Aylesbury Vale Area

7.20

Showing comments and forms 1 to 20 of 20

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 340

Received: 07/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Chris Webbley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The draft here is even weaker than for the E-W Rail. Now that HMG has committed significant weight to developing in this corridor, AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. Promising 'an early review' without timescales or scoping the importance of that indicates a lack of vision and energy. As with the original railway and motorway development, Aylesbury could be about to miss out on vital schemes.

Full text:

The draft here is even weaker than for the E-W Rail. Now that HMG has committed significant weight to developing in this corridor, AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. Promising 'an early review' without timescales or scoping the importance of that indicates a lack of vision and energy. As with the original railway and motorway development, Aylesbury could be about to miss out on vital schemes.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 389

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: National Trust - Waddesdon Estate/Hartwell House

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Waddesdon Estate; National Trust and Hartwell House strongly object to a southern option via Aylesbury for the Oxford- Cambridge Expressway

Full text:

The implications of the proposed Oxford - Cambridge Expressway (in terms of the 3 options) should be considered as part of the emergent Local Plan process in which early consideration needs to be given by AVDC as to which route it would be willing to support in principle. Otherwise, there is the risk that the proposed route of the Expressway will be presented as a fait acompli as part of a future Local Plan Review (safeguarded route) with limited opportunity to properly assess the impact of the road proposals on the historic landscape. Clearly, the Waddesdon Estate, National Trust and Hartwell House are strongly opposed to a southern option via Aylesbury.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 474

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Even though the final route for the Oxford Cambridge Expressway has not been decided it will have a positive impact on the Vale of Aylesbury. It is a government supported scheme and AVDC should be showing active plans to make the most for transport, housing etc that the expressway will bring forward. The expressway will be built during the time of the VALP (2017 - 2034) and realistic planning for a "New" Town should be considered which would alleviate the traffic issues around Aylesbury.

Full text:

Even though the final route for the Oxford Cambridge Expressway has not been decided it will have a positive impact on the Vale of Aylesbury. It is a government supported scheme and AVDC should be showing active plans to make the most for transport, housing etc that the expressway will bring forward. The expressway will be built during the time of the VALP (2017 - 2034) and realistic planning for a "New" Town should be considered which would alleviate the traffic issues around Aylesbury.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 962

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr R Horton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Not enough commitment shown in the plan to Government supported scheme and failing to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme presents.

Full text:

Not enough commitment shown in the plan to Government supported scheme and failing to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme presents.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1292

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object, 7.20

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

Full text:

I object to this development as follows :

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr John Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object, 7.20

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

Full text:

I object to this development as follows:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1328

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs B Daniel

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

Full text:

SHORTLIST OF MOST RELEVANT SECTIONS, WITH COMMENTS
3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.

3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy, therefore.
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.

7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Brenda Daniel/Colin Doman

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1392

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Keith Waterman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

Full text:

In response to the Draft Aylesbury Local Plan VALP, I set out my comments below.

Comments / Response

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses within this small area will compound the current traffic problems and will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should be thinking much longer term and more strategically and should include a full details for a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is meaningless and too easy to circumvent early on, with a weak excuse on "economic or practicability" grounds. A firm commitment linked to action is required to avoid an unacceptable fudge later on. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, which is in itself will be a monumental task, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will probably not happen and certainly not before the next plan in 2034. This issue needs to be addressed now before more development is planned or sanctioned. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system and congestion around the town centre. While the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth proposed cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Not Justified.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
1) This creates coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. Therefore Not Justified as the most appropriate strategy. Where next, absorb Weston Turville and Wendover into the same conurbation?
2) Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road creates a severe impact on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that it is not Effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning. The proposed Stoke Mandeville bypass as part of HS2 will do nothing to alleviate congestion problems except in the immediate area near the church and school. This new development will quickly negate any benefits gained therefrom.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. Not Justified nor Effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe/catastrophic. Not Effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed and integrated using a valid traffic model. Raises question of Positive Preparation.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the policy. The Plan is therefore not Justified (and probably not Consistent with national policy) in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the significance of East-West Rail to the Vale with energy or commitment. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced. The current VALP cannot be said to put forward the 'most appropriate strategy' as a Justified plan would.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality. Without this, this aspect of the Plan is not Positively Prepared nor Justified.

Aylesbury town centre must be one of the least attractive county towns with nothing to attract shoppers. If you need to go shopping it is necessary to travel to Milton Keynes, High Wycombe or Oxford. The town looks like it is dying on its feet and all that is proposed is to increase housing density and encroach onto valuable green space around the town.

There appear to be many empty office buildings that have been unoccupied for a long time with little prospect that they will attract new tenants. The trend nowadays seems to encourage working from home to reduce the need for expensive office space and AVDC needs to acknowledge this trend. Restrictions on areas reserved for commercial premises should be revisited to put the land or buildings back to full use. This would help to regenerate Aylesbury as a vibrant town that people want to visit before taking more and more green land around the edges.

Notwithstanding the above, traffic congestion gets progressively worse year on year. There needs to be a much greater vision for the town and the area first before expanding housing provision on green land to satisfy aggressive housing developers (land bank managers).


Regards
Keith Waterman

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1419

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Steven Hyams

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

How are we taking advantage of this? We seem to be largely ignoring the opportunity and operating in isolation.

