Aylesbury Vale Area

3.15

Showing comments and forms 31 to 38 of 38

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2253

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Chris & Shirley Bull

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We hope you find these comments helpful.


Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2352

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I believe that this draft requires a radical review to recognise that the more effective strategy is to focus on what is required to make the most of this opportunity. Significant road improvements linking the Vale with the expressway and a new town for example, switching the focus to the north rather than cramming more into the south of the Vale.

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2463

Received: 07/12/2017

Respondent: Mr David Locke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

AVDC should be forward looking and should be working with national government to leverage the
huge opportunities presented by infrastructure provision envisaged by the National Infrastructure
Commission regarding East West Rail (EWR) and the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway.
The western end of EWR is due for delivery within the draft VALP horizon. It does not appear to
have been considered adequately in the draft VALP.

Full text:


Dear Sirs,
The draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan ("VALP")
My comments on specific areas of the draft Plan are as follows:
3.3 and Policy S1 - Sustainable development
Placing 16,000 houses in a relatively small area with an incomplete and partly 'aspirational' road
network will only lead to congestion and stagnation. If the traffic situation is bad, people will simply
not want to live in Aylesbury, work in Aylesbury or shop in Aylesbury.
3.15 - New settlement
AVDC should be forward looking and should be working with national government to leverage the
huge opportunities presented by infrastructure provision envisaged by the National Infrastructure
Commission regarding East West Rail (EWR) and the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway.
The western end of EWR is due for delivery within the draft VALP horizon. It does not appear to
have been considered adequately in the draft VALP.
Recommendation 4 of the National Infrastructure Commission's interim report says, in relation to
the East West Rail and Oxford - Cambridge Expressway projects:
"To fully maximise the benefits of the project local authorities should recognise the transformational
benefits of East West Rail and develop and agree, working with national government, an ambitious
strategy for housing development and deliver around stations and station towns." (my emphasis)
The proposed route options for the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway should be properly considered.
Option A (the 'green route') passes just to the North of Aylesbury
Option B (the 'purple route') passes between Aylesbury and Bicester, running parallel with the East
West Rail route.
Why wouldn't you consider a new settlement next to infrastructure that is being funded by national
government? It is surely the most sensible solution to the need for extra housing. I cannot see any
attempt in the VALP to work with national government to deliver a forward looking solution. What
is presented is a piecemeal plan, driven by developers'' profit motives.
Aylesbury deserves better than this. The VALP is inward‐looking in this regard. What is being
presented is a poor piece of work. It is simply not good enough.
Interventions - Link Roads
Many parts of the link roads forming the proposed orbital route are said to be 'aspirational'. This
means that they are not funded. Who is supposed to be paying for them? Will they ever be built?
Even those parts of the orbital route that are supposedly funded, will be built at different times. The
whole thing will not be opened in one go. What consideration has been given to the effect on traffic
of a partly completed road system?
Site D‐AGT1 - South Aylesbury
In the SEALR consultation, the South East Aylesbury Link Road is shown as passing through
undeveloped fields.
In the draft VALP, the SEALR isn't shown, but the area is shown covered in more houses. The traffic
from the houses has to be catered for. How is this traffic supposed to access the SEALR? There are
no junctions shown in the SEALR plans that I can see.
This is yet another example of the left hand not knowing (or caring) what the right hand is doing. It
is incredibly poor infrastructure planning. Again, what traffic modelling has been done to assess the
effect of 2,000 houses on what is supposed to be a strategic link route?
Policy H1 - Affordable housing
All large developments must provide at least 30% affordable housing, or serviced self‐build plots on
which younger people can build for themselves.
Even the council's own development at Woodlands ignores this basic requirement and only requires
20%. If the council ignores this need, the developers will take the council's lead and ignore it as
well.
It is simply not satisfactory for developers to say that 'up to' X% of affordable housing will be
provided. 'Up to' can mean 0% percent.
It really worries me that ignoring the needs of those who want to get onto the housing ladder, will
deny Aylesbury the opportunity to be home for the younger people that every town needs.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2474

Received: 07/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Damian Campbell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Yours, with respect, but much distress.




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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2515

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs John & Christine Raines

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

A new town may be the way forward as it should be self sufficient - most importantly schools particularly secondary education which are not coping now but there will
still be the traffic problem.

Full text:

My comments on the above are:

3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development

The positioning of 1,000+ houses in the Hamden Fields area alone is going to create havoc for all of the Vale of Aylesbury and
is short sighted in the extreme. We know from the congestion currently experienced this will result in more gridlock - so how will the public get to work,
schools, hospitals etc - is there a plan we don't know about for this because I am extremely concerned about this.

3.15 New Settlement

A new town may be the way forward as it should be self sufficient - most importantly schools particularly secondary education which are not coping now but there will
still be the traffic problem.

3.22 Developments such as Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville will change the aspect of the Vale totally - that is what we are made up of - villages with
our own identity.

4.16 ATS

Pie in the sky transport plan. I would like something to be more realistic and happen in my lifetime, a proper plan made by current councillors and not left
to be put right by our councillors of the future which by that time will be too late.

D-AGTI South Aylesbury

The positioning of 1,000+ houses between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall doesn't bear thinking about. Transport alone is comprised already
and certainly I can't be the only person who would put themselves in a position of moving to this area and not being able to commute.

