Aylesbury Vale Area

3.15

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 38

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 202

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Crevichon Properties Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Objection is raised to the identification that an early review of the Plan will be undertaken to take account of newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on calculating housing need amongst other issues. This is not an appropriate approach to take. The current Plan should take account of the changed methodology at this stage, as it is clear that examination of the Plan will take place after the new methodology comes into use.

Full text:

Objection is raised to the identification that an early review of the Plan will be undertaken to take account of newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on calculating housing need amongst other issues. This is not an appropriate approach to take. The current Plan should take account of the changed methodology at this stage, as it is clear that examination of the Plan will take place after the new methodology comes into use.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 204

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: The University of Buckingham

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Objection is raised to the identification that an early review of the Plan will be undertaken to take account of newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on calculating housing need. This is not an appropriate approach to take. The current Plan should take account of the changed methodology at this stage, as it clear that examination of the Plan will take place after the new methodology comes into use.

Full text:

Objection is raised to the identification that an early review of the Plan will be undertaken to take account of newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on calculating housing need. This is not an appropriate approach to take. The current Plan should take account of the changed methodology at this stage, as it clear that examination of the Plan will take place after the new methodology comes into use.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 351

Received: 05/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Phil Yerby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

Think long term and strategically and include a new town from the outset.

Full text:

It is a flawed strategy to "cram in" houses around Aylesbury. The council should not have so easily withdrawn the plans for a new town to the North of the District. Ultimately this would have made good planning sense based on the evidence and the National Infrastructure plans in terms of East West Rail and the [now accelerated] plans for the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. The above paragraph talks about "an early review" but this does not make sense - it should be in the plan from the beginning. Put simply it is just far too convenient for the Council to pursue this strategy because this has been the 'group think' for so many years. They need to look at the evidence and the evidence is that there are too many houses in this plan crammed into on place. This will result in economic stagnation and Aylesbury becoming a dormitory town.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 399

Received: 06/12/2017

Respondent: AD Fanthorpe

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

A new town, based on the proposed East-West link, should be included in the Plan from the outset.

Full text:

A new town, based on the proposed East-West link, should be included in the Plan from the outset.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 425

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The VALP does not take into account the possible location of a New Town along the proposed Oxford Cambridge Expressway. The Expressway is a committed scheme and the planned route(s) takes it through the Vale of Aylesbury.

Full text:

The VALP does not take into account the possible location of a New Town along the proposed Oxford Cambridge Expressway. The Expressway is a committed scheme and the planned route(s) takes it through the Vale of Aylesbury.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 606

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Trevor Toms

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The reduction in housing figures still leaves a requirement for more houses than exist in many larger villages/small towns within the Vale.
Suggesting, therefore, that new settlement is inappropriate is in itself inappropriate.

Full text:

The reduction in housing figures still leaves a requirement for more houses than exist in many larger villages/small towns within the Vale.
Suggesting, therefore, that new settlement is inappropriate is in itself inappropriate.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 676

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Whaddon Parish Council

Representation:

3.15 WPC support 'a new settlement' as part of an early review of this plan, but it's location - or their locations (should two new settlements be required) - must be driven by the final, and built routing of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, as this will ultimately provide the best sustainable location solution. The other important 'driver' for the location of any new settlement must be the timing and opening of east-west rail, which will clearly pre-date and be operative way before the Expressway.

Full text:

3.15 WPC support 'a new settlement' as part of an early review of this plan, but it's location - or their locations (should two new settlements be required) - must be driven by the final, and built routing of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, as this will ultimately provide the best sustainable location solution. The other important 'driver' for the location of any new settlement must be the timing and opening of east-west rail, which will clearly pre-date and be operative way before the Expressway.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 750

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr R Horton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

This plan does not consider the feelings of current inhabitants, we like Aylesbury because its a Market Town small friendly and homely. What you are trying to achieve is another Milton Keynes without the infrastructure. We have single track roads, a small town centre and many local communities which what to stay independent.

Full text:

This plan does not consider the feelings of current inhabitants, we like Aylesbury because its a Market Town small friendly and homely. What you are trying to achieve is another Milton Keynes without the infrastructure. We have single track roads, a small town centre and many local communities which what to stay independent.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1023

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: South Oxfordshire District Council

Representation:

On page 33 of the VALP it states 'we fully anticipate the need to carry out an early review of VALP to
take into account newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on
calculating housing need, as well as the impacts of major strategic schemes'. As such SODC would like
to maintain an ongoing dialogue and be updated following any review of the housing need for AVDC
and any unmet need resulting from the wider Central Buckinghamshire HMA.

