Aylesbury Vale Area

MM035

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 31

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2810

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Joanna Shepherd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I notice with real concern on reading the Modified Plan that housing numbers for several large developments have been raised. Both Aylesbury Garden Town and RAF Halton have been amended from around 1000 to at least 1000. The Plan shows no evidence to any updated transport assessment based on these new figures which I feel is woeful. The congestion is appalling and worsening. To increase the planned housing numbers is utter lunacy. (officer summary)

Full text:

I notice with real concern on reading the Modified Plan that housing numbers for several large developments have been raised. Both Aylesbury Garden Town and RAF Halton have been amended from around 1000 to at least 1000. The development south west of Stoke Mandeville has been raised from 1550 to at least 1590, Woodlands from around 1660 to 1757 and Hampden Fields from around 3111 to at least 3358. The Plan shows no evidence to any updated transport assessment based on these new figures which I feel is woeful. Anyone living in Aylesbury knows how congested the area is. At peak times the roads are virtually gridlocked. Whenever there is an accident anywhere around Aylesbury the whole road network grinds to a halt as witnessed last week when there was an accident by Aylesbury College. To get to the town centre from where I live on Hampden Hall took me 40 minutes. In the same week temporary lights on the Wendover Road and Bedgrove meant that my husband took 45 minutes to get from the Wendover bypass to home, a journey which should take 5 minutes. The congestion is appalling and worsening. I was talking to someone who lives by the police station and works at Elm Farm vetinary practice. She can walk to work in 7 minutes. By car this journey takes her 20 minutes in the morning. Given the current chaos on the roads I fail to see that anyone who actually lives in Aylesbury would feel that the Plan has been positively prepared and seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements. To increase the planned housing numbers is utter lunacy. Households now invariably have a minimum of 2 cars, often more given that children remain at home much longer. Aylesbury will simply grind to a halt. I beg someone to wake up to this and see that VALP is flawed. I cannot see why anyone would want to live in Aylesbury when the traffic is so bad now. A Plan that shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment yet an increase in housing numbers should not go unchallenged. I challenge those responsible for looking at the Modified Plan to visit Aylesbury at rush hour times. If they did that and then allowed this Modified Plan to be sanctioned when it fails to provide any updated transport assessment I would have to assume that the world has gone made. Aylesbury will have housing but no one will want to live here because the road network will simply collapse under the pressure.

Joanna Shepherd, Weston Turville, (who already cannot get out onto the Wendover Road in the morning unless someone lets her into the stream of solid traffic)

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2816

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Burnett

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
I strongly disagree with increasing the housing density in this area. The roads are already over-congested. the continued loss of countryside to housing development
is destroying the rural character of the area, and the distinctness of communities close to Aylesbury is being lost.
Infrastructure is already inadequate to meet the needs of existing housing density and this plan will make it worse. (officer summary)



Full text:

Housing numbers

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have
been raised.
.D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has
been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
.D-AGT2 (south west of Stoke Mandeville) from "around 1,550" to "at
least 1,590".
.D-AGT3 (includes Woodlands) from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
.D-AGT4 (includes Hampden Fields) from "around 3111" to "at least
3358"
.D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least
1,000"

I strongly disagree with increasing the housing density in this area. The
roads are already over-congested, and the plans do nothing which will solve
this. In addition, the continued loss of countryside to housing development
is destroying the rural character of the area, and the distinctness of
communities close to Aylesbury is being lost.

I do not agree that this plan, as modified, " seeks to meet objectively
assessed development and infrastructure requirements". Infrastructure is
already inadequate to meet the needs of existing housing density and this
plan will make it worse.

Best Regards
Andrew Burnett



Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2872

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Richard Makepeace

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government.


Full text:

Dear Sir,

Having studied the revised Vale of Aylesbury plan I have the following comments

Oxford to Cambridge expressway

The plan appears to have downgraded the plan so as to now take little or no account of this proposal. In particular its effects have been removed from the Spatial Vision and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring cooperation. It is only considered in a vague manner as possibly being considered in the future.

This strategy does not seem to be one which has taken reasonable consideration of this agains of any other strategies into account.

HS2

D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2. This project is under major review and as such no plan can or should be based on this highly contentious plan going ahead as there is a clear possibility of there being cancellation and in this important respective the plan doesn't meet objectively assessed development and infra structure requirements.


Housing needs

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government.