Full text:


3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development

This is too many houses in a very small area. It will cause traffic chaos amongst an already fragile traffic situation. It is not Justified or Effective.

3.15 New settlement

This is too short term and does not consider the potential of creating a new town from the outset. It is not the best strategy and therefore not Justified.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements

Saying that you "will seek to preserve" is too open and too easy to back out of subsequently. This needs to be guaranteed, otherwise everything will surely end up amalgamating into one amorphous lump. It is not an Effective approach.

3.36 and 3.38 Infrastructure

Saying the VALP "aims to ensure...sufficient and appropriate infrastructure" is a commendable ambition, but unlikely to result in real outcomes. For example, with so many new houses I would expect to see the need for significantly increased provision for A & E and other healthcare services. Where is the money from that going to magically appear from?

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre

The town centre cannot absorb all the extra traffic that will be generated. It is already becoming extremely difficult to park at peak times.It is not Justified nor Effective.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS

ATS is not credible, based on flawed modelling, criiticised by AECOM (working for BCC). The orbital strategy has no concrete and immediate action. By the time it is fully implemented (if ever) it will have already failed the population for decades.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads

The orbital roads will, at best, partially mitigate the massively increased local traffic caused by the population explosion. 2017 witnessed gridlock on more than one occasion from one key road being obstructed.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

Aylesbury cannot absorb this level of growth without huge, guaranteed infrastructure expansion. Not intentions, guarantees.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

4.125 RAF Halton

Traffic and infrastructure nightmare, with no guarantee of funding and implementation at the appropriate time.

7.16 East-West Rail

How are we taking advantage of this? We seem to be largely ignoring the opportunity and operating in isolation.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

How are we taking advantage of this? We seem to be largely ignoring the opportunity and operating in isolation.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers

Can we ever rely on Developers? They are pursuing their own objectives (as anyone who has ever bought a new house will know) so what is the inescapable obligation on them?

Signed:

Mr Steven Hyams

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1560

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Barbara White

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There is no evidence that AVDC is planning to actively capitalise on this scheme. It is surprising that the VALP does not consider the possibility of new settlement along the expressway taking advantage of the transport links it will provide. Building houses, employment facilities and infrastructure in the north of the district would alleviate the desire to cram so many houses to the South of Aylesbury and thus relieve the traffic chaos that the

Full text:

Comments on the VALP

I am writing to comment on the Vale of Aylesbury Local plan, on areas that especially concern me, as a resident of Weston Turville.
The first point is that I found the documents extremely difficult to follow and the process by which to responded via the "online comment system" very unwieldy". The system appears to me to make it almost impossible for members of the general public who are not expert in these things to provide rationale input into the VALP. You have asked for people's input but made it virtually impossible for this to be fully understood what is being proposed for the Vale of Aylesbury. I have however been able to read the sections that are relevant to me as a resident of Weston Turville, a frequent user of the local roads, a user of the local healthcare system and use the Aylesbury Town centre shops and supermarkets.

I would like to make comments on the following parts of the VALP:
3.22: Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development comprising open countryside between settlements
A commitment to "seek to preserve" is an extremely weak phrase and suggests that there is an acceptability of failure. The plan states a wish to preserve identities of neighbouring settlements, and to avoid compromising open countryside between developments. However a significant section of the VALP concerns building some 16,000 houses to the South of Aylesbury. Permission has already been granted for developments which cause significant coalescence for Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville, Aylesbury, Halton and Aston Clinton. Planning in this way is not justified or effective and makes a mockery of the statement that AVDC will "seek to preserve" character and identities of neighbouring settlements.

D1: delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The only way that it appears that AVDC seeks to achieve this is by allowing significant growth to the South of Aylesbury. How this achieves Aylesbury being classed as a Garden Town is extremely difficult to understand. To make the Town Centre attractive and attractive to people the level of traffic and parking need to be addressed. This cannot be achieved if the traffic assessments are not believable and there are no up-to-date measurements of current traffic flows. Effective understanding of the additional traffic that the significant additional housing will generate is essential. Without this data the plan for a Garden Town is not realistic.

4.16: Aylesbury Transport Strategy
The whole Aylesbury Transport Strategy (ATS) does not appear to be robust and based on sound evidence. Key roads of the supposed "orbital strategy" are aspirational. A fact that is admitted in the VALP. How can the ATS be a sound proposal when there are serious flaws in the basic data on which it is based? Thus I believe the ATS is neither sound nor effective and is not fit for purpose.

4.17: Interventions including outer link roads
The idea of a complete ring-road around Aylesbury would be an attractive proposition. However as stated in the response to 4.16 some of the key roads of the supposed "orbital strategy" are aspirational. In addition it is difficult to assess if a new set of roads will be effective. It must take into account of the traffic generated by the significant new housing that would have to be built to fund any of the new roads.

D-AGT1, D-AGT3, D-AGT4, and 4.125
The concerns I have expressed to sections 3.22, 4.16, 4.17 and D1 are relevant to my concerns regarding the housing allocations in theses sections of the VALP. It is difficult to understand if AVDC through the VALP or the developers are driving the significant housing pans for these areas that are to the South of Aylesbury. Concerns were expressed to the transport issues that would result from the developments at the ex-MDA site, Woodlands and Hampden Fields but these have been approved by the Strategic Development Management Committee. In addition to these developments we have significant developments in Stoke Mandeville and the need to consider Halton. It is essential to effectively mitigate the amount of traffic generated by this vast quantity of housing. The impact of so many developments has not been done as there are serious flaws in the ATS and the inadequacy of the transport data and modelling.