Full text:

Planning
HEAD OF SERVICE: ADRIAN DUFFIELD
Contact officer:
Karen.attwood@southoxon.gov.uk
Tel: 01235 422600
Textphone users add 18001 before you dial
Your reference:
Our reference:
Dear Sir/Madam
Officer Response
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) response to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP)
2013-2033 Proposed Submission version
Please find below an officer's response to the proposed submission version of the Vale of
Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) 2013-2033. Our formal response is in the process of being signed off by
the relevant cabinet member and will follow in due-course.
SODC considers the plan to be sound, legally compliant and meet the requirements of Duty to Cooperate.
SODC does not think it to be necessary to attend the examination unless the Inspector believes it
necessary to demonstrate Duty to Co-operate has been followed. An MoU between SODC and
Aylesbury Vale District Council (AVDC) is expected to be signed shortly.
Housing Need:
As part of the Duty to Co-operate we continue to monitor the possibility of any potential unmet
needs particularly housing from neighbouring councils. Both councils recognise we are not within the
same Housing Market Area (HMA) and as such there is no need to address any development needs
resulting from the Central Buckinghamshire HMA. It has been noted that AVDC has increased its
housing requirement by 8,000 homes during the plan period to 27,400 homes as a result of the
collective unmet housing need arising from the authorities to its south, namely Wycombe, Chiltern
and South Bucks. It is recognised that AVDC has sufficient suitable and deliverable sites to meet this
need and would not require any of this to be met by SODC.
On page 33 of the VALP it states 'we fully anticipate the need to carry out an early review of VALP to
take into account newly emerging issues such as the Government's changed methodology on
calculating housing need, as well as the impacts of major strategic schemes'. As such SODC would like
to maintain an ongoing dialogue and be updated following any review of the housing need for AVDC
and any unmet need resulting from the wider Central Buckinghamshire HMA.
Haddenham and Thame cross border issues:
Overall the sites proposed for development within the VALP are not considered to have a significant
cross border impact on South Oxfordshire, particularly as the majority of new homes required are
some distance from the shared border with development focused on Aylesbury and other existing
settlements with no new settlements planned. However, it has been noted that a significant number
of new dwellings is to be allocated at Haddenham. Page 38 of VALP sets out the overall number of
dwellings to come forward during the plan period. At Haddenham a total of 1,051 homes of which
more than half are committed or completed. The remaining 315 being allocated within the VALP. On
its own it is not considered to have a significant impact on South Oxfordshire, particularly as this is a
significant reduction on previous versions of the VALP which included a new settlement near
Haddenham. It has been noted that Haddenham remains a potential location for a new settlement if
after a review of the plan it is determined the need exists. SODC would like to remain in contact on
this issue in order to better understand the cross-border impacts of the proposed development and
any future growth in the area, particularly on the A415 between Haddenham and Thame. We would
seek continued dialogue with AV on the potential infrastructure implications resulting from
development at Haddenham and Thame and would like to explore the potential for joint working on
further studies.
The South Oxfordshire Playing Pitch Strategy identifies a significant proportion of the pitch provision
in the North sub-area of the district based around Chinnor to cater for teams and residents arising
from Aylesbury Vale. The strategy recognises that significant additional growth in Aylesbury Vale
could lead to insufficient capacity at these pitches. We would welcome dialogue with AV on the
implications of this and the potential for sharing developer contributions to address the impacts of
increased demand for these pitches and their associated facilities as a result of significant growth in
Aylesbury Vale.
Oxford - Cambridge Expressway Implications:
Assessment of the potential corridors for the route of the Expressway are currently being
investigated by Highways England. The proposed Southern route option would likely run in close
proximity to Thame and Haddenham and would have a significant impact on the area. Should a more
northerly route be chosen, this could also have wider traffic and environmental impacts that would
need careful consideration. The councils have been co-operating on this matter for some time to
better understand the potential implications of the project. Should this option be taken forward
there will be a need for further joint working/liaison to explore and plan for both the economic
benefits and environmental impacts of these proposals.
Chinnor Reservoir:
As a result of Thames Water confirming that there are no longer any plans for a Chinnor reservoir,
the site is no longer needed to be safeguarded in either Local Plan. Both councils came to an
agreement on this in May 2017 and a statement as such will be included in an agreed Memorandum
of Understanding ahead of the submission stage of VALP and SODC Local Plan.
Duty to Co-operate:
It is important to maintain officer and member level Duty to Co-operate dialogue to better
understand the issues above and any other issues that may impact on each council in-order to
positively plan for development and mitigate impacts. SODC looks forward to finalising a formal
Memorandum of Understanding with AVDC which is currently being drafted, as well as a wider
Memorandum of Understanding/ Statement of Common Ground on cross-border transport matters
which is also proposed to include Wycombe District Council and the respective County Councils.
If any clarification is required on any of the above comments or any issues relating to this response,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Ryan Hunt
Enquires Officer
Policy Team
South Oxfordshire District Council

