and extension of existing premises for purposes directly connected with the motor sport industry, including related research and development.

11.34.12 The Plan be modified by a further new policy RA.yy worded as follows:

The defined Silverstone Reserve Area is intended to provide for uses and activities that may become necessary in connection with the motor sport industry, including related research and development, once the capacity of the Silverstone Employment Area to accommodate them has been fully absorbed. In the meantime permission is unlikely to be granted for permanent employment development in the Reserve Area that adversely affects other planning interests.

11.34.13 The designation of the Silverstone Expansion Area on the Proposals Map be retitled the Silverstone Reserve Area.

WESTCOTT 11.35 Paragraphs 10.79, 10.80 and 10.83 and Policies RA.40, RA.41, RA.42 and

RA.43 Supporters:

DD0052 British Horse Society DD1075 Ramblers Association DD1076 Ramblers Association DD1077 Ramblers Association DD1078 Ramblers Association DD1116 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD1144 Rural Development

Commission DD1281 Rural Development

Commission



DD6260 Royal Ordnance plc DD7310 Highways Agency DD7311 Highways Agency DD7312 Highways Agency



Associates DD6261 Royal Ordnance plc DD6263 Royal Ordnance plc DD6264 Royal Ordnance plc DD6265 Royal Ordnance plc DD6267 Royal Ordnance plc DD6268 Royal Ordnance plc DD6270 Royal Ordnance plc DD6271 Royal Ordnance plc

DD6272 Royal Ordnance plc DD6273 Royal Ordnance plc DD7158 Environment Agency DD7242 County Archaeological

Service DD7519 Thames Valley CCI DD7822 County Archaeological

Service DD7823 County Archaeological

Service DD7824 County Archaeological

Service

Principal Issues: 11.35.1 Whether words should be added to paragraph 10.79 to reflect the existence of buildings

outside the Employment Area.

11.35.2 Whether paragraphs 10.80 and 10.83 contained policy statements.

11.35.3 Whether paragraph 10.80 should include reference to the Sports Club and Liquid Engines and not interdict new buildings.

130


11.35.4 Whether paragraph 10.83 should be deleted, as unachievable.

11.35.5 Whether RA.40 should allow some expansion of floorspace.

11.35.6 Whether a new policy and designation should support development in the Liquid Engines Area.

11.35.7 Whether the Solids Area and land owned by Royal Ordnance should be added to the Westcott Employment Area.

11.35.8 Whether RA.40 - RA.43 should require information about culturally important equipment.

11.35.9 Whether RA.42 and RA.43 should refer to the Liquid Engines site and not embargo new buildings.

11.35.10 Whether RA.43 should be amended to avoid ambiguities and inflexibility.

11.35.11 Whether RA.43 should include habitat protection and safeguarding of wildlife corridors.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.35.12 A number of minor Changes were proposed to paragraph 10.79 and policies RA.40 and

RA.43 with the effect of removing the same-size floorspace restriction and defining the Solids Area as part of the employment area once the explosive constraint was removed. I have no objection in principle to the proposed additional supporting text, and support the Council’s decision to resist the inclusion of the Solids Area in the Employment Area until such time as the Royal Ordnance’s explosive licence has been downgraded or revoked. Such a change would remove the Safeguarding Zone constraint, and enable redevelopment on what is an otherwise unobtrusive site to take place. However, it would be premature to designate land for development in advance of the constraint being removed, and wholly inappropriate to grant planning permission for development on land that is so severely constrained, and likely to remain so for an indeterminate length of time. As a matter of principle there should be no insuperable constraints to the development of land allocated in a local plan.

11.35.13 It appears from RA.40 – RA.43 that the Council a) is content with the employment use of buildings in the defined Westcott Employment Area; b) wishes to see the Sports Club area retained; c) proposes otherwise that only acceptable countryside uses would apply in the rest of the original Royal Ordnance site; and d) proposes to apply certain criteria to development in the whole of the Policy Area.

11.35.14 These options include a number of inconsistencies. First of all there is a lack of clarity about the Westcott Site because that is not its designation on the Proposals Map. It may be easy to infer that the ‘Westcott Site’ is the ‘Westcott Policy Area’ but it should be made clear, especially because of the other two Westcott designations.

