Aylesbury Vale Area

3.22

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 41

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 352

Received: 05/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Phil Yerby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

policy is weak and needs stronger definition

Full text:

I support the policy but AVDC do not stick to this policy. The Council "will seek" to preserve is so weak as to be meaningless. It is no more than words which they have no intention of fulfilling and does not provide a clear enough policy platform on which to resist development when, in fact, the NPPF would complement/endorse/support such as policy. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This is not even disputed so why do they insist on cramming the amount of houses to the South of Aylesbury with the resulting economic and social problems.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 427

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Representation:

We support the policy but AVDC do not stick to this policy. The Council "will seek" to preserve is a meaningless expression. The wording suggests they have no intention of fulfilling and does not provide a clear enough policy platform on which to resist development when the NPPF would complement / endorse / support such a policy. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This cannot be disputed so why do AVDC insist on cramming the large amount of houses to the South of Aylesbury.

Full text:

We support the policy but AVDC do not stick to this policy. The Council "will seek" to preserve is a meaningless expression. The wording suggests they have no intention of fulfilling and does not provide a clear enough policy platform on which to resist development when the NPPF would complement / endorse / support such a policy. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. This cannot be disputed so why do AVDC insist on cramming the large amount of houses to the South of Aylesbury.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 481

Received: 09/12/2017

Respondent: AD Fanthorpe

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

More needs to be done than "seek to preserve". The character of Weston Turville will be totally obliterated by Hampden Fields, and coalescence with Bedgrove/Aylesbury Inevitable. A planning inspector refused an application for 50 houses on Marroway because it would impact on the character of Weston Turville, and lead to coalescence. How much greater would be the impact of 3000 houses on Hampden Fields?

Full text:

More needs to be done than "seek to preserve". The character of Weston Turville will be totally obliterated by Hampden Fields, and coalescence with Bedgrove/Aylesbury Inevitable. A planning inspector refused an application for 50 houses on Marroway because it would impact on the character of Weston Turville, and lead to coalescence. How much greater would be the impact of 3000 houses on Hampden Fields?

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 602

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burnett

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

I agree with this, but the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville are contrary to the policy and would result in the disappearance of open countryside between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville and Aston Clinton. It is essential that these communities remain separate and do not end up as part of an expanded Aylesbury. It is also essential that the existing clear separation between Wendover, Weston Turville and Halton continues, and that no green belt land is released for housing, now or in the future.

Full text:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
I agree with this, but the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville are contrary to the policy and would result in the disappearance of open countryside between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville, Weston Turville and Aston Clinton. It is essential that these communities remain separate and do not end up as part of an expanded Aylesbury. It is also essential that the existing clear separation between Wendover, Weston Turville and Halton continues, and that no green belt land is released for housing, now or in the future.
(this comment is also relevant to D-AGTl South Aylesbury; 3.32 Green Belt)

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 605

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Trevor Toms

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The plans shown for Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville directly conflict with Policy S1 para e.
The plans will connect the main body of Aylesbury with these villages completely, losing both the character and identity of these two communities.

Full text:

The plans shown for Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville directly conflict with Policy S1 para e.
The plans will connect the main body of Aylesbury with these villages completely, losing both the character and identity of these two communities.

Support

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 679

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Whaddon Parish Council

Representation:

WPC wish to ensure that the Inspector fully understands - as previous inspectors have done in recent years - the importance of the green gap that currently exists between Whaddon and Milton Keynes, which will both stop coalescence and ensure that this important and historic landscape is enjoyed by generations to come .