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1064

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: mR. Cameron Sinclair

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The current plan seems not to take into account political and public support for development along the Oxford/Cambridge corridor. It is my view that all new settlement proposals need to be addressed in the context of this potentially significant infrastructure project, particularly where new road and rail links need to be coherently planned.

Full text:

3.15 New Settlement
The current plan seems not to take into account political and public support for development along the Oxford/Cambridge corridor. It is my view that all new settlement proposals need to be addressed in the context of this potentially significant infrastructure project, particularly where new road and rail links need to be coherently planned.

3.22
I am concerned that the wording 'seek to preserve' with reference to maintaining open countryside and the identities of affected communities is inadequate and far too open to interpretation, and should be altered to an unequivocal statement of 'will preserve'.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy
This seems to be based on an assumption that new inhabitants will not be commuting to London, or driving to work elsewhere. The existing new developments at Aylesbury Vale Parkway have already placed the rail services under strain at peak times (a seat is a rare commodity from Great Missenden on some trains and an impossibility thereafter) and the traffic on surrounding roads has noticeably increased. This problem will only be exacerbated with new settlements without new infrastructure.

4.17 Interventions/link roads
A recent study commissioned by the CPRE found that new roads do nothing to alleviate existing problems but actually increase traffic. This plan reflects a backwards process - allowing housing to be built without first creating coherent and sustainable infrastructure.

D-AGTI South Aylesbury
Building more than 1,000 houses along the Aylesbury Road will choke traffic flow in both directions, particularly with additional traffic from theRAF Halton site.

4.125 RAF Halton
The plan doesn't adequately address the potential impact of the RAF Halton site becoming available for even more houses and how that will also affect the transport infrastructure, schools and medical facilities. I am particularly concerned about air quality and noise pollution on the Aylesbury Road (Ref: 9.38).

7.16 East-West Rail
This project has the potential to bring far more benefits to the Vale than any other and it is wrong that the plan is not based around this growth opportunity.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1208

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr A.P. Smart

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Why has this been dropped. Surely this is a better way to proceed. This indicates a serious lack of long-term strategy. This should be reviewed and re-opened.

Full text:

I have a number of points that I wish to respond to. This has been difficult due to the very short period given for this consultation. I am commenting on those matters where I have an informed opinion. There are a number of location that I feel unable to properly comment on (partly due to time constraints given for this consultation).

3.3 and Policy S1

This section is based on the assumption that building more houses will make the Vale area more prosperous and a better place to live. This is not so. Cramming ever more houses into an area that already suffers from significant traffic issues will not bring growth. I am already making day-to-day choices about whether it is worth going into Aylesbury because of the volume of traffic. More houses will make this worse. This extra housing does not offer any solution, only further worsening of current problems. This is not an effective strategy. The transport problems have to solved first. It is not adequate to hope that somehow more building will eventually solve the problem.

3.15 New Settlement

Why has this been dropped. Surely this is a better way to proceed. This indicates a serious lack of long-term strategy. This should be reviewed and re-opened.

3.22 Countryside gaps

Keeping the identity of villages and separate developments is very important and there should be a very strong statement or guarantee that such gaps are to be preserved. I have already seen many planned schemes which seek to undermine this objective (Hampden Fields being one such example, A41 Woodlands is another). This must stop. The assurance given are too weak.