11.35.15 Secondly, the purpose in defining the Wescott Policy Area requires a better explanation and understanding. It would plainly have a relationship with some development permitted under RA.40b), but the most relevant policy for the land outside the Employment Area and Sports Club Area is RA.42. This contemplates uses acceptable in the countryside on the remaining hardstandings within the Policy Area, but rejects new buildings and building extensions and open storage uses. I find it almost impossible to imagine what economically viable development might be regarded as an acceptable countryside use on these old runways and aprons if it were not to involve building development or open storage, - except perhaps a low-key recreational use. My conclusion is that there is little point to RA.42 because it seems to lead nowhere. The

131


control of development on the hardstandings could be exercised effectively under the countryside protection policies balanced with any relevant economic or employment considerations. Likewise, I am not persuaded that the character of the Liquid Engines Area is sufficiently comparable with that of the Employment Area as to justify its inclusion within that Area. As an existing employment site in the countryside, development proposals within the Liquid Engines Area should be assessed against RA.37 as recommended to be modified.

11.35.16 Thirdly, the key statement of RA.41 cannot be achieved through planning control unless it is reworded. As expressed it is a corporate statement of intent, not a land-use objective. The policy criteria are not well phrased and also need adjusting.

11.35.17 Finally, the criteria of RA.43 are very woolly, indeterminate and in some cases unattainable through planning control. The section needs revisiting and revising so that the principles of development at Westcott are more easily understood. This would meet a number of the objections. It would also enable the Policy Area to be retained as the location where environmental benefits might be realised under the tests of RA.40 and RA.41(below).

11.35.18 I deal with objections proposing mixed development, including housing, at Wescott in the Counter Proposals : Rural Areas chapter of my Report (CP105).



Within the defined Westcott Employment Area there is no objection in principle to the redevelopment of existing employment buildings with appropriate structures of comparable floor area.

Additional employment floor space may be permitted subject to the removal of other buildings of similar floor area in the designated Westcott Policy Area and suitable after-treatment of their sites.

Permission will not be granted in the Solids Area of the Employment Area during the currency of the explosive safeguarding envelope.

Planning permission granted for all development may include conditions to control outside commercial activities and storage, ensure satisfactory road access and require tree protection and landscaping. Planning obligations may also be sought to obtain relevant improvements to the transport system, including public transport bus services, and footpath and bridleway networks.


The Council will resist development proposals that involve a loss or reduction in the social facilities and community amenities of the Westcott Sports and Social Club. Proposals for additional buildings will be subject to other relevant policies of the Local Plan and may be dependent on the removal of other buildings in the designated Sports and Social Policy Area and suitable after-treatment of their sites.

11.35.22 The Plan be modified in accordance with ORC 196.01,subject to the deletion of reference to policy RA.43.

132


11.35.23 Subject to the prior revocation or an acceptable relaxation of the Royal Ordnance explosives licence, the Proposals Map be modified by the inclusion of the Solids Area within the defined Westcott Employment Area.

11.35.24 The Plan be modified by the deletion of policies RA.42 and RA.43.

11.35.25 I suggest that if policy RA.42 is retained it be modified by rewording as follows:

Within the Westcott Policy Area, outside the Westcott Employment Area and the site of the Westcott Sports and Social Area, permission may be given on established areas of hardstanding for uses that are not detrimental to the character of the countryside.

NEWTON LONGVILLE 11.36 Policies RA.44 and RA.45

Supporters: DD0796 K W Miller DD1284 Rural Development

Commission DD4278 New Leys Consortium DD4338 Milton Keynes Council

DD4339 Milton Keynes Council DD6837 City & St James Property

Ltd DD7200 Bedford Group of

Drainage Boards

Objectors: DD2521 British Waterways DD6843 City & St James Property Ltd

Principal Issues: 11.36.1 Whether a link road was necessary for the first development phase.

11.36.2 Whether employment uses and traffic generation should be limited.

11.36.3 Whether extant mineral consents could be superseded by a single permission.

11.36.4 Whether the safeguarded corridor should exclude Willowbridge Marina.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.36.5 The regeneration of Newton Longville brickworks is a project of major local importance

and it is right that development plans should provide policy guidance for schemes of this magnitude. But, as far as I can tell, the development area falls entirely within the administration of Milton Keynes Council. The only relevant element in Aylesbury Vale is the safeguarded corridor of the link road between the Stoke Hammond by-pass and the A4146. I consider that it is unnecessary for the Local Plan to go on at such length about the brickworks development because – apart from the safeguarded corridor - the Council’s planning function will be simply consultative and not executive. RA.44 could be reduced to a short addition to the reasoned justification. This would meet the main objections to RA.44. I note the Proposed Change to the extent of the safeguarded corridor.