3.15: New settlement
AVDC decided against a new settlement, opting instead to try to add to existing settlements, expansion to the South of Aylesbury. This decision is not justified considering both the number of existing plans already approved by the SDMC or that are currently under discussion. This also means that this part of the plan is not effective, as sites not considered for development are now part of developers' proposals.

7.16: East-West Rail Link
The Rail Link could be seen as providing a major development of the transport strategy, and an opportunity for businesses and for commuters to reach new employment. The significance of this opportunity does not seem to be recognised in the VALP as it is a key infrastructure project and should be fully considered. To be an effective plan this important piece of infra-structure should be thoroughly embedded in the thinking behind the plan. However it does not appear to be integrated and so I believe the VALP is not effective.

7.20: Oxford-Cambridge Expressway
This is a positive, government-supported scheme, and is evidently important for the future development of Aylesbury Vale, for transport, housing, employment and facilities. There is no evidence that AVDC is planning to actively capitalise on this scheme. In view of this significant opportunity it is surprising that the VALP does not consider the possibility of new settlement (New Town) along the expressway taking advantage of the excellent transport links it will provide. Building houses, employment facilities and infrastructure in the north of the district would alleviate the desire to cram so many houses to the South of Aylesbury and thus relieve the traffic chaos that the developments produce through Aylesbury. As this major opportunity is not even considered, the VALP cannot be justified as the most appropriate strategy for the future wellbeing and prosperity of the Aylesbury Vale and is not consistent with national policy.

I would like these comments to be regarded by the VALP team of AVDC and that they will be passed on to the Government Inspector at the appropriate time.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1656

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Ann Webbley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This is a positive, government-supported scheme, and is evidently important for the future development of Aylesbury Vale, for transport, housing and facilities. As there is no evidence that AVDC is planning to actively capitalise on this, the VALP is not effective, and, insofar as it is not consistent with government policy, it is not justified.

Full text:

Comments on the VALP

I am writing to comment on the Vale of Aylesbury Local plan, on areas that especially concern me, as a resident of Weston Turville, and as a person who likes to see a positive, thorough, sound approach to new developments.

On the topic of being sound and thorough, I wish to address these parts of the VALP:
* 4.14 To make the Town Centre attractive, note has to be taken of the traffic and parking issues involved. This cannot be done effectively if there are not accurate and up-to-date measurements of current traffic flows, combined with effective planning for the additional housing. Without this information the plan is not effective.
* 4.16 A whole transport strategy needs a robust, sound evidence base. This is not used in the VALP, so I believe the transport strategy is neither sound nor effective.
* 4.17 The idea of a ring-road is seductive, but its effectiveness needs to be assessed using traffic research that is up- to date, and sound. In particular, it is hard to say that a new set of roads will be effective, if it does not take account of the traffic generated by the new housing being used to fund the eventual new roads. This part of the plan lacks the thoroughness I look for in a sound plan, and I feel these errors mean this section cannot be justified.
* D-AGT1, D-AGT3, D-AGT4, and 4.125 I feel that similar worries are raised by the plans for housing at Woodlands, Hampden Fields, and eventually, Halton. Without considering the impact of so many developments with so many houses in a small part of the district together with their impact on future traffic flows, it is impossible to view the plan as effective.

I also wish to view planning as a positive approach, so I wish to express my reservations about the soundness of these aspects:
* 3.22 A commitment to "seek to preserve" is a weasel phrase, building in the acceptability of failure. It is not a sound, thorough commitment. This is shown in the way the plan states a wish to preserve identities of neighbouring settlements, and to avoid compromising open countryside between developments, and yet permission has been granted for developments which cause coalescence for Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville, Aylesbury, Halton and Aston Clinton. Planning in this way is not justified or effective.
* D1 delivering the Garden town. The current plans are the same as were there before a proposal of a garden town was mooted; they have not been rethought in an effective way since the Garden Town project was adopted. This is, evidently, is not an effective way of delivering the garden town.
* D1 also, the currently planned and proposed developments of housing and business are not sustainable in that they will produce pollution and congestion which will reduce quality of life in the developments and limit future developments. The plan should also commit to positive policies on improving air quality, including requirements for developers to work towards this. Currently, the VALP cannot be regarded as an effective or justified plan.

