Aylesbury Vale Area

T1 Delivering the sustainable transport vision

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 264

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: Ms Alison Watt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Section7.1 states "an important policy tool to achieve this [sustainable transport] is a people-orientated transport hierarchy.." Yet this does not appear in policy T1, instead is the ambiguous "with particular emphasis on encouraging modal shift with greater use of more sustainable forms of transport ...". It needs to be made clear who is responsible for the delivery of a people-orientated transport hierarchy. This "hierarchy which places pedestrians and cyclists at the top" (Policy D1) should be applicable to all new developments, not just Aylesbury.

Full text:

Section7.1 states "an important policy tool to achieve this [sustainable transport] is a people-orientated transport hierarchy.." Yet this does not appear in policy T1, instead is the ambiguous "with particular emphasis on encouraging modal shift with greater use of more sustainable forms of transport ...". It needs to be made clear who is responsible for the delivery of a people-orientated transport hierarchy. This "hierarchy which places pedestrians and cyclists at the top" (Policy D1) should be applicable to all new developments, not just Aylesbury.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 722

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Haddenham Village Society

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy T1, 'Delivering the Sustainable Transport Vision' should be re-written to include this principle, rather than the ambiguous 'with particular emphasis on encouraging modal shift with greater use of more sustainable forms of transport ...'. Policy T1 should be further changed to include the Council's assistance in delivering this principle in all developments, not just Aylesbury and to a limited extent, Buckingham.

Full text:

Policy T1, 'Delivering the Sustainable Transport Vision' should be re-written to include this principle, rather than the ambiguous 'with particular emphasis on encouraging modal shift with greater use of more sustainable forms of transport ...'. Policy T1 should be further changed to include the Council's assistance in delivering this principle in all developments, not just Aylesbury and to a limited extent, Buckingham.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1555

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Barwood Land and Estates

Agent: Chilmark Consulting Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

T1 is not based on fully justified evidence as to why the various highway road links are needed.

no funding and delivery certainty and wholly insufficient evidence presented in the Plan and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan to ensure that various necessary and
critical road links and PPTCs are delivered during the plan period.
The policy is not consistent with the NPPF at paragraphs 154, 173 or 177 as there is no realistic
certainty that all of the proposed new highway road links will be funded and delivered during the plan
period.

Full text:

Please find the enclose representations and covering letter with respect to the current Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan: Proposed Submission consultation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2339

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: South West Milton Keynes Consortium

Agent: Carter Jonas - Associate SWMK Consortium

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The requested allocation of NLV020 will include similar transport improvements and connect to the existing and proposed walking, cycling and public transport network.

Policy T1, which includes assessing the impact on the highway and public transportation network and encouraging the use of more sustainable modes of transport. There are significant benefits associated with additional development on land at south west Milton Keynes (Sites NLV001 and NLV020) related to accessibility to walking, cycling and public transport and future connections to East-West Rail and the Oxford-to-Cambridge Expressway which are identified in Policies T2 and T3.

(Transport and Highway Matters note attached)

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Proposed Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan consultation, which are submitted on behalf of the South West Milton Keynes Consortium.

In summary, representations are made to the following:

* Paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12
* Paragraph 1.13
* Paragraph 1.17
* Paragraph 2.4
* Paragraph 2.6
* Policy S2 + Objection to Policy S2 Report
* Policy S4 & Paragraphs 3.25 to 3.35 + [2016] EWCA Civ 466 Judgement
* Policy S5 & Paragraphs 3.36 to 3.46
* Paragraphs 3.75 to 3.77
* Paragraphs 3.78 to 3.80
* Policy D1 & Paragraphs 4.1 to 4.29
* Policy D-NLV001 & Paragraphs 4.110 to 4.119
* Additional Allocation D-NLV020 + Environment Agency Flood Mapping Plan, Landscape & Visual Technical Note, Highways & Transport Note, Highway Improvements Plan and Concept Masterplan
* Policy D-HAL003 & Paragraph 4.131 to 4.138 + Landscape & Green Belt Statement
* Policy T1 + Highways & Transport Note
* Housing & Economic Lands Availability Assessment (January 2017) + Concept Masterplan and Landscape & Visual Appraisal
* Sustainability Appraisal (September 2017)
* Green Belt Assessment Part 2 - RAF Halton (July 2016)

Those representations which are supported by a separate technical document or plan are provided in a separate e-mail.

