Aylesbury Vale Area

3.6

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1114

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Corbally (Finmere) Group and Mrs Vanessa Tait

Agent: WYG

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The Sustainability Analysis has not taken account of all available and relevant
information and therefore cannot have soundly assessed the Council's preferred Local
Plan strategy and allocations against the reasonable alternatives. It is contended that
the principles of lawfulness and soundness cannot have been adhered to without a
proper assessment of all reasonable alternatives.e SA.

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Proposed Submission Version of the Aylesbury Vale Local Plan, made on behalf of Corbally (Finmere) Group and Mrs Vanessa Tait.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1755

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Ainscough Strategic Land

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Land at the former Marsworth Airfield is currently an underused brownfield site, which
has the capacity to support a sustainable mix of residential and employment
development. It therefore clearly meets the premise of objective 1.

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Pre Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Consultation prepared on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land in relation to 'Land at the Former Marsworth Airfield, Marsworth, Buckinghamshire', which is being promoted through the emerging Local Plan for a residential led mixed use development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1756

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Ainscough Strategic Land

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

we would remind the Council of the need to take a positive
approach to the determination of planning applications for residential development, in
line with the NPPF which requires local authorities to "approach decision-making in a
positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development" (paragraph 186).
Paragraph 187 further stresses that "decision-takers at every level should seek to
approve applications for sustainable development where possible".

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Pre Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Consultation prepared on behalf of Ainscough Strategic Land in relation to 'Land at the Former Marsworth Airfield, Marsworth, Buckinghamshire', which is being promoted through the emerging Local Plan for a residential led mixed use development.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2084

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

we welcome the statement that the Local Plan strategy and its vision, objectives and policies have been shaped by, inter alia, protecting the historic environment and settlement character, as part of the positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of, and the clear strategy for enhancing, the historic environment required by policies 126 and 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Full text:

See attachment for full representation.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2524

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Aylesbury Society

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

We do not consider that the VALP has taken sufficient account of water and transport constraints nor that sustainability of residential location has been fully taken into account.

Full text:

The Aylesbury Society
General Points
1. The Society's response is only concerned with those aspects of the plan which we believe imping on Aylesbury itself.
2. Our response will only deal with areas within which we have some knowledge and experience.
3. Arising from Point 2 above we are of the view that the sheer range of the plan (313 pages) together with the considerable number of supporting documents (64 No.) means that a meaningful consultation is not possible. The studies on Housing and Economic Development Needs, Sustainability, Cumulative Growth Impact, Housing Land Supply, New Settlement, Green belt, Land Availability, Sequential test Landscape, Open Space and Recreation, Retail, Viability Assessment, Aylesbury Transport Strategy, Countrywide Traffic Modelling, Housing Delivery and Infrastructure Delivery are generally comprehensive documents with major 'chapter' devoted to Aylesbury and its surrounds. There are no bodies with the range of skills to deal holistically with the various aspects.
4. In several cases, particularly transportation, the studies are incomplete, leaving doubts as to the conclusions in the proposed plan or effect on the existing area.
5. A major and significant omission is the lack of consideration of air quality and to what degree it will deteriorate as a result of development.
6. Failure to comment on some aspects of the plan does not imply approval or agreement to those aspects.
7. There is a need for a policy on community assets.
Before considering the principles and policies we wish to comment on the VALP definition of the town centre. It is defined as including Aylesbury College, Morrison's, the Vale Park. We would define it more narrowly as the area bound by the Chiltern Line railways, Exchange Street, New Street and Oxford Road including Friars Square, Market Square, Hale Leys and the High Street.
The remaining areas in the Town Centre Plan we consider as edge of centre with the exceptions of the Aqua Vale Centre which is accessed from the Park Road and well over 800 meters from the main retail area and therefore detached.
This smaller area is where the signs of decline and the need for regeneration are most obvious. Including area further out has the effect of glossing over the extent to which the town centre as defined more narrowly has been undermined by the way that retail parks and big supermarkets have been allowed in other parts of the town - a past failure a adopt what the Town Centre Plan calls a 'connected whole town approach.
Section 3 - Strategic
Para 3.3 - Should include reference to social facilities such as community centres, church halls, public houses, cafes etc.
Para 3.6 - We do not consider that the VALP has taken sufficient account of water and transport constraints nor that sustainability of residential location has been fully taken into account (see later).
Para. 3.13 - The location of the 'oversupply' of employment land reflects the lack of connectivity of some sites to the transport network.
Para 3.41 - Reflects a wish rather than a policy. It is by no means certain that necessary infrastructure will be4 delivered 'in timely manner' or even at all (see letter).