4.125 RAF Halton

Putting an additional 1,000 houses in this area will be major problem. The road infrastructure is deficient and there are a small number of pinch points that make the road communication system vulnerable. Wendover is already pushed to capacity. There is already a lack of car parking in Wendover. This will make it worse. where are the people in Halton expected to shop and go to school? This is another example of the merging of settlements.

D-AGT4

Many of the points relate to flood issues and the problems that must be dealt with (largely aspirational in nature). Why is housing planned for this flood zone? I thought there was a national strategy to stop building on flood zones. This is madness.

The lack of detail regarding traffic is a concern. This plan will see a massive increase in traffic on the A41 in particular. This is planning negligence. Having backed-up traffic on the A41 (both ways) will not make Aylesbury more prosperous or help people have a better life. This is already a problem. I see a Park and Ride is planned. Is this an indication that the planners think the traffic problems will be as bad as those experienced by Oxford?

Policy H1 Affordable Housing

This is a vital topic. The proportion of affordable housing should be higher. Why is it so low? This needs to be explained.


In my opinion, this plan is not truly strategic. Long term strategy has been replaced buy a large number of ad-hoc schemes which the planners hope may go some way to meeting the end objectives. In doing this, there has been insufficient consideration given to important matters such as transport and maintaining the separate identities of settlements. These matters have to addressed first, to meet the existing problems. Just because it is physically possible to build houses at a location does not mean that it should happen. The linage between building more houses and an improvement for the people of Aylesbury Vale is not clearly made. It is too aspirational.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1280

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, 3.15

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.

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: 1296

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Philip & Tina Brown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, 3.15

3.15 New settlement:
AVDC have an opportunity to create a new town instead of the current proposals, this could be served by a new infrastructure. Something the people of Aylesbury my actually thank the council for.

Full text:

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development:
building more homes in too small an area will increase the already severe traffic problems, I experience this every weekday and so speak from experience.

3.15 New settlement:
AVDC have an opportunity to create a new town instead of the current proposals, this could be served by a new infrastructure. Something the people of Aylesbury my actually thank the council for.

3.22:
The planned developments to the south and Stoke Mandeville are particularly worrying to me, the undertaking "will seek to preserve" is worthless.

4.16:
The latest ATS is way off of what's required, various council departments at odds with each other. The evidence of the last few years of "expert" advice is clear to see as one experiences long delays caused by this advice.

4.17:
The proposed orbital roads will not be effective in taking traffic away from the town centre, a major re think would be very welcome. The first priority should be a new ring road, before more housing.

D-AGT3:
The planned developments in this area will have a heavy impact on the area's transport system, local and the A41.

D-AGT4:
This proposed development will have a massive and crippling effect on the surrounding roads including
A41, A413 and gyratory system. The suggested intention to modify the gyratory system by closing part of it to feed traffic further into the town centre then return the traffic back to the gyratory system would be laughable if were not so serious.

9.38:
Air quality should be a consideration to all future plans.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1303

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr John Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, 3.15

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.

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: 1317

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs B Daniel

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1335

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: High Barrow Holdings

Agent: Ingleton Wood LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Para 3.15 of the VALP states that there will be an early review of the Plan to take into account or emerging issues including the Government's revised methodology for calculating housing need. The recognition that the plan will require early review suggests that it has been submitted prematurely and does not take into account up to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area, as required by Para 158 of the NPPF.

Full text:

Refer to attached response.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1379

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Keith Waterman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1406

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Steven Hyams

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1558

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Barbara White

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1575

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Wendover Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

We expect a new settlement to form part of that Local Plan review. Halton could be the new settlement that is referred to - separate from Wendover with its own infrastructure provision.

Full text:

INTRODUCTION
The Wendover Parish Council (WPC) represents the 8000 residents of Wendover. An historic market town that is known as the Gateway to the Chilterns.

S2 Table 1 Spatial Growth for Growth
The WPC welcomes the consideration of Wendover and Halton RAF camp together as the 1128 houses in the local area will impact greatly on the infrastructure of Wendover both in services and traffic.

The WPC have concerns over the coalescence of Halton Village and Wendover however, as a result of this development and who will gain S106 funds as both Parishes will be impacted.

Employment
1.14
The provision of local jobs is supported by the WPC. The RAF Halton site, with its history of technological excellence, offers an opportunity to attract employers that offer quality jobs and above average pay rates.