11.36.7 Paragraph 10.85 be modified by an additional sentence worded as follows:

133


The Council continues to support the principle of the regeneration of the brickworks site and the provisions of the agreed brief, including the need to protect the lines of roads necessary to secure satisfactory implementation of the development.


11.36.9 The Proposals Map be modified in accordance with PC 10.25.

Inspector's Note 11.36.10 The second sentence of paragraph 10.85 will need updating.

TRANSPORT

11.37 Paragraphs 10.86-10.89 Supporter:

DD1143 Rural Development Commission DD2673 G Shaw DD7928 Rural Development Commission DD7929 Rural Development Commission DD7930 Rural Development Commission

Objector: DD0114 Pitstone Parish Council

Principal Issue: 11.37.1 Whether the Council should support measures to reduce school journeys by car.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.37.2 Such support would not lead to a land-use policy.

11.37.3 Paragraphs 10.86 – 10.89 seem quite redundant. No serious issue has been taken with them, but they produce no policy and seem to me to extend the Plan unnecessarily.

Recommendation: 11.37.4 I recommend that the Plan be modified by the deletion of paragraphs 10.86 –10.89.

11.37.5 If they are retained, I suggest that no modification be made in response to this objection.

NEW DEVELOPMENT 11.38 Paragraph 10.91 and Policy RA.46

Supporters: DD1117 Vale of Aylesbury CPRE DD1538 P Bolton DD1539 M Ford DD1546 I Pleeth DD1633 Bierton & Broughton

Action Group DD2414 Hulcott Parish Council

DD2684 Chiltern Society DD2849 Mr & Mrs A Roberts DD2896 Mr & Mrs N J Clark DD5618 Mrs S A Cotton DD6803 J Mitchell DD6810 J E Mitchell

Objectors: DD0969 K W Miller DD1024 Mrs Miller

DD1422 Bierton with Broughton Parish Council

134


DD2194 Eastern Generation DD2674 G Shaw DD4267 Dinton with Ford & Upton

Parish Council

DD6471 W W H Carlyle DD7004 Mr & Mrs J P Chantler DD7722 Pitstone Parish Council

Principal Issues: 11.38.1 Whether RA.46 would work in Broughton Stocklake MDA.

11.38.2 Whether RA.46 should include reference to Government policy.

11.38.3 Whether Burcott Lane should be truncated.

11.38.4 Whether the Council should support measures to reduce school journeys by car.

11.38.5 Whether the Council had planning powers to apply RA.46.

11.38.6 Whether the policy was unreasonable in prohibiting all new development in the countryside.

Inspector’s Considerations and Conclusions: 11.38.7 Most of these objections were concerned with detailed matters related to the MDAs. Any

effect of those proposals on the objectives of RA.46 will have been taken into account in the strategic decisions of the Plan. I see no need to make reference to wider national principles. My earlier remarks about the school run apply.

11.38.8 The last two objections highlight the weaknesses of RA.46. It is entirely correct for the Council to reject proposals that create dangerous conditions. It would also be appropriate for schemes leading to traffic that damaged interests like residential amenity to be turned away. But it would be far more difficult to say when and what traffic harmed the use or character or appearance of rural lanes and roads.

11.38.9 What are rural lanes and roads? Would farm traffic have an adverse effect? How will the Council control urban development that generates rural traffic? Or traffic passing through the District? RA.46 mixes objectives of traffic safety and countryside protection in a way that is, frankly, unworkable in practice.

11.38.10 The need for development to promote safe road conditions would be met more satisfactorily by policies GP.19 or GP.21, which have the added advantage of applying across the District as a whole. This would mean that RA.46 could focus on the conservation of rural qualities, which would be a valid planning aim and could be properly applied to rural proposals.


In considering proposals for development in the rural areas the Council will have regard to the desirability of protecting the characteristics of the countryside from excessive traffic generation, including the need to avoid traffic increases and routing unsuited to rural roads.

135

Documents

11 CHAPTER 10 - RURAL AREAS - Aylesbury Vale