Full text:

3.22 WPC fully support any policy or initiatives that 'seek to preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities'. In particular, WPC strongly supports the Council in it's desire to 'resist development that would compromise the open character of the countryside between settlements, especially where the gaps between them are already small'. Whaddon, being so close to Milton Keynes (one or two fields represent the current gap) is one such settlement that falls within an area that has been and will continue to be promoted by major development and house building companies, and indeed most of the land around Whaddon is already owned by investment companies who are promoting speculative development sites in the hope that Milton Keynes will expand further westwards and south-westwards. Whilst the Village is not against properly located and sustainable growth, and indeed recognise the benefits that carefully planned development can bring, the Whaddon community is united in recognising that growth must occur - certainly during the lifetime of this plan - in the most sustainable locations within the Aylesbury Vale. With Milton Keynes looking to grow to the east of the M1 motorway in the longer term, and with the majority of housing need in the Vale of Aylesbury - including that to cater for the unmet needs of local authorities lying to the south of the County, - AVDC are absolutely correct to direct growth to Aylesbury and the strategic settlements and larger villages. The rural north of AVDC is not at present an appropriate place to place such major growth, but WPC recognises and understands that all areas must be carefully researched for longer term major growth, once the east-west rail is open, and when HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway essential infrastructure growth comes to fruition. WPC welcomes the fact that AVDC are to further investigate a possible new settlement when this plan is reviewed and future strategic transport policies are finally approved and funded, which will ensure their much needed and timely deliverability.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 762

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr R Horton

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation:

The loss of good arable farming land, which is currently producing must needed crops for the food chain, open countryside and wildlife habitats. Reducing the number of local communities and making them part of Aylesbury i.e. the planned developments of Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville.

Full text:

The loss of good arable farming land, which is currently producing must needed crops for the food chain, open countryside and wildlife habitats. Reducing the number of local communities and making them part of Aylesbury i.e. the planned developments of Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 937

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Stuart Twigg

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

The local plan plans to fill in the gaps between Aylesbury and its surrounding villages.

Full text:

The local plan plans to fill in the gaps between Aylesbury and its surrounding villages.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 992

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Christine and Dennis Clarke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 994

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Schneider

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The phrases in this section 'seek to preserve' and 'The Council will resist development ....' are not strong enough to provide protection from the coalescence of settlements. Already, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville would join these villages to Aylesbury so this policy is currently failing. This is not an effective approach.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

I have tried to use the on-line form several times but it does not let me type in the relevant boxes so I am submitting my responses in this e-mail giving the information, as much as possible, as required in the form.


I do not wish to participate at the oral part of the examination.

Please inform me:-
When the VALP is submitted for independent examination.
When the Inspector's report is published
When the VALP is adopted


Responses

3.22 The phrases in this section 'seek to preserve' and 'The Council will resist development ....' are not strong enough to provide protection from the coalescence of settlements. Already, the planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville would join these villages to Aylesbury so this policy is currently failing. This is not an effective approach.

Suggested Change
Protection against coalescence of settlements should be strengthened and the planned developments which would go against this policy should be reviewed or abandoned.



4.17 The 16,000 new houses planned around Aylesbury will have a very severe impact on the transport system (which is already often gridlocked) and the orbital roads will not take enough of the traffic away from the town centre. Also, much of the orbital route strategy is aspirational and so they will not be built for years, if at all. This policy is not effective.

Suggested Change
There should be an up to date, independently assessed, sound evidence base for the transport interventions needed to cope with future traffic levels.



D-AGT3 - The large amount of development will have a severe, detrimental impact on the transport system in and around Aylesbury. It would also be in very close proximity to Aston Clinton. It is not justified, sound or effective.

Suggested Change
This site should be assessed again for the impact on traffic and proximity to Aston Clinton (coalescence - Policy 3.22.)



D-AGT4 - The large amount of development will have a severe, detrimental impact on the transport system in and around Aylesbury, particularly on the A41, A413 and the gyratory system. It would also be in very close proximity to Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville. It is not justified, sound or effective.

Suggested Change
This site should be assessed again for the impact on traffic and proximity to Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville (coalescence - Policy 3.22)

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1001

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Barbara White

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

A commitment to "seek to preserve" is a 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.

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: 1021

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Robin Garside

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

intention to "seek to preserve" is not a reasonable target. It does not show any real intent at all. The Hampden Fields and other development already under discussion will serve to remove the 'wedge' between, for example, Aylesbury and Weston Turville.
There should be open countryside between villages and the town of Aylesbury (settlements) and this principle should be given the highest priority to preserve the character and desirability of The Vale.
also applies to potential development at Halton and thus identity of Halton and Weston Turville.
Please beef up the statement in clause 3.2.2 and then stick to it!