My view of a positive plan eventually leads me to wish to see a clear hope for a better place to live, for all the district, for all residents. I feel that the VALP falls short on the level of flexibility required to produce the positive changes - it is not effective, and is not justified in some of its planning ideas. I wish to explain my reservations with reference to these sections:
* 3.15 New settlement. This is an essential part of the need for a positive place to live. AVDC decided against a new settlement, opting instead to try to add to existing settlements. This decision is not justified considering both the number of existing plans (outside the VALP, already under discussion) and the scale of the required level of building. This also means that this part of the plan is not effective, as sites not considered for development are now part of developers' proposals.
* 7.16 East-West Rail Link. To be an effective plan, based on sound thinking, this important piece of infra-structure should be thoroughly embedded in the thinking behind the plan. The Rail Link could be seen as providing a major development of transport strategy, and an opportunity for businesses and for commuters to reach new employment. This has not been integrated, and so I believe the VALP is not effective.
* 7.20 Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. This is a positive, government-supported scheme, and is evidently important for the future development of Aylesbury Vale, for transport, housing and facilities. As there is no evidence that AVDC is planning to actively capitalise on this, the VALP is not effective, and, insofar as it is not consistent with government policy, it is not justified.
* 3.15 In view of the planned development of new transport links in the North of the county, it is surprising that the VALP does not reconsider the possibility of new settlement in the north of the district. As this is not done, the plan cannot be justified as the most appropriate strategy for the future wellbeing and prosperity of the Aylesbury Vale.

Thank you for reading these comments.

Mrs Ann Webbley

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1668

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr William Spear

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Again, another major infrastructure project of which the plan fails to take full advantage.

Full text:

Comments on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
The strategy presented will not work because the building of too many houses in an area that is clearly too small will lead to severe traffic problems. Consequently rather than attract new business the increased congestion will have the opposite effect and thus reduce the level of economic activity. This is not to mention the impact on existing businesses that may consider relocating because of the increased congestion.

3.15 New settlement
A new town requires a long term vision and strategy and the current plan does not meet this requirement.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
'Seeking to preserve' is an aspiration rather than a specific strategy, and leaves little confidence that AVDC will effectively maintain the individual identity of the villages around Aylesbury. A more robust strategy is required.
4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre

The current plan to make the town centre more attractive, does not take seriously the impact on the town centre of the extra housing. With current traffic levels, the town is already seriously congested and with all the new planned housing it will be gridlocked.
4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
The evidence base for the Transport Strategy is very limited and has been seriously criticized by Bucks County Council's transport consultants. In addition, much of the plan is 'aspirational' which in reality means it will never happen.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads

The impact of 16,000 extra houses in reality means at least 30,000 extra vehicles which will have a catastrophic impact on the town's transport system. As mentioned in 4.14 the additional traffic will gridlock both the town centre and the main feeder roads (A41, A413, and A418) into and out of the town on a daily basis. This will lead to drivers seeking alternative routes and creating unsafe 'rat-runs' through residential housing areas. Likewise, there is little evidence to confirm the planned orbital routes will satisfactorily absorb the additional traffic and thus prevent the mayhem described above.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

The current plan does not demonstrate this can be effectively delivered because of the sheer volume of growth.
The planned growth
D-AGTl South Aylesbury

The plan demonstrates poor infrastructure development as it will merge Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall and as such is not an appropriate or acceptable strategy. In addition, the planned housing will generate at least 2,000+ extra vehicles which will regularly gridlock the gyratory system and the surrounding roads. This again will lead to the creation of unsafe 'rat-runs' through residential areas.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The A41 in particular will be adversely affected by the planned development,, therefore, is neither effective nor justified.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)

1. The planned housing will generate a very significant number of extra vehicles which will lead to regular gridlock at the gyratory system and the A41 and A413. Again, this will lead to the creation of unsafe 'rat-runs' through residential areas.
2. The strategy of local villages maintaining individual identities is severely comprised with this development as Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville will effectively become suburbs of Aylesbury.

4.125 RAF Halton

The closure of RAF Halton and the impact of 1,000+ new houses on the local infrastructure need to be properly evaluated, particularly in terms of the surrounding road network.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing

The Woodlands development only provides for 20% affordable housing which is not consistent with the national policy of 35%. Other developments may try to follow suit.
7.16 East-West Rail
The East-West rail link is major infrastructure project which is not exploited to the full by VALP. Opportunities such as this are rare and the local plan must take full advantage of the economic and social benefits it will bring to the area.
7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

See 7.16. Again, another major infrastructure project of which the plan fails to take full advantage.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
The plan does not commit to vital policies that will improve air quality

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1800

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Jane Chilman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Please also see my comments under 3.15 New Settlement.
The Government supports this scheme, therefore AVDC needs to capitalise on this opportunity and plan for transport, housing etc. that this scheme will bring forward.

Full text:

Please see below my comments on the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.
I would firstly like to point out that the VALP is unnecessarily complex and is obviously not designed for the general public to comment on. Therefore, I am writing my objections to the VALP in this letter.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2181

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Michelle Hughes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward. This is not 'Consistent with national policy'.

Full text:

Dear Sir, Madame.

Please find below comments I wish to make regarding the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP)

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic stagnation. This is neither a Justified nor an Effective strategy.


3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset. The current Plan is not Justified as the most appropriate strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not an Effective approach.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. This is not sound because a robust evidence base is missing.
2) Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. The Plan is therefore neither Positively Prepared nor Effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to take traffic away from the town centre in any meaningful way. 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2265

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Chris & Shirley Bull

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
We have the following comments in response to your consultation:
3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Aylesbury's attractiveness as a place to live is severely compromised by its recurrent traffic congestion. Minor road works by just one statutory undertaker cause the whole of Aylesbury to become gridlocked to traffic. Aylesbury is the largest town in England without a bypass. Your plan proposes so much development around Aylesbury that it will double in size. More development is currently being promoted for Aylesbury than for either Birmingham or Bristol. Placing too many houses in too small an area will ultimately cause so many traffic problems that economic stagnation will result. It is neither sustainable nor effective to plan to build two-thirds of the 27,000 new homes proposed in the Aylesbury Vale District in and around Aylesbury itself. More new homes should be built in the other identified growth areas, and also at Halton after 2022 when the RAF will vacate its base.

