Aylesbury Vale Area

MM094

Showing comments and forms 31 to 36 of 36

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3272

Received: 09/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Ready

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Representation Summary:

-Increase of traffic - one entrance in and out not sufficient
- Does Stone having space at the school for the children these houses will hold? No!
- wildlife ruined!
-Car parking already an issue on Creslow Way without more houses
- Emergency services would have an issue
- Contractors mess and noise - not welcome especially up to 2023
- We moved in 2018 to Stone from Fairford Leys to get away from the busy roads in an estate.

Change suggested by respondent:

Do not build - lets keep some green spaces and the views of the hills

Full text:

-Increase of traffic - one entrance in and out not sufficient
- Does Stone having space at the school for the children these houses will hold? No!
- wildlife ruined!
-Car parking already an issue on Creslow Way without more houses
- Emergency services would have an issue
- Contractors mess and noise - not welcome especially up to 2023
- We moved in 2018 to Stone from Fairford Leys to get away from the busy roads in an estate.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3328

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Susan Barrett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I strongly suggest that the whole proposed housing design plan layout be re-visited to ensure that an acceptable community living area be presented.
Why not arrange a consultation forum and invite present homeowners of Creslow Way to attend and put their suggestions and points of view across in a meaningful discussion ?

Change suggested by respondent:



I have already outlined and specified important changes and modifications that should be taken into account in the full representation section of this form.

Full text:

I have a number of observations and comments relatlng not only to this proposed development
but also to the overall long term effect that it will have on myself and my neighbours:-

A. It appears tome looking at the proposed plan that no real thought has gone into it at all
and that 26 houses is the plan so squash them in as tight as possible
B. No real thought as to the extreme possibility that each home will have at least 2 people
plus at least one child equates to 78 people not forgetting at lease 2 cars per house = 52
C. Car parking allocation is totally inadequate for the number of homes and does not take into account additional parking for visitors.
D. The parking will without a doubt create kerb parking and friction with neighbours
E. The plan should mirror the current development of Creslow Way/St Johns Drive/Beacon Close - nice open plan with hedgerows, bushes and trees
F. A single drive with only one entrance & exit point with no turning circle is beyond belief
G. Future problems with entry of service vehicles, rubbish collection, fire & ambulance
H. No nice green park areas nor play areas for the children to play in allowed for
I. The plan to enter the very busy Creslow Way from the development is fraught with danger J. Excessive speed into and from Creslow Way already causes grave concerns, many
vehicles drive on the wrong side of the road in the middle and cut the bends & corners Ill
K. Current parking on the pavements is also another major problem to traffic in the road
causing grave concerns for the safety of Mums with prams & young Children
L. A mandatory speed limit of 10mph SHOULD be imposed with more SPEED HUMPS
installed to reduce the risk of a future major accident happening
M. The entrance roundabout from the very busy A413 should be re-designed so that all
vehicles HAVE to go round and not as at present cut across entering Creslow Way on the wrong side of the road.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3337

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Gregory Coulthard

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
No issue with the original in keeping with the area the 10 proposed houses on this site, but real concerns over the increase to a minimum of 26 dwellings.

The density is not in keeping with the large executive houses which make up Creslow Way, with only five of the proposed 26 in keeping with the area.

26 houses will lead to approximately 52 cars with insufficient parking allocated to the terrace proposed. The development will lead to a big increase in traffic using Creslow Way and the entrance/exit seems limited in size for the increased traffic flow.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not provided

Full text:


No issue with the original in keeping with the area the 10 proposed houses on this site, but real concerns over the increase to a minimum of 26 dwellings.

The density is not in keeping with the large executive houses which make up Creslow Way, with only five of the proposed 26 in keeping with the area.

26 houses will lead to approximately 52 cars with insufficient parking allocated to the terrace proposed. The development will lead to a big increase in traffic using Creslow Way and the entrance/exit seems limited in size for the increased traffic flow. Loss of 2/3 parking spaces from the limited on street parking allowed for the residents and visitors of Creslow Way.

The plans seem to take no notice of the TPO's in place on the site.

Only one entry/exit point from Creslow Way leading to the only entry/exit point onto the already busy Oxford Road.