Full text:

Greetings,
I wish to make one comment covering two aspects of the proposed Local Plan.
My comment concerns clauses 3.2.2 and 4.125
Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
I would say that the intention to "seek to preserve" is not a reasonable target. It does not show any real intent at all. The Hampden Fields and other development already under discussion will serve to remove the 'wedge' between, for example, Aylesbury and Weston Turville.
There should be open countryside between villages and the town of Aylesbury (settlements) and this principle should be given the highest priority to preserve the character and desirability of The Vale.
This comment also applies to potential development at Halton and thus the identity of Halton and Weston Turville.
Please beef up the statement in clause 3.2.2 and then stick to it!
Thank you for your consideration.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1209

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr A.P. Smart

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1246

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Sarah Way

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The wording "will seek to preserve" is too weak. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. These villages are vital to the character of Aylesbury Vale and by enveloping these villages with new houses, completely spoils the living environment of the people already living within these villages and Aylesbury Vale as a whole. I understand that new housing is needed, but it needs to be done in a thoughtful/considered way. By tacking on huge estates to small villages it is completely ruinng the environment for those living within the village.

Full text:


I wish to comment on the draft Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan VALP, which cover the planning applications for Hampden Fields and Woodlands.


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. The traffic situation in Aylesbury is dire at best. Every day there are queues of traffic to get into Aylesbury, both in the morning and the evening. It only takes one car to break down, anywhere within Aylesbury and it leads to complete gridlock, EVERYWHERE. Aylesbury Vale cannot even contemplate building more houses with building new roads FIRST. Some of the roads are aspirational, basically they will never happen! This is neither a Justified nor an Effective 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. The planned developments at Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville entirely coalesce the villages with Aylesbury. These villages are vital to the character of Aylesbury Vale and by enveloping these villages with new houses, completely spoils the living environment of the people already living within these villages and Aylesbury Vale as a whole. I understand that new housing is needed, but it needs to be done in a thoughtful/considered way. By tacking on huge estates to small villages it is completely ruinng the environment for those living within the village. 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. Again they need to deal with the traffic issue BEFORE building further housing. This element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective for this reason.

Policy D1: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The sheer amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way. Aylesbury Vale need to look after its existing residents first and improve Aylesbury town centre and the road system before even considering building new houses.Not Justified.

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. Every morning and evening there is already a queue of traffic to get into Aylesbury, that goes from the traffic lights at Bedgrove right back to the start of the duel carriageway (approx. a mile) how on earth can they consider building more houses without building a by-pass of Aylesbury FIRST. Not Justified or 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. Please see my earlier notes. Not Effective.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1281

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, 3.22

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.

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: 1297

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, 3.22

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

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: 1304

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr John Day

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

Object, 3.22

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.

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: 1318

Received: 10/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs B Daniel

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1364

Received: 13/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Liam & Catherine Hyland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

We are fortunate to live in an area of outstanding beauty and are able to enjoy the individual character of the villages adjacent to our own. The proposed development will see an inevitable coalescence of these villages and the promise of "seeking to preserve" does not provide much comfort.

Full text:


Dear Sirs

Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan VALP

We wish to express concerns on a number of issues relating to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP).

Section 3.3 and Policy SI sustainable development

The intention to accommodate such a large number of houses in a relatively small geography will inevitably lead to significant traffic congestion. The backlog of traffic in peak periods is already causing issues and if VALP goes ahead in its current form the impact on the local economy could prove stifling.

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

We are fortunate to live in an area of outstanding beauty and are able to enjoy the individual character of the villages adjacent to our own. The proposed development will see an inevitable coalescence of these villages and the promise of "seeking to preserve" does not provide much comfort.

Section 4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre.

Whilst commending you on your plan to make Aylesbury Town Centre more attractive there is the need to take a hard look at the impact from the many thousands of vehicles that will be a consequence of the developments. It will be self defeating if the journey to an enhanced Town centre is one of frustration and delay.