3.15 New settlement
AVDC should think long term and strategically by including a new town from the outset based on its preferred route for the east-west expressway between Oxford and Cambridge.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" separate village identities is too weak. As an example, the planned developments at Hampden Fields will entirely remove open countryside between Stoke Mandeville, Western Turville and Aylesbury which will then become one vast conurbation. In our view, a firmly worded commitment is required to retain the character of these villages.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
When planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive, AVDC needs to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. Moreover, for visitors to the town centre there are insufficient car parks and the existing bus station is too small.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. A robust evidence base is required. Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are "aspirational" which means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond, if at all. Firm plans need to be developed before the current ATS is adopted to ensure that it is effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The orbital roads are unlikely to reduce traffic in the town centre in any meaningful way, as 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system. Since a good evidence base is lacking in the ATS, any suggested interventions are neither objectively assessed, nor can be effective.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
We support the recent designation of Aylesbury as a garden town. However Aylesbury is currently poorly provided with green infrastructure compared with other towns such as Oxford and Milton Keynes. We would like to see many more public open spaces, playing fields, parks, ecological mitigation areas, wildlife corridors and allotments, and for the entire green infrastructure network to be linked up by footpaths and cycle paths. Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially Hampden Fields, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Western Turville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury. We would like also to see an extension to Bedgrove Park. In our opinion, without provision of additional green infrastructure the sheer amount of population growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way.

D-AGTl South Aylesbury
Placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road will severely overload the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This is not sound infrastructure planning.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The amount of development in this location will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41, which is already extremely congested at peak times. We are also concerned at the lack of proposed water management strategies for an area known locally as the "floodlands" as it is frequently under water. New flood water retention areas will need to be found and then monitored and managed in perpetuity in accordance with Natural England and Environment Agency guidelines.
D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The impact on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe, and we therefore oppose this policy.

4.125 RAF Halton
The potential impact of 1,000 houses on the local road network needs to be carefully assessed using a valid traffic model.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
All large developments should offer 35% affordable housing. The council's own Woodlands development only provides 20%. This will allow other developers to ignore the affordable housing quota. The Plan is therefore not consistent with national policy in this important aspect. We would also like the plan to include some housing adapted for disabled people, and also some sheltered housing for elderly people.

7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP does not recognise the full significance of East-West Rail to the Vale. It is a 'key' infrastructure project and should be fully embraced.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
Government support this scheme so AVDC needs to show that it is actively planning to capitalise on the opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the scheme will bring forward.

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
Air quality is vital to health. The Council should commit in this Plan to positive policies and actions to improve air quality.

We hope you find these comments helpful.


Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2361

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

As in 3.15, New Settlements. Once again, an opportunity missed to take participate in this key infrastructure development.

Full text:

The following are my comments and concerns about certain assumptions and proposals in the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP).

I must trust that these are viewed as being in addition to those received from others and not simply regarded as "template responses".

Overall: you will be aware that many of the assumptions in the VALP mirror those in the Hampden Fields and Woodlands planning applications. Many of these, particularly related to traffic forecasting, assumptions on the Aylesbury Orbital Routes Strategy where some 50% of the roads shown are described as "aspirational". This is an intent only, hardly a strategy and certainly not something which should be included in a plan such as the VALP. The next Bucks County Council review of its transport strategy, using an outdated, narrow and inadequate Transport Model is due shortly and the detailed input into it from the Hampden Fields Action Group and others challenging this must also form part of the review of the draft VALP.

Specific concerns are: 3.3 & Policy S1 Sustainable development:
I have concerns about the location and mix of proposed housing. Recent planning applications for housing in and around Weston Turville for example, have resulted in developments advertising houses for sale in the £600,000 to £850,000 range. These are clustered around the village resulting in what will be the merging of the village into a greater Aylesbury. Local roads are becoming even more congested and our children are now in a position where it is hardly possible for them to consider buying a property in the village. As a consequence, local businesses cannot recruit the young people they require because they cannot afford the salaries necessary to live locally.

3.15 New Settlements: As it stands, the VALP appears to ignore the once in a generation opportunity presented by the Cambridge - Milton Keynes - Oxford Corridor contained in the National Infrastructure Commission Report, where a lack of housing and connectivity are highlighted as key constraints preventing our region from becoming "the UK's Silicon Valley".
This report was commissioned in March 2016 and published on 23rd February 2017. As a result, the opportunities presented in this report for Buckinghamshire and more importantly, for Aylesbury Vale, do not appear to have sufficient focus in the current draft of the VALP.
As a result, I believe that this draft requires a radical review to recognise that the more effective strategy is to focus on what is required to make the most of this opportunity. Significant road improvements linking the Vale with the expressway and a new town for example, switching the focus to the north rather than cramming more into the south of the Vale.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy. See my opening comments. This is based on an outdated model, criticised by the consultants advising the Hampden Fields Action Group and also by Bucks CC's transport consultants. I understand that is based on highly challengeable evidence. Some of the assumptions are described as "aspirational" - hardly encouraging since I understand that this is code for "not happening before 2034"!

