Aylesbury Vale Area

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3288

Received: 07/01/2020

Respondent: Pete Shaw

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Firstly, I wish to complain at the "innocent" way in which the housing numbers have been modified. In all instances this has changed from "around" to "at least". This is truly dishonest as if necessary it could be interpreted as changing from "around" to "unlimited" and this is totally unacceptable. No housing plan should have such freedom without continuing reference to other local needs and protections.

Full text:

The Oxford-Cambridge Express Way

Sitting here as a retired engineer I can well understand the concept of an Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. We desperately need to stop the continuing focus on the M25/M4 corridors and transport around London. A belt of new infrastructure joining Oxford, Bicester/Banbury, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge sitting between London and the Midlands would be an ideal solution. If HS2 goes ahead there will be a new natural centre of communications in the area where it crosses the proposed expressway. Aylesbury, sitting midway between the M25 corridor and the expressway, must have a clear strategy as to how it is to integrate itself into this new concept or it will be left behind. I don't see Aylesbury ever enticing major employers into the area unless things change dramatically. Already we can see the early signs of what an expressway could be by looking at the local growth in the Bicester/Banbury area (M40) and Milton Keynes (M1). Also the recent fast communications between Milton Keynes, Bedford and the A1. With this already happening and the concept of a fully integrated expressway on the horizon, I cannot see Aylesbury benefitting from this with its poor road and rail communications in all directions. The VALP gives no indication of the way forward and this lack of vision is certainly not "justified as the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives". As of its local road system, anything will be just "too little, too late". Our local roads provide little enticement to prospective work creating investors. I hate to say this, but I don't see a future Aylesbury Garden Town but just a massive housing estate in no man's land where most of its workforce travel north, south, east or west on second class roads to places of employment.

Housing Numbers

Firstly, I wish to complain at the "innocent" way in which the housing numbers have been modified. In all instances this has changed from "around" to "at least". This is truly dishonest as if necessary it could be interpreted as changing from "around" to "unlimited" and this is totally unacceptable. No housing plan should have such freedom without continuing reference to other local needs and protections.
Secondly (and here I am sure I'm speaking on behalf of most of Aylesbury's residents) I have no faith in the council's local traffic strategy. With all the proposed house building, a clear strategy is needed but all we get is "too little, too late" tactical solutions. Because there are no strategic funds available (or perhaps no will to fight for them) we are left to resort to a series of S106 agreements which are used to force house developers to pay for a series of linked estate roads which do not constitute a fast efficient route round or in and out of Aylesbury. I accept the need for S106 agreements to supply local benefits but abhor how they are being used to supply strategic solutions. Strategic needs should be borne by the community as a whole, not just by the subset of house on a new housing development. My two eldest grandsons will soon be looking for starter homes in Aylesbury and if the house costs are increased by totally unfair S106 agreements I will not be very happy. In summary, the VALP traffic plan claim to be "positively prepared by seeking to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements" is a fairy-tale.

HS2 and D-AGT2

Yet again, we have the flamboyant claim "has been positively prepared, seeking to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements". These claims must come from some official local government handbook of fatuous phrases. If D-AGT2 is it be built it should stand on its own merits with strategic needs borne strategically as outlined above. Even before the recent HS2 delays it was unlikely that the developments would coincide. As it is I fear for the new residents who may find their lives, after nicely settling in for a couple of years, totally disrupted by the construction of HS2.