Town Centres
1.15
The WPC calculates that a retail provision of 50 sq.m. is more realistic than the 29 sq.m. currently proposed. The WPC and our retailing colleagues in our Chamber of Trade would be able to give accurate information on the local retail scene.

Housing and Economic Needs
3.14
Infrastructure should be provided where development takes place. It is likely that Wendover will serve as a major hub for the development. Hence infrastructure benefit i.e. cash/new housing bonus allocation should be spent in Wendover.

The proposal for 1000 new homes to be built at the RAF Halton site is a late addition to the plan and will undoubtedly result in challenges for Wendover's infrastructure, commerce and community.

This figure is likely to rise substantially over time and it's to be hoped that improvements to Wendover's transport and other resources will be in line with this growth.

An allocation of low cost housing for people who have to live or work in Wendover to buy would be welcome.

The WPC greatly values the greens spaces and mature trees on the RAF Halton Estate.

3.15
We expect a new settlement to form part of that Local Plan review. Halton could be the new settlement that is referred to - separate from Wendover with its own infrastructure provision.




Proposed Settlement
3.22/3/4
The WPC would request there is no development between the 2 Parishes of Wendover and Halton, and that Babbington Road remains the Border.

Green Belt
3.32
The WPC fully endorses the removal of the site for 800 dwellings from the Plan as it involved using Green Belt land.

The WPC welcomes the decision to leave the Green Belt status of Land around Wendover unchanged. Access to unspoiled and undeveloped countryside draws visitors to the Wendover area and enhances the quality of life for our residents.

Infrastructure
3.41
School and GP provision must be instigated at the start of a development as existing services in the Wendover area are already over capacity. Infant pupils in the catchment are unable to obtain places in the local school at present. GP appointments are currently a 14 day wait unless urgent.

Medical Services
The WPC has serious concerns regarding health care provision. Currently the healthcare provider Westongrove appears to have difficulty recruiting doctors and nurses, and in delivering a satisfactory level of service. It is important to Wendover that care provision of all kinds scales up in a proportional way as development goes forward and giving due consideration to key worker housing.

Schools and Early Years Provision
The WPC supports the provision of a new primary school to serve the new development. Concerns regarding availability of education provision for additional younger and older children from the proposed housing will need to be addressed.

Recently the expansion of school capacity in Wendover proved to be a contentious issue. The reason was to do with the highway infrastructure and parking availability that surrounds the school being totally inadequate for the existing traffic demands.

S5
In planning terms for a new development, regard should be given to existing deficiencies in services and infrastructure, hence new car parking facilities (or extension of existing parking facilities) and extra health facilities should be provided.

Water Issues
3.46
Water and the disposal of waste are essential to new development. Priority needs to be focussed on sustainability and the health of rivers and the water table.






Neighbourhood Plan
3.68-3.74
It is to be hoped that when the WPC Neighbourhood Plan has been approved, AVDC will take it into account when approving planning applications etc.

RAF Halton Near Wendover
4.131-4.135
The policy recognises that the RAF base is in Halton Parish and proposes 1000 houses.

The 1st phase proposes redevelopment and refurbishment of existing buildings. The implication is that the 2nd phase could be in the green belt.

A concern in the previous Princess Mary Gate development was that refurbished RAF houses in Halton Wood Road were not taken into account when the final housing numbers were quantified. Therefore, hardly any account was taken of a transitory population replacement with a permanent one and the resultant extra pressures put upon Wendover infrastructure.

At present, in Wendover, there are approx. 180 RAF houses in Tedder Road, 50-60 in Haddington Close (Halton/Wendover Parish) and at least another 200-300 officer housing in Halton Parish.

4.138
The WPC agree with most of this statement but not the "link with Halton and Wendover" as this will be coalescence of 2 distinct villages. Both Villages have a long history of a strong individual identity, which neither would wish to see removed.
Transport Strategy
4.17
Wendover continues to suffer from excessive traffic congestion at key periods during the day - attributable to "rush hour" and "school run" volumes. The village would benefit from completion of the existing by-pass into a full ring-road.

Trains need more carriages and cheaper parking at the stations.

Cycle routes should avoid the current criss-crossing of the main roads as this is a dangerous aspect of cycling.