Section 4
Para. 4.13 - If Aylesbury town centre is to be a sub-regional centre then it requires exhibition halls and areas set aside for use for open air festivals. None of these are present nor are they proposed in Policy D7. The polices and proposals in the Town Centre Plan do not appear to have been brought forward in Policies D7 and D8. Nor do any proposals for 'greening' the town centre as a whole appear in the document.
Para 4.16 - The three transport studies in the supporting evidence demonstrate that the following three objective will not be achieved; minimising the impact of future growth on traffic levels, congestion and air quality, improving journey time reliability and improving access and movement in the town centre.
Para 4.18 - makes no reference to community centres and village halls.
Para 4.28 (1) How will traffic growth be managed?
(2) No road improvements are proposed in the existing built up area
(3) Where will festivals be staged?
(4) There are no proposals to slow or stop the drift of employees away from the centre (e.g to Gatehouse) which is one of the root causes of the decline of the town centre.
(5) How will the growth of Aylesbury narrow the gap between the affluent and less well off...... Explain.
Policy D1 (b) According to the infrastructure Delivery Plan infrastructure will NOT be provided at the right time.
Policy D1 (h) A sub-policy is required to prevent residential encroachment by fencing hedging or construction onto local green infrastructure.
Policy D6 requires a clause setting limits to non retails uses in the town centre retail areas.
Para 4.196 Where will open space be provided, what will it be used for? A more positive statement and location and required.
Para 4.220 Makes no mention of narrow footways in Buckingham St., and Cambridge St., the unnecessary intrusion of vehicles into Kingsbury and Market Square and the new to extend the long standing pedestrianisation of Upper High Street.
Para 4.227 Parking policy and shop types need to take into account the sharp rise in 'click and pick-up' e.g. Argos and Waitrose/John Lewis which may well be the future of shopping in town centre. It may be that short term 'drive through' parking will arise
Section 5 - Housing
As policy is driven by government pressure we have no comment to make on number. However, we believe that no all reasonable alternatives sites have been considered. Given the road and rail improvements proposed across the congestion on Tring Road and Bedgrove without mitigation measures and lesser effects with full mitigation. In the summary table 5A Aylesbury it is stated that neither mitigation scenario fully negates the local plan impact.
The Aylesbury Transport Strategy has three objectives: to improve transport connectivity and accessibility, to improve accessibility to other urban centres and to contribute to improving air by minimising the growth in traffic levels and congestion. This last is clearly a contradiction, further objectives are: improving journey time reliability, reducing accidents and making it easier to travel by bus, cycle and foot.
The base year AM analysis shows congestion in the AM Peak on Tring Road, Wendover Road, all a road approaches to the Walton Triangle and Oxford Road. The congestion plot for the AM peak is 2033 without mitigation shows extensive serious congestion on Tring Road, Wendover Road, Lower Road and on all approaches to the Walton Triangle. The model shows, with full mitigation, serious congestion arises on Oxford Road, Lower Road, Bedgrove, Tring Road, Broughton Lane Buckingham Road and Bicester Road (Fig. 6.5 and 6.6).
AVDC produced a Transport Topic Paper with the draft submission. The paper sets out the purpose of the above papers and lists the previous public comments and AVDC's response.
It is our view that the comparisons of changes in traffic conditions do not properly take into account the several residential developments approved in the recent past. These pre-empted the VALP and their impact is not considered. It is our view that the transport infrastructure to be provided is inadequate for the ultimate level of development including those recently approached development.
No consideration has been given to the potential effects of enlarging both Winslow and Haddenham instead of just one.
Despite occasional references within the explanatory paragraphs there is no policy on park and ride.
There is no policy on priority for public transport nor a comprehensive approach to bus priority except as an indication on one plan.
8. Air Quality NE 6
From traffic studies it can be seen that congestion is likely to increase significantly on Lowe Road, Stoke Road, Tring Road and Wendover Road at least until such time as the link road network is complete. Congestion will decrease air quality particularly on Tring Road.
It is suggested that the following sub clauses be added to 'Air Quality'
g. Any development proposed which is shown to lower air quality on Tring Road, Wendover Road, Lower Road and Stoke Road will not be permitted.
Sub clause (e) needs to indicate that if air quality standards elsewhere are likely to be breached elsewhere development will not be permitted.
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
As a society we do not have the expertise and experience to comprehensively comment on the full range of infrastructure needs. Our comments are this limited to transport.
Although most of the link roads are marked 'critical' in the IDP for completion by 2023 (medium term) several are 'developer contribution' funded with no indication as to whether this is in whole or in part. Several have vague indicative costs.
The Western Link is described as critical but 'funding could be an issue'. The North East Link is described as 'necessary' in contrast to all the other links. There is no explanation for this anomaly. Funding is also vague.
Park and ride (in association with the PPTCs) is described as desirable. It is the society's view that it is essential and critical particularly in interim period when the links are piecemeal.
Overall we are of the opinion that there should be policy of no further development until at least two park and ride sites, linked by bus priority measures, are available and the system of link is substantially complete.
A policy of monitoring the transport infrastructure should be included which includes levels of congestion, air quality, accident rates and reliability of travel time by all modes of transport.