In this respect I believe the plan does not seek to meet objectively the assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Yours faithfully

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2878

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Susan Makepeace

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure.

Full text:


Dear Sir,

Having studied the revised Vale of Aylesbury plan I have the following comments

Oxford to Cambridge expressway

The plan now take little or no account of this proposal. It is only considered in a vague manner as possibly being considered in the future.
In particular its effects have been removed from the Spatial Vision and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring cooperation.

This strategy does not seem to be one which has taken reasonable consideration of this agains of any other strategies into account.


Housing needs

D-AGT1-4 and D-HAL003 all change housing needs from 'around' a figure to a 'minimum' of the same figure implying that the number of houses is likely to be increased. Extra housing is in direct contradiction of the frequently expressed views of the residents as opposed to the views imposed by central government. No alterations have been made to the transport assessment to take account of this likely increase. As any resident in Aylesbury and the surrounding area knows from their daily experience that the transport infrastructure is grossly overloaded and any extra housing will only add to this and is unlikely to be ameliorated by any feasible transport infrastructure.

In this respect I believe the plan does not seek to meet objectively the assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

HS2

D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2. This project is under major review and as such no plan can or should be based on this highly contentious plan going ahead as there is a clear possibility of there being cancellation now or in the future and in this important respective the plan doesn't meet objectively assessed development and infra structure requirements.

Yours faithfully

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2887

Received: 08/12/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Shirley & Raymond Cox

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised. D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000. The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested, yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.
The modified Plan fails to address the traffic congestion these new houses would generate. We are also concerned about the level of air pollution that would be generated.
We do not believe AVDC and BCC have planned fairly for the effects of traffic.
(officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sirs
Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

In the modified Plan, the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway is referred to several times. We would have expected the Council to build this major road infrastructure project fully into their plan at this stage. They have deleted the reference from their Spatial Vision (para 2.4d) and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring co-operation (para 3.39) and they state (para 3.81) only that they may potentially consider it at some unspecified point in the future. They have also deleted their declared support for the project (modified policy T3 at paragraph 7.21).
We do not believe this is the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.

Housing numbers

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
* D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested, yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.
The modified Plan fails to address the traffic congestion these new houses would generate. We both have to leave for work for work much earlier to avoid traffic delays. When there are any roadworks, water leaks, accidents etc. Aylesbury literally grinds to a halt. We are also concerned about the level of air pollution that would be generated.
We do not believe AVDC and BCC have planned fairly for the effects of traffic and strongly disagree that this seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

HS2

The area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet no decision as to this project has been taken. The Plan cannot be approved until that final decision.
We feel work relating HS2 should not commence until the project has been finally approved, thus avoiding unnecessary devastation to the countryside, not to mention wasting vast amounts of money.

If HS2 does not go ahead, AVDC and BCC will not have the ability to fund their desired road system and we strongly disagree that this seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Yours faithfully

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2893

Received: 08/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Damian Campbell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000. As was evidenced in the last inspectors report the road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures. (officer summary)

Full text:

Attn: The Planning officer for the VALP

Sir / Madam

In addition to my earlier comments about the VALP I would like the following point to the amendments to the VALP to be taken into consideration:

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards




Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

In the modified Plan, the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway is referred to several times. One would have expected the AVDC and BCC to include this major road infrastructure project fully into their plans. However, not only have they have deleted the reference from their Spatial Vision (para 2.4d) and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring co-operation (para 3.39) but In para 3.81 the Council has seen fit to merely state that they may "Potentially consider it at some unspecified point in the future". They have also deleted their declared support for the project (modified policy T3 at paragraph 7.21).

I am not only disappointed but truly dismayed at this lack of professionalism. The Vale of Aylesbury Plan is the most important planning document to be worked on for the coming years. For it to have parts deleted and not to include cooperation with the only other infrastructure project in the county beggars belief. The new plans hardly demonstrate the most "Appropriate" strategy when there are other reasonable alternatives available.




Housing numbers

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

As was evidenced in the last inspectors report the road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

Again this demonstrates shoddy work and a woeful lack of respect for the planning process. It seems that the AVDC and BCC are not taking this process at all seriously. As a concerned resident I would welcome new housing if it's on the basis of a well thought out plan but this demonstrates no respect at all for the existing residents' quality of life, especially as regards increased traffic levels. In fact I would go so far as to say this in no way meets "Objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements" which I thought was a prerequisite for any plan.