Can you please confirm receipt of these representations, and continue to keep us informed of progress with the Local Plan?

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2406

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Wendover Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Transport issues have been raised in many responses. Parking is considered
a vital local issue for the Town centre businesses and we do not feel that this
has been adequately addressed; in terms of the existing network, the impact
of the new proposed homes will impose too great a strain, without a range of
highway improvements and safety measures, as well as provision for
enhanced public transport (range and availability of bus services) and trains
(capacity).

Full text:

Response to Proposed Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) - see attachment for detailed responses on specific parts of the plan.

Overview and Summary

1) The following comments are being made by the Wendover Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) Steering Group (SG) on the proposed submission Vale of
Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP). Please note that extracts from the Plan, or a summary of their contents, are in italics, and our response is in ordinary type.

2) The current position is that the SG is completing the work in researching the
factual data for the WNP and completing its engagement events to ensure all issues are covered. During the first part of 2018 a detailed Questionnaire will be sent to residents and the timetable for the project to produce the WNP has been drawn up with the aim of producing the WNP in late 2019. The SG is an independent group of residents who operate under the auspices of the Parish Council but may take different views on the VALP. The aim of this response is to reflect the views of the SG but also the opinions and priorities of the residents who have given feedback to date, on the issues that concern them. We have sought to include all the main items of feedback to date in our comments, but ongoing research, and our Questionnaire, will undoubtedly throw up other ideas to implement, and concerns to be addressed.

3) The key points we would wish to make are:-

* We welcome the recognition of Wendover's distinctive identity as a settlement in the south of Aylesbury Vale.
* We welcome the adjustment to the draft Green Belt proposals and the limitation of development within the Town which accords with the great majority of views expressed by the public.
* We understand the decision to allocate 1000 or so homes to the brownfield site at RAF Halton: however there is insufficient detail on either the numbers of homes (and the lack of definition is an issue), or their types and tenure and size. The public support a variety of types of affordable homes to meet local needs but have still to be consulted on the mix of provision.
* The public have made it clear that, whilst they support affordable housing of all types, in appropriate locations within the Town, and if necessary at RAF Halton, they have asked that appropriate and sufficient infrastructure is provided at RAF Halton to include new, or expanded, health, and schools provision, the maintenance and expansion of sports and leisure facilities, the appropriate retention and development of heritage assets, and the provision of a range of jobs closely connected to the new housing provision and appropriate to the labour market needs. The SG must reflect this in its development of the WNP.
* The proposed development at RAF Halton will have a close and intimate impact on Wendover and we have concerns about the policies which have yet to be developed for the provision of employment land, and the maintenance and enhancement of the shopping centre in Wendover
* Transport issues have been raised in many responses. Parking is considered a vital local issue for the Town centre businesses and we do not feel that this has been adequately addressed; in terms of the existing network, the impact of the new proposed homes will impose too great a strain, without a range of highway improvements and safety measures, as well as provision for enhanced public transport (range and availability of bus services) and trains (capacity).
* Details of the Garden Town and proposed expansion of Aylesbury has repercussions for the surrounding area but is insufficiently addressed - we had understood there would be a consultation on this issue in the Autumn of 2017 but this is awaited.
* The impacts of HS2 will be significant yet there are few details known at this stage of the mitigation impacts. Given its effects on residents business and workers in the Town we are anxious to know more given the longer term impact on the whole community.
* We welcome the principle of sustainability underlying the whole plan and feel all measures to meet the challenge of climate change should be taken.

4) The community of Wendover is faced with unique difficulties in addressing the VALP response. The impact of development proposed at RAF Halton will affect it significantly, yet no details of the proposed settlement plan (described as a Masterplan in some documents) are yet available. RAF Halton is not within the Parish of Wendover, nor does it appear to be covered in the Halton Neighbourhood Plan. We think it desirable that there are specific proposals in any VALP to ensure there is proper and meaningful debate on the future of the RAF Halton site, and surrounding heritage and green infrastructure, in Halton and Wendover Parishes, so that the public can work together with landowners and the Government to ensure that the ultimate development of the site is for the benefit of the whole community and reflects the contribution of those living and working in the areas.