Delivering Allocated Sites Halton/Wendover
4.125
The WPC supports the development of 1000 dwellings at Halton RAF camp. The roads/parking etc will not cope with increased volume of traffic. It was hoped that the sporting facilities on site would be an excellent facility for the local area. The current map indicates these in the main housing development which seems a complete waste of the high quality astroturf and centre.





Aylesbury - An Area of Leisure and Entertainment
4.229
The leisure facilities identified are good but inadequate with more needed in the central area. For example, an ice rink, bowling alley and gym where badminton, squash etc would encourage people into Aylesbury.
Events like the Roald Dahl Procession and Summer In The Park are very popular and help to retain community identity. Attention should be given to facilities focussed on younger children like soft
play that would allow one parent to shop whilst the other parent can entertain their child/children in a safe environment.
Transport and Parking
7.27
The WPC strongly supports vehicle parking being designed into new developments to include on-plot parking and adequate on-street parking. People need vehicles to travel to places of work not accessible by public transport and to be able to park them securely and safely. The WPC has major concerns regarding transport links and road network shortcomings.

The pressure on Wendover's already busy roads will only be made worse by the Halton development. To mitigate some of this negative effect will require a traffic management plan that is agreed with local Parishes.

Congestion and parking issues can only become a larger problem as the Halton developments proceed.

Traffic
The WPC finds that the presentation of traffic data is confusing and unhelpful. Wendover is expecting the significant negative effects of HS2 construction traffic on the B4009 and the A413 this will be long term and is likely to be at its peak during the Halton development. We acknowledge that this is not a permanent effect, but it is going to be a long-term feature of motoring in the Vale of Aylesbury for a significant proportion of the VALP.

Car parking
The WPC believes that any traffic modelling needs to take parking into account. Wendover has too few parking spaces, both on road and off road, to meet today's demands. Parking pressures are generated by....

Commuters : Parking all day in our residential streets.
Visitors : Using our shops, health services, cafes and accessing the countryside.
Residents : Using our shops, health services, schools, cafes and other facilities.
Workers : People who need to be in Wendover to run our business' or to build or repair things.

Any infrastructure planning associated with this plan needs to remedy Wendover's existing parking problems as well as develop for future need.






Protected Sites
NE1
All protected sites need an area around them to function without impact from development and it is to be hoped that this will be upheld in future planning approvals. Connectivity between sites is also necessary to maintain healthy populations of fauna and flora.

Wendover Woods is a geological site which should be protected. The derelict Thames Water site on Aylesbury Road is a non-statutory designated site, it should be protected.

Trees and Hedgerows
9.59
Trees and hedgerows are essential and AVDC must ensure that developers respect them, during construction by careful monitoring.

Green Infrastructure
11.12
The current RAF Halton with its excellent sports facilities could be a real asset to the area and should be developed sympathetically.
Protection of Key Employment Sites
E1 & E2
The WPC supports this strategy and would encourage further development within our area of sites suitable for expansion of the creative/high tech industries.

Conclusion
Change is on the way and the value of a proper plan for the Vale is beyond dispute. The structure and content of the VALP as presented seems sound in general but lacks detail as to a number of specific issues. It is to be hoped that this consultation will influence the VALP to provide solutions to these local issues.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1585

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Waldridge Garden Village Consortium

Agent: Pegasus Group (on behalf of Jeremy Elgin)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The VALP is dependent upon the delivery of at least one new settlement to meet a robust assessment of the OAN currently and to address the as yet unknown additional needs which will arise from the standardised methodology, the unmet needs of the region and other economic drivers.
Waldridge Garden Village provides the most sustainable option for such a new settlement.
In order to secure the delivery of this and any other new settlement and to enable these to deliver on time, there should be a commitment to these including the identification of broad locations.

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the VALP prepared on behalf of the Waldridge Garden Village Consortium

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1626

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: W K Boxhall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

This would be a much better approach as building a completely new town would ensure all the infrastructure issues would be catered for.

Full text:

3.3 & Policy S1 Sustainable development

Traffic problems within Aylesbury continue to increase and building more houses in this area will escalate them even more so.


3.15 New settlement

This would be a much better approach as building a completely new town would ensure all the infrastructure issues would be catered for.


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

This has not been shown to date, eg Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville. The statement 'will seek to preserve' demonstrates yet again that words and actions are not aligned.


4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy

The models used are too old and have already been criticised by Transport consultants AECOM. This model needs to be updated in the light of previous growth and significant transport changes.