HS2

AVDC and BCC have stated that much of the funding for the new roads for the VALP would come from HS2. Indeed area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet as I understand it, no final decision on the HS2 project has been taken. Surely the plan cannot be finalised until HS2 has been finally approved? Attempting to push through the plan WITHOUT the funding would show unacceptable disregard regard for the impact this would have on residents who will surely then be expected to fund any shortfall through taxes.

Again this in no way attempts to meet "Objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements."

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2899

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Jennifer kruppa

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I have noticed that the housing numbers have been increased for several large developments (eg D-AGT1, 2, 3, 4 and D-HAL003) and also the wording ''at least'' has been used which means the Local Plan in these areas actually gives no meaningful figures as they can be increased on a whim. In addition, the road network is Aylesbury is not fit for purpose... at all. Where is the evidence of an updated transport assessment based on the higher 'at least' figures. Infrastructure is needed now before the building of more houses goes ahead. (officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Planning Department

I am writing with regard to the newly modified Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan. I have various comments/concerns, which I have detailed below:

1). I am mystified as to why you state that you may potentially consider the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway at some point in the future. Surely this must be looked at and planned for NOW! The Expressway is a major project for the UK that requires joined up thinking and a large amount of new infrastructure in the Vale of Aylesbury. The Local Plan is an opportunity to lay down plans for this. You have skirted around the issue in your modifications and it looks as if you are unable to plan in a cohesive, forward thinking way. I do not agree that this is justified as the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
2). I have noticed that the housing numbers have been increased for several large developments (eg D-AGT1, 2, 3, 4 and D-HAL003) and also the wording ''at least'' has been used which means the Local Plan in these areas actually gives no meaningful figures as they can be increased on a whim. For example the local plan uses the caveat ''at least 3358'' houses for D-AGT4. Does this mean that the planning department do not actually know how many houses they are planning for/building? If so, it cannot be called a 'plan' as the wording leads one to conclude the housing numbers are as yet still unknown and therefore unplanned.


In addition, the road network is Aylesbury is not fit for purpose... at all. Where is the evidence of an updated transport assessment based on the higher 'at least' figures. You have not presented anything that gives me confidence with regard to both future development of the area or the much needed infrastructure. (The latter is needed now before the building of more houses goes ahead).


3). Part of your planning proposals are dependent on HS2 going ahead (e.g. the development S/W of Stoke Mandeville). As of today HS2 is under review. I trust that both AVDC and BCC can afford to fully fund their own planned developments and are not reliant on HS2 handouts.



Kind regards


Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2905

Received: 10/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Brian Tattam

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Lately in the Aylesbury area, the traffic situations have become intolerable with Aylesbury becoming totally gridlocked.
The AVDC and BCC have no suitable infrastructure plan to cope with the existing traffic, let alone the traffic that will be generated by the building of the original proposed housing numbers, without the proposed increase in those numbers, D-AGTl to 4 and D-HAL003.
Power supplies on limit and drainage overloaded. Building houses on flood plains, "the water run-off has been calculated". That is a nonsense.
(officer summary)

Full text:

Dear Sir,

Comment on the VALP Main Modifications

In connection with the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, I fail to understand the reasoning behind the AVDC and BCC
deleting their declared support for this project. There would appear NO strategic thinking or planning is behind this
decision. I do not believe this is "justified as the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable
alternatives".
Lately in the Aylesbury area, the traffic situations have become intolerable with Aylesbury becoming totally gridlocked.
The AVDC and BCC have no su itable infrastructure plan to cope with the existing traffic, let alone the traffic that will be
generated by the building of the original proposed housing numbers, without the proposed increase in those numbers,
D-AGTl to 4 and D-HAL003.
I totally disagree that this "has been positively prepared, by seeks to meet objectively assessed development and
infrastructure requirements". Until a suitable road infrastructure is place, Aylesbury will cease to function. The AVDC
and BCC appear to have no ability to plan effectively (certainly not up till now) for the traffic impact of housing around
Aylesbury.
Power supplies on limit and drainage overloaded. Building houses on flood plains, "the water run-off has been
calculated". That is a nonsense.
It appears that Transport for Bucks (BCC) leaves the ownership of connecting new estate roads to existing main roads in
the hands of the developers, who have no idea how to manage this, as on the A41 mid-July 2019, bringing Aylesbury to a
standstill for 3 days. AVDC and BCC need to take ownership of t heir planning from beginning to end. Not leave it to
others.
It doesn't work now, and certainly won't in the future!
Finally, HS2. The plan for D-AGT2 cannot be decided until HS2 has been delivered so I totally disagree that this "has been
positively prepared, seeking to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements" as the AVDC
and BCC cannot possibly know what is going to happen!
Your Faithfully,