5) In addition we think that there will be a need for revisions to the VALP as well as a joint Neighbourhood Plan (involving Wendover, Halton, and the MOD) at a later stage of the VALP process to ensure that proper planning principles are adhered to and the full consultation promised is in fact provided.

6) We now comment on specific provisions of the VALP by reference to page and paragraph numbers. We have made some separate comments on the documents included as supporting evidence.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2680

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Oxfordshire County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy T1: 'Delivering the sustainable transport vision' does not mention OCC as a partner and lacks detail about the schemes or evidence base.

Full text:

Oxfordshire County Councils' Response to the Pre-submission Draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP)
Overall Position:
1. Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) supports Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) in its aim of adopting a new Local Plan and is supportive of the scale of growth being planned for.
2. However, we have some concerns that the draft VALP as currently written would be unsound in relation to the provision for supporting transport infrastructure. At this stage, we are not satisfied that:
i. The impacts of proposed growth in Aylesbury Vale on the highway network within Oxfordshire have been fully assessed, taking account of already planned and proposed growth within Oxfordshire and the infrastructure options being planned to support it;
ii. Necessary mitigation measures have been identified and costed; and
iii. Funding will be forthcoming when needed to deliver the infrastructure matched to the proposed growth.
3. We reiterate our willingness to be involved in additional work, the outcome of which is likely to require amendments to local plan policy and/or text and additions to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).
4. We would be pleased to be party to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between AVDC, Buckinghamshire County Council (BCC), Oxfordshire County Council and Cherwell District Council which sets out how the councils will collaborate on a programme of transport work, including consideration of the A41 corridor as a priority. We are also willing to be party to a separate MoU between AVDC, BCC, OCC, South Oxfordshire District Council and Wycombe District Council setting out how impacts of planned growth within Buckinghamshire on the highway network within South Oxfordshire have been assessed and how necessary mitigation measures will be funded and delivered.
5. We will continue to work with Aylesbury Vale on National Infrastructure projects of joint interest, namely East-West Rail and the Oxford -Cambridge Expressway.
Proposed Scale and Distribution of Growth:
6. OCC supports the draft VALP in seeking to accommodate the district's own identified housing needs in full and make provision for unmet needs from other Buckinghamshire districts. This will result in unmet need being provided for within the Buckinghamshire Housing Market Area (HMA) so it will not be necessary to look outside to Oxfordshire.
7. We also have no objection in principle to the significant scale of employment land supply identified within the district. The surplus land will help make up shortfalls in neighbouring Buckinghamshire authorities and provide sufficient employment land for the wider Functional Economic Market Area. This will help to grow the sub-regional economy, helping to enhance the reputation of the southern end of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor as an attractive place to invest.
8. We support in principle the spatial strategy which is based on focusing growth and investment primarily at Aylesbury where it can take advantage of East-West Rail, with further strategic development sites at Buckingham, Winslow, Wendover and Haddenham, provided that the impacts of proposed growth on the Oxfordshire highway network are fully assessed and the VALP contains policies and proposals to deliver necessary mitigation measures
Implications of Strategic Transport Infrastructure Proposed for the Oxford-Cambridge Corridor:
9. We support draft policy T2 which seeks to ensure that new development does not prejudice the implementation of East West rail project, including new stations and twin tracking to the south of Aylesbury. Closing the gap between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough will increase the viability of East West Rail by improving north-south connectivity and provide potential opportunities for future growth
10. We also support policy T3 which sets out AVDC's support for the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, which will open opportunities for growth as outlined in the recent NIC report ,and commits to protecting the scheme route once it is agreed and further information is available. We agree that the implications of the route should be taken into account in an early review of the Plan.
11. OCC will continue to work with AVDC and other partners on priority infrastructure projects to improve connectivity across the Oxford - Cambridge corridor, and to collaborate in developing a long term vision for Oxford-Cambridge arc.