9.38 Air Quality

This is a very important issue particularly as we are in a Vale and needs positive policies in place.

John Raines

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2650

Received: 08/12/2017

Respondent: FCC Environment

Agent: Sirius Yorkshire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The OAN currently underestimates the likely development requirements over the Plan period, therefore significant additional land allocations should be provided. Paragraph 3.15 of the Plan must reference more explicitly the Government's and the NIC's overarching vision for the CMKO Corridor. Concerns raised about the timing of identifying a new settlement after the Expressway route has been selected. The potential/ proposed settlement location should be used to influence the route of the Expressway and to ensure supporting infrastructure is integrated e.g East West Rail.

Full text:

These Representations:
consider a need for further strategic direction within its policies in relation to the growth aspirations for the District as a result of the Cambridge-Milton-Keynes-Oxford (CMKO) Corridor; at present it is considered the VALP is not planning spatially for long term growth and investment beyond what will be an adopted Local Plan with a very limited shelf life;
consider the strategic policies to restrict growth in rural areas preventing an opportunity to enhance the sustainability of existing rural communities, contrary to the provisions of the NPPF;
consider the assessment of Site CAL003, and other adjoining land, as inaccurate within the HELAA and that further strategic consideration should be given to site allocations at Calvert Green as an opportunity to improve the sustainability of an existing community with limited facilities;
identify the FCC landholding as a highly strategic location which can facilitate a new settlement in the Calvert area which would contribute towards the long term growth requirements for the District and provide the opportunity to co-locate energy consumers to an existing supply (Greatmoor EfW); this should be recognised within the strategic policies of the VALP.

Officer note: see attachment for full representation

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2687

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Amarillo Ltd & Scandale Ltd

Agent: Planning Prospects

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

A New Settlement forms the best, most sustainable, and least contentious approach to deliver significantly more homes in the District over the Plan period. The Council acknowledges that a New Settlement will be needed and will form part of an early Review of the VALP but the New Settlement site should be allocated now to ensure delivery through that early Review and during the Plan period.

We consider land to the north of Winslow Allocation WIN001, known as the Greenway Project, represents the preferred option for a New Settlement in Aylesbury Vale and should be allocated in the VALP now.

As currently drafted the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan will not deliver the homes required in the District and has not considered fully all of the reasonable alternative options available to the District.

Full text:

See attachments

Policy S2 sets out the Spatial Strategy for growth in Aylesbury Vale over the emerging Plan Period (2013 to 2033) and says that the VALP will provide for 27,400 new homes during that period. Policy S2 is followed by Table 1 which sets out that the Allocations put forward in teh draft VALP amount to 12,997, which when added to commitments in the Sitrict will result in provision of 28,830 new homes during the plan period. This represents a buffer of 5.2% over the total housing requirements put forward in the VALP.

Not with standing our concerns over the level of housing growth put forward in the VALP (subject to a separate response form) we do not consider that a 5.2% buffer gives sufficient flexibility should the sites identified by the Council not deliver at the rate or density anticipated in the Plan or even should they fail to deliver at all. This is particularly concerning where the VALP includes a number of large strategic allocations which are subject to significant delivery constraints such as major infrastructure requirements (including being linked to delivery of HS2).

Paragraph 3.79 of the draft VALP sets out that in the four years of the Plan period that have occurred to date (i.e 2013 to 2017) delivery in those years has cumulatively fallen short of the annual delivery target. this means that there is already a pent-up shortfall in delivery in Aylesbury Vale in the Plan period and the %.2% buffer has already been eaten into during its early years, thereby reducing the flexibility further going forward.

Paragraph 3.80 acknowledge that achieving the level of housing delivery set out in the VALP is ambitious and will be a significant increase on past rates. With this in mind, we consider it necessary to identify additional allocations to provide a greater buffer and provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that the homes required in Aylesbury Vale are delivered in the Plan period.

Our concerns are exacerbated if (as we consider it should be) a higher OAN is considered and the level of housing growth is increased as a result.

With the above in mind, we do not consider that the Plan as currently drafted is positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with National Policy as it will not deliver the homes required in Winslow or the District or indeed the winder HMA.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 2712

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Roger & Reidunn Green

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Given uncertainty of future developments (eg E/W rail) this proposal should be redesigned and consideration given to planning a completely new town, and not try to solve problems with a short term 'fudge'.
The proposed plan does not adequately address the inevitable increase in volume of traffic not prevent coalescence of communities. It is poorly prepared and completely ineffective.

Full text:

3.3 The resulting increase in number of cars will aggravate yet further the already badly overloaded traffic system
3.15 Given uncertainty of future developments (eg E/W rail) this proposal should be redesigned and consideration given to planning a completely new town, and not try to solve problems with a short term 'fudge'.
3.22 "Seeking to preserve" does not ensure that coalescence of villages will not occur. Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville will be subsumed into Aylesbury.
4.14 Long awaited development of Aylesbury town centre cannot be achieved without free flow of traffic, both in and out of the town.
4.16 ATS modeling criticized by BCC as poorly planned. Without sound data an effective solution is impossible.
4.125 Already there are further planned proposals for increased building (eg RAF Halton 1000 houses) which must be considered if future traffic is to be accommodated. The proposed plan is poorly prepared and ineffective.