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2911

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr David Locke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In the modified plan, the housing numbers for several of the proposed developments have been changed.
This indicates that the housing numbers cannot possibly have been objectively assessed against infrastructure and development requirements. I cannot see any updated transport assessments that I would have thought must required if the housing numbers have increased.
The developments concerned are:
D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.

Full text:

Dear Sirs

Comment on the VALP main Modifications

Having read through the main modifications to the VALP, there are several areas which I think really do not make any sense:

Oxford - Cambridge Expressway

This is a huge government-funded infrastructure project, which we are told will be the catalyst for development of housing between the two cities.
Surely there must be a duty on local authorities to factor such projects into their local plans?
However, the modifications to the VALP have deleted reference to the Expressway from its Spatial Vision (para 2.4d) and from the list of major infrastructure projects requiring co-operation (para 3.39).
The Plan says only that the Expressway may possibly be considered at some point in the future.
The plan no longer declares its support for the Expressway project (modified Policy T3 at paragraph
7.21).
How can this possibly be a sensible attitude to take? A great deal of taxpayers' money will be spent on this project, yet AVDC is turning away from the opportunities that it brings for properly planned development. This demonstrates a complete lack of joined-up strategic thinking.
The modified Plan can't be justified as the most appropriate strategy when you compare it to reasonable alternatives - which must include a consideration of the Expressway.

Housing numbers

In the modified plan, the housing numbers for several of the proposed developments have been changed. This indicates that the housing numbers cannot possibly have been objectively assessed against infrastructure and development requirements. I cannot see any updated transport assessments that I would have thought must required if the housing numbers have increased.
The developments concerned are:
 D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
 D-AGT2 (south west of Stoke Mandeville) from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
 D-AGT3 (includes Woodlands) from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
 D-AGT4 (includes Hampden Fields) from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
 D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

HS2

Area D-AGT2 depends on HS2 going ahead (para 4.44 and other mentions as well). A large portion of AVDC's proposed road system is totally dependent on HS2.
HS2 is currently under review. It may be cancelled. Where would that leave AVDC's plans? The Oakervee report has not been published and no decision has been taken on HS2 yet.
It cannot be possible to approve the Plan unless and until there is a decision on HS2.

Conclusion

The whole thing just looks as though it has been cobbled together by amateurs in an attempt to get round the Inspector's very valid concerns. It ignores the existence of one major infrastructure project and relies on the delivery of a second one that may yet be cancelled. It's a very poor piece of work. Aylesbury deserves better than this.

Yours faithfully,

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3018

Received: 12/12/2019

Respondent: Arnold White Estates

Agent: Arrow Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

There is therefore vaugeness about whether the essential infrastructure can be provided
for AGT1 S Aylesbury and when, which casts would cast doubt on the site's contribution
to housing needs. If the site is to be included in the Plan then provision of essential
infrastructure should be made a requirement in the Policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

D-AGT1 a. should be added to as follows: Provision of land for around at least 1,000 dwellings at a density
that takes account of the adjacent settlement character and identity, integrates new development with the
existing built area of Aylesbury and responds positively to the best characteristics of the surrounding area.
Should it become clear by 2025 that the pre-requisite HS2 infrastructure will not be available to serve the
remaining 875 dwellings of the allocation then the LPA will assume that this development will not be
delivered within the plan period and seek alternatives.
D-AGT1 c. should be worded 'No development shall commence until the dual carriageway
distributor road between B4443 Lower Road and A413 Wendover Road, to cross the railway
line, is available. No vehicular access to or from the South East Aylesbury Link Road (SEALR)
will be permitted to serve the development parcels.
MM033 para 4.35 should be worded: The 125 permitted dwellings are expected to be delivered between
2019 and 2022. The remainder of the site is expected to come forward in the later years of the plan between
2024 and 2033, as it is dependent on the delivery of infrastructure related to the development of HS2. The
Policy makes it clear that if by 2025 the pre-requisite HS2 infrastructure will not be available to serve the
remaining 875 dwellings of the allocation then the LPA will assume that this development will not be
delivered within the plan period and seek alternatives. The AGT1 Masterplan SPD will provide further
guidance and information on phasing expected time of delivery.