Local Transport Infrastructure:
12. It is essential that there is a full understanding of the transport infrastructure required to support the VALP development proposals, including within surrounding areas and the local plan contains effective policies to deliver necessary infrastructure schemes. It is disappointing that to date very little work on cross-boundary transport impacts has been undertaken. However, it is encouraging that a programme of additional work has recently been agreed in principle and will be progressed alongside a Memorandum of Understanding.
A41 Corridor
14. The A41 is the main east-west route through Aylesbury, connecting to Bicester and providing indirect access to the M40 via the A34. In our response to consultation at the VALP Preferred Options stage, OCC requested that it be invited to work with AVDC and Buckinghamshire Councils under the duty to cooperate as the Local Plan evidence base is developed, to ensure that transport work takes account of significant growth proposals within Oxfordshire and the strategic infrastructure schemes identified or being explored to support it, particularly growth at Bicester and Thame. However, we have not been involved in modelling and related transport discussions and are concerned that insufficient attention has been paid to our comments submitted in response to consultation on the Aylesbury and Buckingham Transport Strategies.
15. It is not clear what assumptions have been included in the Buckinghamshire Transport modelling work 3 for planned growth at Bicester Garden Town and the strategic infrastructure options being explored to support it. The impact on the A41 corridor of growth generated by development proposals in the VALP will change depending on the transport scenarios tested e.g. with Bicester South East Perimeter Road and Eastern perimeter route dualling. We would be pleased to provide more information on these schemes, as set out in our Local Transport Plan 2015-2031 and 2017 Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy (OxIS).
16. Further work is needed for the A41 corridor to provide more detailed analysis of the various scenarios in the Bicester area to assess the impact of VALP growth within Cherwell. A transport strategy for mitigating impacts on the A41 in the vicinity of Bicester will need to be developed and referenced in the VALP and accompanying IDP; this should include the phasing and funding of necessary transport improvements.
A418 corridor/Thame Roundabout
17. OCC also has concerns about the capacity of the A418 from Aylesbury which links through to the M40 and A40 through Oxfordshire. In particular, that increased cross-boundary traffic flows generated by growth proposed at Haddenham (now 315 new homes) in combination with growth planned at Thame in South Oxfordshire and at Princes Risborough in Wycombe District would have unacceptable impacts on the Oxfordshire highway network, particularly at the A418 and A4129 roundabout on the edge of Thame. There are no references in the draft VALP and IDP to transport mitigation measures within Oxfordshire.
18. The draft Plan states that Haddenham is two miles from Thame which has a wider range of shops and services. Thame also offers employment opportunities and has the closest secondary school to Haddenham. It is therefore essential that sustainable modes of travel between Haddenham and Thame are also evaluated and improved to provide more opportunities for alternatives to car travel and minimise the impact on the Oxfordshire road network.
19. We understand that BCC modelling results to date show there is an issue at Thame roundabout resulting from proposed development in Aylesbury and Haddenham. One area of work that needs to be addressed is what sort of scheme may be needed at the roundabout, what the cost is and how it is to be funded - the issue of how mitigation measures are identified, costed and funded needs to be resolved. This requires additional work which should be undertaken jointly, so we welcome the proposals for an early review and wish to be involved.
Soundness Issue: Further work is required on the transport and infrastructure evidence supporting the draft VALP, the outcome of which is likely to require amendments to the draft plan and IDP to set out necessary transport mitigation measures within Oxfordshire and how they are to be funded.
Education provision:
20. There is significant movement of pupils across the Oxfordshire-Aylesbury Vale boundary, especially at secondary level. Some Aylesbury Vale villages lie within the designated areas of Oxfordshire schools such as Lord Williams's School in
Thame and Wheatley Park School and families in many other settlements, especially Haddenham, choose Oxfordshire schools.
21. The IDP sets out proposals for new and expanded schools in Aylesbury Vale. The scale of expansion appears broadly in line with the expected population growth. Continued liaison between AVDC, Buckinghamshire County Council and OCC will be necessary to monitor the supply of, and demand for, school places on both sides of the county boundary, and in particular regarding the phasing of school capacity expansion.