Policy D1 Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town: It is difficult to reconcile the volume of growth required with the Nine Garden City Principles detailed by the Town and Country Planning Association. www.tcpa.org.uk

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury: The building of so many houses together with the allied infrastructure of schools etc will severely impact the already stressed road network, not only the gyratory but also the neighbouring roads. Results in the de facto merging of Aylesbury, Hampden Hall and Stoke Mandeville.

D-AGT3 Woodlands: Once again, this development will penalise traffic flows on the A41.

D-AGT4 Hampden Fields: Once again, this development will severely impact the already stressed traffic flows on the A413, A41 and the gyratory.

Policy H1 Affordable Housing: In 3.3 I stressed the need for Affordable Housing and the difficulties with the current developments in Weston Turville. I understand that the governmental guideline is 35%. The Woodlands development, sponsored by the council, provides only some 20%. This is a poor example and will set the benchmark allowing others to ignore the government's guideline.

7.16 East-West Rail: As in 3.15, New Settlements, the VALP does not appear to build on the importance of this key infrastructure investment. This is a weakness which must be corrected.

7.20 Oxford- Cambridge Express Way: As in 3.15, New Settlements. Once again, an opportunity missed to take participate in this key infrastructure development.


In summary, I believe that I will not be alone in highlighting that the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan requires considerable revision to bring it up to date, to take the fullest advantage of the once in a lifetime opportunity offered by the Cambridge - Milton Keynes - Oxford Corridor, East-West Rail Link and the associated Expressway.

The other main concern that I have is that the impact of cramming so much development into a series of limited areas with such poor traffic flow assessment and planning will result in congestion to such a degree that it will positively discourage inward investment resulting in fewer and poorer job prospects.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2485

Received: 07/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Damian Campbell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

AVDC surely needs to show that it is actively planning to embrace the government backed opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the expressway will surely allow. At the very least, the total lack of detail here means that VALP is not "Consistent with national policy"

Full text:

Please find enclosed my comments on the proposed Vale of Aylesbury Plan (VALP).

I have to say that I am very dismayed by the lack of hard factual evidence, reasoned thought or solution based planning that seems to have gone into the VALP proposals. There are many many aspects of the plan that will certainly cause problems that have only been addressed by vague and unclear statements.

One of the major impacts on hard working families is the travel time to employment. The Secretary of State has ruled that the Hampden Fields development would cause unacceptable loading on the centre of Aylesbury. The VALP has done nothing to address this. Already the developments at Broughton have added easily 15 minutes each way to my usual commute to the North and also increased traffic to Aylesbury itself. The plans will add considerable further delay. In short, VALP does nothing to answer points made previously nor to reassure that the traffic flows as a result of the new developments be managed in an effective way.

Growth of conurbation towards the villages, held to be one of the best features of the area by its residents, is inadequately defended by the plan. This whole subject of green field development around the town has a huge impact of the of the present and future lives of the communities.


The council so far have shown precious little sign of listening to, far less responding to, the points being made. Frankly, I expect much much better from my elected representatives.

I await your comments. It would be good to see some recognition of the strength of disappointment that my neighbours and myself feel about this subject in general and the VALP in particular. Indeed I would be pleased to hear how the council intend to address these concerns.

Yours, with respect, but much distress.




3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
There are too many houses in too small an area of development but which constricts flow and will ultimately lead to more traffic problems. Surely the economic growth hoped for will be suffocated. This is not an Effective strategy, nor is it justified.


3.15 New settlement
The recent award of "Garden town" status is not reflected in the presentations. AVDC is still thinking piecemeal rather than demonstrating strategies for a new town from the outset. As a result, VALP is not justifiable as a long term strategy.


3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
As with many points of the plan the weak wording "will seek to preserve"is totally unacceptable as a strategy. There is no guidance as to what will, and more importantly, what will NOT be allowed as regards preserving identity of the villages. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely subsume the villages with Aylesbury. This is by no means an effective approach at providing guidance through the planning stages of any developments. VALP therefore does not meet requirements and is certainly not effective.


4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
To my point about increased travel time to Aylesbury, AVDC need to review the impact on town centre traffic from the planned extra housing around the town. As this is not addressed, this part of VALP is neither justified nor effective.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
1) The modelling used by ATS is flawed. It has even been criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. Again the plan is not a reasonable basis to proceed as even basic evidence required for reasonable discussion and debate is missing.
2) Most of the "Orbital strategy" are described as "Aspirational". This means they will not happen until at least the next plan in 2034 and beyond. As a result, VALP can therefore not be considered either adequately prepared nor effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
The "Aspirational" ring roads will not take traffic away from the town centre. Many of the people forming families in the 16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have commuting and educational travel needs which will have a very detrimental effect on the transport system. As a result of the lack of evidence justifying the proposals, VALP issues are neither objectively assessed nor show any signs of effectively meeting residents requirements.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
There is precious little detail as to how the "Garden town" delivery will be achieved. The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way and is certainly not adequately supported nor justified by the plan.

D-AGT1South Aylesbury
1) This is another case of coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. As a result, it contradicts even the vague wish to "Seek to preserve" the villages (see 3.22). The plan cannot therfore be justified as an appropriate strategy
2) As upheld by the secretary of state in the last appeal against Hampden Fields, placing 1,000+ houses, schools and other development along the South East Aylesbury Link Road would wreak havoc on the the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. This means that this part of the VALP it is not effective in terms of sound infrastructure planning.