Full text:

On behalf of my client Arnold White Estates Ltd I attach our representations on the forms provided. I draw your attention to the difficulty I have found in making these submissions. The Schedule of Modifications does not show the relevant page numbers in the Plan as proposed to be modified, which means cross-referencing is very difficult. For example, in the Modifications Schedule MM027 shows a modification to para 4.7 at p62. The Modified Plan shows this as para 4.9 at p67. The Modification Schedule and the Modified Plan should have the same page and paragraph numbers. Also, for example, there are two Policies D2. In the forms I have sought to group linked Main Modifications on one form where a combined response is then provided. Where necessary I have inserted a blank page to accommodate text that would not fit within the box provided. I trust all of my text will be captured.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3149

Received: 19/12/2019

Respondent: Mr R H Garside

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

housing numbers (Ref D-
AGT1 through D-AGT4 and D-HAL003) appear to have been significantly increased
In spite of these increases,
there does not appear to be any updated transport assessment relating to the
new figures. The transport aspect of the VALP has always been in question - now
it just got worse.

Full text:

1)
Housing and Infrastructure; especially road
networks


I am perplexed by the
modifications regarding housing. In particular, the housing numbers (Ref D-
AGT1 through D-AGT4 and D-HAL003) appear to have been significantly increased
or, at the very least, there is now provision for significant increases. (Some,
eg D-AGT4 are actual significant increases.)


In spite of these increases,
there does not appear to be any updated transport assessment relating to the
new figures. The transport aspect of the VALP has always been in question - now
it just got worse.


It is difficult to understand
how this can be regarded as positively prepared planning. What is proposed
seems to demonstrate a complete lack of objective assessment.


2)
Modified Plan Reliant on HS2


It appears that at least some
of the housing development proposals (specifically that defined as D-AGT2) is
contingent upon the HS2 project proceeding, and proceeding to plan in its
present from. This is still far from certain. It is unclear how a key part of
the plan can be dependent on something outside AVDC and BCC control and as such
it does not seem that this aspect of the Plan demonstrates positive preparation
and objective assessment of development and infrastructure.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3335

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Whilst supportive in principle of the addition of 'at least' in part (a) the Consortium object that the modification has not gone far enough to recognise that AGT1 can accommodate at least 1,600 units. This would be accurately reflective of the site's capacity to contribute towards Aylesbury's housing need, as supported by AVDC's own evidence including the HELAA and Cumulative Growth Impact Report. The work on site capacity as presented in the [attached] draft Framework masterplan supports AVDC's evidence.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3336

Received: 07/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Paul Sypko

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

* D-AGT1 has been modified from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"


Based on my experience of the increasing traffic problems in and around the town, and based on the lack of an updated transport assessment based on the increased housing figures, no confidence that Councils planned effectively for the traffic effects Disagree that the modified plan meets objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Full text:

1. Inadequacy of plan to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements

I see that, in the modified Plan, the housing numbers for several large developments have been increased:
* D-AGT1 has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

Despite this, the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already heavily congested, and the town centre is prone to gridlock and massive knock-on effects whenever there is a small issue in another nearby area (as recent experiences with burst water mains have shown - see articles at https://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/updated-thames-water-apologises-after-aylesbury-traffic-gridlock-following-burst-water-main-749861 or https://www.mix96.co.uk/news/local/2159450/burst-water-main-causes-aylesbury-gridlock/ for examples). The A41 Aston Clinton Road in particular now has enormous tailbacks for traffic travelling in an westerly direction virtually every weekday morning. This is not an issue of capacity on the A41 itself; it is indicative of too much traffic reaching bottleneck junctions at they enter the town centre (caused in no small part by all the traffic light controlled junctions that have been added in recent years, which I understand were put in place so as to accommodate heavy traffic from Arla lorries which would have been unable to pass effectively through the otherwise efficiently-functioning roundabouts that had until that point been in place and working well for many years).