Detailed comments on the current Proposed-Submission Document
Main document:
22. Para 7.4 'Buckinghamshire County-wide Traffic Model Phase 3' states "a third phase of modelling focused on producing the revised Local Plan development scenario. In addition a set of mitigation schemes were tested in order to try and mitigate any impacts arising from the Local Plan development in terms of increased congestion and travel time. The model also considered traffic flows on strategic routes outside of the county." However, it is not clear how traffic flows on strategic routes outside of the county were considered.
23. Policy T1: 'Delivering the sustainable transport vision' does not mention OCC as a partner and lacks detail about the schemes or evidence base.
24. Policy T6 Cycle routes - refers to county-wide and local strategies but does not appear to consider cross-boundary opportunities.
Duty to Cooperate Paper:
25. The Duty to Cooperate paper confirms that no transport evidence base has been obtained from Oxfordshire County Council. Whilst OCC is listed as a strategic partner in the document, reference to OCC is absent from the transport action (section 4) to undertake countywide transport modelling in order to identify cross-boundary impacts of growth and assess strategic mitigation.
Infrastructure Delivery Plan:
26. In the Buckingham Transport Strategy at para 4.31, "Promotion of Bicester North railway station as a means of accessing London" is listed as a key infrastructure investment. It is unclear whether the traffic impact of this has been assessed, or how this is changing with the development of EWR and Winslow Station.
27. Para 4.35 the IDP refers to Primary Public Transport Corridors (PPTCs) including the A41 Bicester Road. At Appendix A 1.3 Transport and Highways - Long Term 2023-2033, the following scheme is listed although OCC understands this would not extend into Oxfordshire and would only cover the immediate vicinity around Aylesbury. Our preference would be for a joined up solution to this corridor:
Public Transport
Aylesbury Transport Strategy
Priority Public Transport Corridor A41 Bicester Road
BCC
£7m
Developer Contributio-ns
Initial Works by 2020 Long Term by 2033
To be implemented once relevant link roads are in place therefore more capacity
Necessary
Transport Modelling and Further Work to be Undertaken:
28. Following the cross-boundary transport impacts meeting on 04/12/17, OCC understands that Buckinghamshire County Council have used a Jacobs Vissim Model which uses the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) and the National Trip End Model (NTEM) for growth assumptions. Based on discussions at the meeting, it is understood that despite the proposed growth at Aylesbury and Haddenham, modelling carried out so far has identified no significant impact on cross boundary links on the A41, albeit a slight increase on the A41 between M40 junction 9 and Esso roundabout (Oxford Road junction) compared to the 'Do Minimum'. Consequently, no mitigation is proposed for the A41 in the vicinity of Bicester. If this is the case, OCC question the modelling results and maintain that there is likely to be a need for the plan to require the proposed allocations to fund mitigation measures within Oxfordshire.
29. Assumptions used for the modelling undertaken to date have not yet been provided, neither has evidence that local plan growth at Bicester and elsewhere in Cherwell has been fully taken into account. OCC's updated Bicester SATURN model will have more fine grain detail in that area. The impact on the A41 will also change depending on the transport infrastructure scenarios that will need to be tested i.e. the South East Perimeter Road and Eastern Perimeter Road dualling. Further discussions need to be held with OCC regarding this.
30. It is encouraging that following the cross-border transport impacts meeting, a programme of additional work has been agreed in principle and will be progressed alongside a Memorandum of Understanding between Aylesbury Vale, Cherwell, Buckinghamshire CC, and OCC. The work programme will focus on the A41 corridor and involve more detailed analysis on junctions including with Ploughley Road, Pioneer Road (SE Perimeter Road) and Esso Roundabout. OCC have committed to providing a summary of the modelling work it has undertaken/been involved with in the area. In addition, the employment development at Silverstone may require further assessment of the A43.
Public Transport and Active Travel
31. Aylesbury and Oxford are connected via the Strategic 280 Bus route: The aim is for this 280 to operate at premium route frequency - four buses per hour. Between Thame and Oxford this has already been achieved, with three per hour between Aylesbury and Thame - development in Haddenham could provide the opportunity and funding to increase the frequency to four on this section.
32. The Haddenham to Thame cycle path is a long established aspiration and OCC is currently doing some work on land negotiations with Sustrans for the path in order to determine a route. BCC has already secured contributions from three
sites, but it is unlikely any substantial further work on the route can happen until complete funding is secure. Further contributions would therefore be welcome.