D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41 (Woodlands)
The same comments on D-AGT1South hold here. The effect of traffic on the town centre and commuting to North Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the local transport system especially the A41. The part of the VALP is therefore not justified nor effective.


D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
1) Again, the impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. The plan is not effective.
2) See also comments on 3.22 and D-AGT1

4.125 RAF Halton
Surely the impact of development of Halton on the surrounding road network needs to be carefully assessed as part of the plan using a valid traffic model. The current plan is wholly inadequate in this regard. This again raises the questions on the preparation of VALP.

Policy Hl: Affordable housing
The target for large developments is 35% affordable housing. Woodlands development itself only provides 20%. This precedent will allow developers to ignore the target. VALP is therefore not consistent with national policy in this important aspect.


7.16 East-West Rail
The VALP gives scant regard to the East-West Rail project. This is surprising as this is indeed a key infrastructure project with excellent possibilities for the Vale. The current VALP does not exhibit the 'most appropriate strategy' as a properly "Justified" plan should.


7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
AVDC surely needs to show that it is actively planning to embrace the government backed opportunities for transport, housing and facilities that the expressway will surely allow. At the very least, the total lack of detail here means that VALP is not "Consistent with national policy"

9.38 Air quality requirements on developers
I note that there are no "Air quality" actions within the plan. As a result the current plan is neither "Positively Prepared" nor "Justified."

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2512

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The government supports this scheme so AVDC need to actively plan to capitalise on the housing and transport opportunities this will bring forward

Full text:

Policy S1
Sustainable Development.
The increase is housing in the area is currently not sustainable as there has been no improvement in the road network there is increasing congestion in Aylesbury. I've been living in the area for 25 years and other than minor changes to road junctions there have been no major improvements to reduce congestion. Reading the proposals there is no sign of a comprehensive by-pass within a reasonable timescale. The by-pass needs to be in place before all the proposed development.

3.22
The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities.
This is not strong enough; you are already trying to coalesce Aylesbury with Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with the Hampden Fields development.

4.14
Aylesbury Town centre
There needs to be more thought on the impact of traffic on the town centre with the extra housing around the town

4.16
Aylesbury Transport Strategy
The "orbital strategy" is only aspirational, it needs to be an actual positive plan and be implemented

Policy D1 Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The amount of planed growth is not sustainable and cannot be accommodated

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury
This creates coalescence between Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall; this is not a reasonable strategy.
Placing 1000+ houses, schools etc. along the south east link road will give a severe impact on the gyratory and surrounding roads.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury North of A41 (Woodlands)
The effect on the A41 for the amount of development in this location will be catastrophic, and is not justified

D-AGT4 Aylesbury South of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The traffic impact at the gyratory and the A41 and A413 will be severe.
See also comments above on 3.22

4.125 RAF Halton
Putting 1000+ houses on RAF Halton will have a grave potential impact on the surrounding road network. Has the necessary traffic modelling been assessed?

Policy H1 Affordable Housing
All large developments should have 35% affordable housing; the development at Woodlands has only 20% this will let other developers to follow suite. This is not justifiable and not consistent will national policy

7.16 East-West Rail
Is a key infrastructure project and should be fully embraced, the current VALP does not put forward the appropriate strategy as a comprehensive plan would.

7.20 Oxford - Cambridge Expressway
The government supports this scheme so AVDC need to actively plan to capitalise on the housing and transport opportunities this will bring forward

9.39 Air Quality requirement on Developers
Air quality is vital to heath, the council should commit in the plan to improve the air quality within the area. The council has confirmed the major source of pollution is from road transport. This needs to be tacked as a first when development is taking place. The road infrastructure needs to be implemented before the increase in road traffic, Aylesbury need a proper comprehensive dual carriageway with bridges and underpasses at its junctions to keep the majority of the traffic flowing freely keeping the pollution to a minimum within the town as through traffic will by-pass the town centre and on the by-pass itself as there will be minimal stop start at junctions.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2522

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Christine and Dennis Clarke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I think that the AVDC should look to make the most of the Oxford - Cambridge railway as I understand they are proposing to build a significant amount of housing and related expansion on this line which will open up opportunities to develop the middle and north areas of Buckinghamshire. This would relieve the necessity to overcompensate development in the Aylesbury area.

Full text:

I understand that the local plan for the Vale of Aylesbury is the subject of a public enquiry and I would like to add my comments to those of other residents and organisations who have concerns regarding the current proposals. Please see below my views on specific sections of the plan:-

3.22 I am concerned that developments such as Hampden Fields and Woodlands will impose on the identity of villages such as Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville and Wendover as building on such a large scale will cause a "blurring" of the borders of these villages with Aylesbury itself.

4.17 Interventions such as orbital roads are not happening quickly enough and the impact of 16,000 houses around the edges of Aylesbury will have an effect on the roads in the town. Our MP David Lidington has already commented that he does not want Aylesbury to be known as a gridlock town. Well my view is that between 7.30 a.m. and 9.30 am and also between 3.00 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. on the Tring and Wendover roads in and out of Aylesbury this is already the situation. Building on such a scale in one location between these two major routes in and out of Aylesbury is only going to exacerbate the traffic problems we are already experiencing in this location and no amount of orbital or link roads is going to help.