Based on my experience of the increasing traffic problems in and around the town, and based on the lack of an updated transport assessment based on the increased housing figures, I do not have confidence that AVDC or BCC have planned effectively for the effects on traffic of housing in this area. I would disagree that the modified plan seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

2. Unreasonable expectations of the public during the consultation process

While I don't doubt that the consultation process itself probably complies with the statutory obligations, I would query whether there really has been a true effort to engage the public in this important local matter. Specifically, there appears to have been very little publicity relating to the revised plan and, speaking personally, had I not heard about it via the Hampden Fields Action Group newsletter this December with 15 days to go until the expiry of the consultation period, I'm not sure I would have heard about it at all.

Out of curiosity, I downloaded the two main consultation documents, converted them to Microsoft Word format, and performed a word count. The results were as follows:
* Local plan (proposed submission): 107,808 words spanning 313 pages.
* Local plan (proposed main modifications): 111,874 words spanning 222 pages.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3342

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Objects to the wording in (c) that proposals should be 'prioritising the delivery' of the SEALR. As the SEALR will be delivered by BCC and is no longer a requirement of the allocation it is not possible for proposals for the rest of the site to have any influence over it which would constitute the prioritisation of its delivery. The Consortium therefore object to this modification as it is not possible for development proposals to comply with it. The [attached] draft Framework Masterplan demonstrates that development proposed by the consortium will ensure delivery of the SEALR is not prevented, by safeguarding land

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3343

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Consortium object to the additional text introduced into criterion (d). There is no evidence presented by AVDC to support the moratorium on taking access directly from the SEALR when constructed, if safe access can be provided and would not result in any severe adverse highways effects. This is a matter for the planning application. The additional proposed text is unnecessary, pre-empts the planning application process with no evidence to support it. See [attached] Technical Note from Vectos which shows that there is no technical transport planning or highways justification why this would not be appropriate.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3345

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Representation Summary:

Regarding criterion (g) the Consortium supports the principle of green corridors through the site, as demonstrated in the [attached] draft Framework Masterplan which shows east-west orientated corridors of structural landscaping, a green buffer and north-south green corridors.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3346

Received: 06/12/2019

Respondent: Keith Ware

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Housing numbers for developments have been raised.
D-AGT1 has raised housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
D-AGT2 from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
D-AGT3 from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
D-AGT4 from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
D-HAL003 from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

Have they been properly considered. Aylesbury is already gridlocked these developments will have a massive negative impact on the roads, congestion, and pollution. Increased demand for Chiltern Railways unmanageable.
Plan cannot be approved until that final decision is made on HS2.

Full text:

In the modified Plan, housing numbers for several large developments have been raised.
* D-AGT1 (Aylesbury Garden Town site 1, south of Stoke Mandeville) has been modified to raise housing from "around 1,000" to "at least" 1,000.
* D-AGT2 (south west of Stoke Mandeville) from "around 1,550" to "at least 1,590".
* D-AGT3 (includes Woodlands) from "around 1,660" to "at least 1,757"
* D-AGT4 (includes Hampden Fields) from "around 3111" to "at least 3358"
* D-HAL003 (includes RAF Halton site) from "around 1,000" to "at least 1,000"

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already congested. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these new figures.

What do you make of this?
What are BCC's and AVDC's plans to manage the vast increase in the traffic impact of housing will have in this area? Have they been properly considered. Aylesbury is already gridlocked with current traffic, these developments will have a massive negative impact on the roads, congestion, and pollution. On top of this, the increased demand for Chiltern Railways will be unmanageable. The station car parks are already full and the trains cannot cope with current demand.

I strongly disagree that these plans have been positively prepared, or seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

HS2

The area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet no decision as to this project has been taken. The Plan cannot be approved until that final decision is made.

Again, I strongly disagree that these plans have been positively prepared, or seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

I wish for my objections to be recorded and duly considered.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3352

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Consortium do not have any objection to the principle of the additional proposed wording in criterion (h), though it is unclear what purpose it serves.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3354

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Consortium do not have any objection in principle to the additional wording in (i) though suggest it adds little to the policy, and the reason for proposing it is unclear. As the [attached] draft Framework Masterplan recognises that the existing hedgerows and trees form an important role across the layout around which the development parcels identified in the Framework Masterplan have been set out to respect, interact,
and provide positive frontage where appropriate.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3359

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Consortium object to the proposed modification to identify an area on the policies map as 'not built development' in (m). The site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1 according to the Environment Agency Flood map for planning. The first part of the criterion requires a detailed flood risk assessment. This is for the planning application process. There is no evidence or justification presented by AVDC for the imposition of the 'not built area'. The Consortium recommend that this proposed modification is rejected.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3361