Section D-AGT1 South Aylesbury

This will lead to coalescence between Aylesbury,Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall. The plan to build over 1,000 houses along the South East Aylesbury Link Road will place great pressure on the gyratory system and the surrounding road network. We do not consider this to be an effective approach.

Section 9.38 Air Quality requirements on developers.

Pollution is a concern to all of us with air quality a vital element of overall health. There is insufficient consideration given to this requirement and the Council should be promoting positive plans and policies to ensure the developers do not neglect air quality.


These are our major points of concern and we hope you will take these into consideration when making your decision. I am sure that such concerns are shared by the vast majority of residents in our community although unfortunately not all will have taken the opportunity to communicate these to you.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1380

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Keith Waterman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1407

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Steven Hyams

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1421

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Marcus Joy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The wording "will seek to preserve" is very ambiguous and does not provide any assurance on preserving the countryside.

Full text:

My objection is submitted on the basis of the below concerns:
3.3 and Policy S1 Sustainable development
Far too many houses are being built in an area that will not be able to accommodate the traffic. Non effective 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 very ambiguous and does not provide any assurance on preserving the countryside.

4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
AVDC need to consider more seriously the impact on town centre traffic from all the extra housing around the town. The desire for people to use the town centre is already low due to congestion and poor shopping, so this element of the Plan is not Justified nor Effective.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy ATS
The ATS is based on flawed modelling, criticised by BCC's own Transport Consultants AECOM. How can you use an industry accredited consultancy to advise you and then ignore what they say? This particular point is of grave concern as it infers incompetence.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
16,000 extra houses around Aylesbury will have a severe impact on the already crowded road network. This basically puts a conservative estimate of 16,000 extra cars into the road network and because the evidence base is lacking, the interventions are neither objectively assessed, based on sound evidence, nor Effective.

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-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The impact on the road system on the A41, A413 and gyratory system will be severe. Not Effective.

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. How can the village of Wendover and the National Trust woodlands possibly accommodate this sharp rise in traffic? 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. The Chiltern Line is already running at high capacity during peak hours and rail strategy is vital to future development. 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.

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.

Regards,
Marcus Joy.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1539

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Wise

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The planned Hampden Fields development will not only coalesce the villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with Aylesbury but will also swamp all surrounding areas in unacceptable extra traffic.
This is not an effective approach.

Full text:

Sirs,

I would like to make the following comments on the VALP:

3.3 and policy S1 Sustainable development
How can such a building plan in any way support Biodiversity? The traffic issues cause by this plan will in fact have the opposite effect.
A strong and vibrant community can only be built if surrounding villages are allowed to remain their individuality and building on this scale can in no way produce this 'community'.
This is neither justified nor an effective strategy.

3.22 Preserving character and identities of neighbouring settlements and resisting development compromising open countryside between settlements
The planned Hampden Fields development will not only coalesce the villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville with Aylesbury but will also swamp all surrounding areas in unacceptable extra traffic.
This is not an effective approach.

4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy
This ATS is based on flawed modelling.
The current traffic levels and congestion in and around Aylesbury and not only unacceptable but are also unsustainable. The orbital strategy plan will probably not happen for at least another 17 years during which time the surrounding villages will be swamped with increased traffic levels.
The plan is therefore neither positively prepared nor effective.

4.17 Interventions including outer link roads
An extra 16,000 houses around Aylesbury will have a huge impact on the local transport system - a system that is currently in gridlock at peak periods.
Considering Aylesbury is supposedly a 'cycling demonstration town' the current cycleway system is nothing but disgraceful and a simply 'completing the gaps' approach to cycling will in no way improve links for cyclists.
The planned interventions are neither objectively assessed nor effective.

Policy DI: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
This amount of growth cannot be accommodated in a sustainable way.
Not justified.

D-AGT1 South Aylesbury
This creates coalescence between Aylesbury and surrounding villages and the traffic produced from an extra (minimum) of 1000 houses will cause unimaginable congestion to these villages.
This is not an effective infrastructure plan.

D-AGT3 Aylesbury north of A41
The volume of development here will have a severe impact on the transport system, particularly the A41 and A413, so traffic will seek alternative routes through already traffic-swamped villages.
This is not justified nor effective.