The plan is not all embracing and smacks of opportunism for funding from HS2 developments for one tiny route which yet again would create further traffic problems.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads.

16000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the transport system and any orbital roads are likely to compound them.

Policy D1: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town

Pure fantasy. The growth cannot be managed and developed in a sustainable way, hence a new town development would be a better option.

D-AGT1, D-AGT3, D-AGT4

All will result in significant strains to the local transport system and in particular the A41, A413 and the Gyratory system.


Policy H1 Affordable Housing

Not consistent with national policy therefore developers will continue to ignore it.


9.38 Air Quality requirements on developers.

This is now vital to health and with the current volume of traffic around Aylesbury is a real cause for concern. Actions need to be include how this will be dealt with particularly with proposed link roads being planned through existing housing estates.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1654

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Ann Webbley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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. The VALP should reconsider a new settlement in the north of the district.

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: 1657

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr William Spear

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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

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: 1716

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Wates Developments Ltd.

Agent: Boyer Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

It is positive that the Council recognises at para 3.15 that the Local Plan will need to be reviewed, however the Plan currently provides no firm commitment to the review or any indication as to when it will take place. There are a number of issues that strongly suggest an early review is needed.

Full text:

Please find attached representations to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Proposed Submission consultation, which are submitted by Boyer on behalf of Wates Developments Ltd.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1732

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Ltd., and CALA homes Ltd

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

It is apparent from the analysis set out at Sections 4 and 5 of this representation that the
Proposed Submission Local Plan needs to be revisited, such that it allocates additional
land which can be delivered in the short-medium term. This is in order to address the
pressing housing need which has arisen in the district and HMA. However, we do not
agree that it is appropriate to entirely delay (until a future Local Plan Review) planning
for a new settlement (at an appropriate location) to meet this additional growth.

Full text:

Please find attached representations submitted on behalf of Persimmon Homes Ltd., and CALA homes Ltd., in relation to the Proposed Submission Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2017).

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Jane Chilman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

not the most appropriate strategy and cannot be justified. The VALP does not take into account the possible location of a New Town along the proposed East West Expressway which is a committed scheme and the planned route. The National Infrastructure Commission has called for billions of pounds of infrastructure investment relating to East-West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. A ground breaking new deal between Whitehall and local leaders could also lead to the first new towns in the UK for half a century. AVDC should think long term and include a new town in the VALP from the outset.

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: 2165

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Michelle Hughes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 2190

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Ether Solutions

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Opportunities from the forthcoming East-West rail and Oxford-Cambridge express road are being missed. Aylesbury needs to be part of the integrated plan not trying to work on its own.

Full text:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Placing too many houses in close proximity to Aylesbury centre will ultimately lead to traffic problems that will lead to economic misery for everyone.


3.15 New settlement
Opportunities from the forthcoming East-West rail and Oxford-Cambridge express road are being missed. Aylesbury needs to be part of the integrated plan not trying to work on its own.

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
Planning to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive is great BUT it needs to consider the success of that work on the traffic around the town. It is already grid locked.

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 need to be consider in terms of the traffic flows from the overall Oxford / Milton Keynes / Cambridge development arc. Traffic to and from Aylesbury will be impacted. The housing developments in Aylesbury that have already been approved are now starting to make traffic on existing roads terrible and the ideas for new roads are far too limited and not resourced for future capacity.

Policy Dl: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The plan clearly misses the point "GARDEN" not concrete jungle or building site!
Look at the quality towns which continue to attract people, they all have much more green public space than the proposal.
As an example, the old "Agricultural College" is subject to "Hampden Fields" housing development, to give any credibility to "GARDEN TOWN", that cannot happen. It should become a sports centre to celebrate Stoke Mandeville's position as the home of the "Paralympics", or even public garden specifically designed to meet needs of disabled people.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2237

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Chilman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

T does not take into account the possible location of a New Town along the proposed East West Expressway which is a committed scheme and the planned route takes it through the North of Aylesbury Vale. The National Infrastructure Commission has called for billions of pounds of infrastructure investment relating to East-West Rail and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. A ground breaking new deal between Whitehall and local leaders could also lead to the first new towns in the UK for half a century. AVDC should think long term and include a new town in the VALP from the outset.

Full text:

Please find attached my letter containing my responses to the VALP dated 14th December 2017 .