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Consortium do not have any objection to the principle of the additional proposed wording in (o), though it is unclear what it adds. The policy requirement is for a buffer. Explaining the purpose of the buffer does not add anything to the policy requirement and should really be reserved for the supporting paragraphs.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3364

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Consortium object to the additional text in (p) requiring a contribution to upper school provision. This represents a substantive change to the policy through a main modification, which AVDC have provided no evidence to support. The requirement for any contribution to upper school provision should be based on an assessment at the time of an application of capacity and whether a contribution would meet the
CIL tests. The modification is unsound as it is to not justified.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3376

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Consortium object to the specific requirement for the delivery of convenience retail floorspace introduced in (q). This represents a substantive change to the policy through a main modification, which AVDC have provided no evidence to support. The entire criterion should be deleted as it is not supported by any robust evidence presented by AVDC. Evidence presented to the EiP demonstrated that the proximity of existing retail facilities and the sustainability of the location shows it is not necessary to provide for a new local centre as part of the D-AGT1 allocation.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3379

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Representation Summary:

The Consortium support the proposal in (q) to remove the specific requirement for a
community hall. This is consistent with the Inspector's comments at the EiP hearings that advised that AVDC could have used evidence of standards and provision requirements to justify requirements for community facilities but had not done so and there was therefore no evidence to justify the requirement.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Support

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3380

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Representation Summary:

The Consortium support the proposed modification to remove the requirement for on-site health facilities in (r). This is consistent with the discussion during the EiP hearing sessions and the position of the CCG.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3381

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

The Consortium object to the introduction of this substantive change in (s) with no additional supporting evidence presented by AVDC in their examination evidence base list. The Inspector concluded that no evidence or standards had been presented to support the need for new community facilities.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3382

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Quod

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In relation to criterion (u), the Consortium have no objection to the principle of the retention of Magpie Cottage. This is reflected in the [attached] draft Framework Masterplan. It is however superfluous to the listing itself and other heritage policy,
and the reference to an 'appropriate setting' is not precise.

Full text:

See attachments for full representations and supporting documentation. Summaries are officer summaries.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3393

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Whilst we support the housing requirement increase, this should be expressed as a minimum to ensure that the Plan is flexible enough to respond to changing needs. We note that the Council have revisited and upped the capacities for sites at Aylesbury. We support the recognition that sites at Aylesbury are capable of accommodating more growth. We feel that the Main Modifications could have gone further by seeking to make additional allocation(s) in proximity to Aylesbury. In light of this, our clients site 'Land South West of Weston Turville' should be further considered as an additional allocatio

Change suggested by respondent:

See the attachment

Full text:

The full text is attached. See attachment.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3495

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Stoke Mandeville Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

South Aylesbury - is factually incorrect and misleading. AGT1 falls within Stoke Mandeville parish.
The evolving Neighbourhood Plan will make (strategically consistent) policies with regard to this allocation. It should explain that a Neighbourhood Plan will also form part of the Development Plan. Allocation should only occur once NP in place.
Changed wording of this policy is vague and ineffective and in places factually incorrect and unsound.
a) connection to town not possible
c) unreasonable to prioritise distributor road
d) issues with no access points to SEALR
g) wording is inadequate
o) 'village' needs replacing with 'settlements'
p) inconsistent references to upper schools and grammar schools
q) prefer term parish centre
r) wording of 'off-site health facilities' is unnecessary
u) There are other listed buildings
Deliverability timings are too vague
(officer summary)

Full text:

See attached document which is submitted on behalf of Stoke Mandeville Neighbourhood Plan Group

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3532

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. several increases in proposed local
housing numbers not accompanied by traffic mitigation
measures.
2. The modified wording replaces "provision of" by "prioritising
the delivery of" the distributor road (the SEALR). This is a
downgrading of the council's commitment
3. It is most unlikely that this 'priority' road can be completed by
the committed date of 2021
4. Some funding of the SEALR depends on developer contributions but the timings of these is highly questionable - after the completion date of the SEALR
5. We do not accept the basis on which the Countywide Model
has been created. The model shows congestion on the SEALR. (officer summary)

Change suggested by respondent:

Full remedial action to correct the errors and gaps in the transport evidence base and modelling,
followed by a revised set of proposals including funding plans and timetable, with public consultation
on these modifications.

Full text:

see attachments