D-AGT4 Aylesbury south of A41
This will have a severe impact on the transport system, particularly the A41 and A413, so traffic will seek alternative routes through already traffic-swamped villages - particularly Weston Turville.
This creates coalescence between Aylesbury and the villages of Weston Turville and Stoke Mandeville.
This is not justifiable under any circumstances.

I hope these comments will be used as a signal that the local residents of Aylesbury and the surrounding villages have no faith in the VALP and most of the contents therein are not justifiable or deliverable.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1576

Received: 12/12/2017

Respondent: Wendover Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The WPC would request there is no development between the 2 Parishes of Wendover and Halton, and that Babbington Road remains the Border.

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: 1627

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: W K Boxhall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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.

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: 1652

Received: 11/12/2017

Respondent: Mrs Ann Webbley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

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

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: 1658

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr William Spear

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

'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.

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: 1788

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Jane Chilman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

The planned development of Hampden Fields completely coalesces the villages of Stoke Mandeville and Weston Turville with Aylesbury. Weston Turville and Aylesbury are already linked at Broughton Crossing with the approved MDA site and developments in New Road. Any development (including Hampden Fields) that brings housing further along New Road should be resisted. The same can be said at Hampden Hall where there is only a small gap with Aylesbury. This cannot be disputed so why is there the insistence to cram in thousands of houses to the south of Aylesbury.

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: 1857

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Ms Maureen Simmons

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

"The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities. The Council will resist development that would compromise the open character of the countryside between settlements, especially where the gaps between them are already small." This paragraph should state that the Council will preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities. The current wording is ineffectual: the planned development of Hampden Fields demonstrates how the current weakness in the wording in this paragraph allows villages such as Weston Turville to be coalesced with the main conurbation of Aylesbury.

Full text:

Comments on the Plan are as follows:
Para 1.54
According to the document "Parts of Aylesbury town suffer from road congestion at peak times". This is an understatement. Aylesbury town currently suffers from traffic congestion which is worse at peak times. One of the objectives of the Plan should be to ameliorate rather than exacerbate this situation. However, the Plan is likely to make the situation worse.
Para 3.3 together with Policy S1 Sustainable Development
Allowing too many houses to be built in too small an area will lead to even more traffic problems in Aylesbury; also health issues caused by an increase in air pollution. This situation will lead to a reduced quality of life for all inhabitants and considerably reduce the town's attractiveness for inward investment by businesses. This will downgrade the town's economic base. Allowing too many houses to be built in too small an area is contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF recognises that sustainable development is about change for the better and worsening the town's economic prospects is not change for the better.
Para 3.22
"The Council will seek to preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities. The Council will resist development that would compromise the open character of the countryside between settlements, especially where the gaps between them are already small." This paragraph should state that the Council will preserve the character and identities of neighbouring settlements or communities. The current wording is ineffectual: the planned development of Hampden Fields demonstrates how the current weakness in the wording in this paragraph allows villages such as Weston Turville to be coalesced with the main conurbation of Aylesbury.
Para 4.14 Aylesbury Town Centre
One of the aims of this sections is that the growth at Aylesbury needs to be accompanied by and supported by a vibrant town centre. One of the aims is for Aylesbury to be "a distinctive, 'best in class', modern market town, which is attractive, safe, sustainable and accessible". This is an admirable objective, but if the town is congested with traffic because of the impact of the extra housing around the town - it will not be achievable. The Plan needs to incorporate more elements to reduce the high levels of traffic and the consequent air pollution.
Para 4.16 Aylesbury Transport Strategy (ATS)
The ATS is based upon flawed modelling which has been criticised by BCC's own transport consultants. This means that a key part of evidence supporting the Plan is compromised.
Key parts of the "orbital strategy" are aspiration only. This means that these key parts will not be in place until after 2030. The Plan has not been effectively prepared in this area.
Para 4.17 Interventions including outer link roads.
The orbital roads are not likely to reduce the traffic from impacting the town centre. 16,000 additional houses around Aylesbury will severely impact the transport system. Because the evidential base is not in place, the interventions have not been objectively assessed. This part of the Plan is not effective.
Policy D1: Delivering Aylesbury Garden Town
The total amount of growth is unsustainable if Aylesbury is to provide an acceptable quality of life for its inhabitants and indeed if Aylesbury wishes to attract visitors e.g. for shopping, theatre attendance etc. The Plan is ineffective.
D- AGT1 South Aylesbury
This part of the Plan will coalesce Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall - which is the opposite of what this Plan should be achieving - i.e. contrary to para 3.22 and is not sustainable development. Also planning for 1,000 plus houses, together with other development along the South-East Aylesbury Link Road will seriously impact the gyratory system and the neighbouring road network. This is not effective planning in terms of the infrastructure in the area.
D -AGD4 Aylesbury south of A41 (Hampden Fields)
The impact on the road system - A41, A413 and the gyratory system will be acute. This part of the Plan is not effective. In addition, this part of the plan is contrary to para 3.22 and is not sustainable development.