Policy D1: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town I consider to be an insult to the people of Aylesbury. With the amount of building developments including infilling between existing residences, especially on the Tring Road towards Tring itself, I am concerned that there will be no room left for any open or green spaces in Aylesbury which will make a mockery of the name associated with "Garden" towns.

7.20 I think that the AVDC should look to make the most of the Oxford - Cambridge railway as I understand they are proposing to build a significant amount of housing and related expansion on this line which will open up opportunities to develop the middle and north areas of Buckinghamshire. This would relieve the necessity to overcompensate development in the Aylesbury area.

9.28 Air quality - This aspect of any rapid development of Aylesbury must be addressed as if not this is very likely to impact on the health of the local population. I did not move away from London many years ago to end up in a constant traffic jam.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2544

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr and Mrs J.R. and S. Taylor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Similar to the above this opens up so much opportunity and should be fully embraced. Surely AVDC should capitalize on this project and the opportunities it will present for transport and housing.

Full text:

We wish to make the following comments regarding our thoughts on the above:
As a general comment we think that the document on your website is too complex for us to comment on in a specific way, (some 271 pages) therefore our comments are based on what we feel is common sense.
3.3 and policy S1 sustainable development.
Any development should only go ahead if it is sustainable. We wonder how in 2008 we were advised that central government had dictated that we must build 10,000 extra houses in the Aylesbury area and in less than ten years this requirement has increased to 27,000 extra houses. We ask where are the jobs coming from, where are the schools, hospitals, doctor's surgeries and other services? Such enormous growth cannot be sustainable without vital services. We hear in the press how the existing services are stretched. We also are concerned about traffic problems. Where is the essential ring road?
Surely all these things should be completed before vast numbers of houses are built. It seems wrong that central government should dictate what happens to Aylesbury. Would it not be a better policy to rely on natural growth which would be more likely to happen if we improved the infrastructure around Aylesbury first. This would then attract investment by industry to the area, which would mean more jobs that would then lead on to a demand for more housing.
4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy
We note from your "Aylesbury Transport Improvements Plan" that some of the roads to the north and west are described as "inspirational". We are not sure what this means, however we believe that since they are part of the Aylesbury ring road they should be considered essential and constructed sooner rather that later and preferably before the planned additional houses are constructed. We note that the M25 did not have parts that were left out and described as inspirational when it was built.
We have lived in the area for 39 years initially at Aston Clinton for ten years and the rest of our time at our present address in Wendover Road. During this time, we have not seen any significant improvement to the road system to address the traffic congestion to the south of Aylesbury. Over the years the traffic has increased significantly on Wendover Road and now regularly comes to a standstill on an evening, out-side our property, during the rush hours. At the best of times it can take several minutes before we can join the traffic when exiting our drive.
This situation will only get worse unless significant investment in new roads is planned and road improvements are completed, since more houses inevitably leads on to more traffic.
It is a fact that the route through Weston-Turville is used a southern bypass by many drivers to avoid congestion on the A41 or to seek an alternative way around Aylesbury. This has been the case for many years.
3.22 Preserving the character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements.
From our perspective this ideal is not going to happen given the areas that are designated for housing. Our own village "Weston Turville" will be compromised by the Hampdon Fields development and Woodlands will join up with Aston Clinton. Growth in Aston Clinton has been allowed by AVDC without check, ignoring the lack of what can be accommodated within the existing supporting services within this village.
As a general comment living in the Aylesbury area has become less desirable, since we came here in 1978 and we fear will only get worse for us and thousands of people living in the Aylesbury district and surrounding villages without better management of growth.
4.125 RAF Halton-
We all know that the closure of RAF Halton will release around 700 acres of land for other uses. There are many buildings that could be utilized for accommodation for the homeless and young people setting up homes for the first time and those that cannot afford to purchase. What a wonderful opportunity presenting itself, which should be embraced by AVDC to solve the problem of housing Aylesbury Vales less fortunate people. Surely there are many existing houses used by RAF personnel which will become available.
Some existing sites could be suitable for business purposes and this should be looked at.
The 1000 or so additional houses in the plan will have a significant effect on the surrounding road network and will need to be carefully assessed.
Much of RAF Halton has sites of historical value and provides interest for schools and the general public, we would hope that these will be conserved for future generations. The open areas give opportunities to the leisure industry, sports clubs recreation for people living in the area.
7.16 East west rail.
VALP needs to recognise the significance of the East-West Rail to the Vale of Aylesbury with energy and commitment. It is a key infrastructure project and will have a significant impact and as such should be fully embraced. This is in contrast to the HS2 project which will destroy much of what we currently enjoy and offers nothing in return.
7.20 Oxford-Cambridge Expressway.
Similar to the above this opens up so much opportunity and should be fully embraced. Surely AVDC should capitalize on this project and the opportunities it will present for transport and housing.
9.38 Air quality requirements on developers.
This is always on our minds as we live on a main road we wonder about the effect that emissions will have on our health. With more housing and the increase of traffic it will increase, so AVDC should commit itself to positive actions to improve air quality.
We hope you will find our thoughts and comments helpful and look forward to hearing from you.