Object

VALP Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 1874

Received: 14/12/2017

Respondent: Unknown

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation:

term 'will seek to preserve' is virtually meaningless and lacks any form of substance. One of the key attractions of Aylesbury Vale is the unique and individual character of the surrounding villages. My understanding has always been that the Council both recognised and endorsed this.The planned developments at both Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville, in particular, will totally undermine the principle of retaining individuality. They will both be entirely coalesced with Aylesbury and completely lose their status as being separate villages. If allowed, this would be absolutely contrary to the policy of resisting developments that compromise open countryside between developments.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

With reference to the consultation period for comments on the above, I wish for my views to be taken into consideration as per the following points:

3.3 & Policy S1 - the quantity of properties being proposed is too much for the corresponding areas. This will add considerable traffic congestion to the local area(s). Aylesbury is already both suffering from lack of infrastructure and is extremely problematical when travelling in and out of the region. Adding these developments, on the scales proposed, will only lead to further congestion that will become deterrents to both employees and employers based or basing themselves within the area. This will then have a negative impact on the local economy.

3.22 - the term 'will seek to preserve' is virtually meaningless and lacks any form of substance. One of the key attractions of Aylesbury Vale is the unique and individual character of the surrounding villages. My understanding has always been that the Council both recognised and endorsed this.The planned developments at both Hampden Fields and Stoke Mandeville, in particular, will totally undermine the principle of retaining individuality. They will both be entirely coalesced with Aylesbury and completely lose their status as being separate villages. If allowed, this would be absolutely contrary to the policy of resisting developments that compromise open countryside between developments.

4.14 - I see little point in plans to make the Town Centre more attractive when there appears to have been little concerted consideration of the enormous impact of the congestion created by the addition of the proposed quantity of housing.

4.16 (2) - the orbital strategy appears to be based on future aspirations. This makes it very non-committal, ineffective and irrelevant. Accordingly, this should necessitate appropriate and meaningful revisions to the Plan for its alignment with housing policy to be taken seriously.

4.17 - what evidence exists that orbital roads will deal with both existing and the additional congestion that will be created? Anything based on speculation cannot be realistically relied upon when determining if the housing will be supported adequately.

D-AGT1 - Again, as mentioned in 3.22, the issue of coalescence between Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville and Hampden Hall is contrary to not developing on open countryside between developments.

D-AGT4 - As per the points made in 3.22, this proposed development will totally merge Weston Turville with Bedgrove / Aylesbury and ensure it loses its identity and character. It is therefore completely against the policy of not developing on open countryside between developments. Additionally, the surrounding roads are already subject to severe congestion and will be virtually untenable if the proposed development proceeds.

4.125 - there appears to be insufficient consideration of the impact on surrounding roads. Correct preparation of a valid traffic model, followed by careful assessment of its results should be undertaken before any plans are allowed to proceed further.

Policy H1 - the reduced percentage of the affordable housing element indicates that private opportunism is being sanctioned above any needs for improved affordable housing. Allowing this policy will encourage further similar submissions and be possibly contrary to national policy.

9.38 - there seems to be insufficient plans and consideration of the detrimental effect on health that the quantity of housing proposed will cause.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.