No play area or green space provided for the residents of this new development. I'm sure there is plenty of space elsewhere for an additional 16 properties and suggest to the inspector that the original plan of ten properties be reinstated as this will have the support of the residents and the local parish council.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3424

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Marlene Gregg

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I have objected to the proposed plan on the basis that the housing density is too great to permit sufficient living space and resident parking spaces. There are no green spaces, leisure and play areas for families and children to make the development a liveable development, and the mature TPO Trees have not been retained which currently provide habitat for wildlife.
The proposed plan does nothing to learn from previous high density housing developments to alleviate the problems high density causes between neighbours.

Officer note: corrected reference from MM008 to MM094

Change suggested by respondent:

I think the proposed road going down between Creslow way house numbers 18 & 20 should turn right at the rear of the garden of number 20 Creslow Way. Then a decent sized area to the rear of St Johns Drive house numbers 24 - 28 used to create and play area, leisure space, and green environmental space and wildlife habitat.
I think more consideration needs to be given to providing sufficient parking for residents and visitors, there will be many more cars owned by the residents than is being provided for, then add to this family visitors and visiting trades people.

Full text:

My objection to the development is the density of housing being proposed. While Aylesbury council aspires to become a garden town they are letting themselves and the community down by not reflecting this principle in their housing developments. The proposed development does not allow for any green space for people and animals to enjoy fresh air and exercise. Children need to have a play area close to home for safety and to develop friendships with other local children. There is a severe lack of parking for potential residents which has been experienced by other residents in the surrounding area to Creslow way. This has caused disputes between neighbours. This will also impact the existing residents as overflow parking is already happening. There are currently some trees with TPO's in the proposed area unfortunately the developer has already removed some in the last clearance of the land. The trees need better protection as they will enhance the look and feel for potential residents. The area has a wealth of wildlife which is threatened because of increased expansion of housing. I would urge planning departments to consider the impact of poorly designed high-density housing developments. Pay less attention to numbers on paper.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3501

Received: 04/12/2019

Respondent: Jean Shandley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

Site capacity should be returned to 10 houses. Creslow Way is not a suitable access. Proposed density is too high. Negative impact on wildlife/trees. Local infrastructure will not cope.

Change suggested by respondent:

Site capacity should be returned to 10 houses.

Full text:

Impact to safety on Creslow Way a narrow road with many parked cars. More vehicles will reduce safety for cars, pedestrians and children.
26 houses is not in keeping with original plan which was for 10 houses. Density doesn't reflect road and development.
Impact to the environment. Wildlife has been disturbed due to trees being felled. Many remaining trees have preservation orders and these need to be preserved.
Local schools and GP surgeries already over-subscribed will be further impacted as will current water and sewerage systems

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3528

Received: 10/01/2020

Respondent: mr norman gregg

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I have objected to the proposed plan on the basis that the housing density is too great to permit sufficient living space and resident parking spaces. There are no green spaces, leisure and play areas for families and children to make the development a liveable development, and the mature TPO Trees have not been retained which currently provide habitat for wildlife.
The proposed plan does nothing to learn from previous high density housing developments to alleviate the problems high density causes between neighbours.

Change suggested by respondent:

I think the proposed road going down between Creslow way house numbers 18 & 20 should turn right at the rear of the garden of number 20 Creslow Way. Then a decent sized area to the rear of St Johns Drive house numbers 24 - 28 used to create and play area, leisure space, and green environmental space and wildlife habitat.
I think more consideration needs to be given to providing sufficient parking for residents and visitors, there will be many more cars owned by the residents than is being provided for, then add to this family visitors and visiting trades people.

Full text:

I don't consider the plan to be legally compliant because it does not include and retain all the mature trees with TPO's. Some of these trees have already been cut down by the developer when the land was cleared earlier this year, the trees left need to be included in the plan.
I do not consider the plan to be sound because it is based on high density housing with limited space for vehicles and parking. The lack of parking spaces, with residents and families living so closely together, leads to disputes over parking spaces and neighbours falling out with each other, bad for building liveable communities. I have sons who have bought houses in new high density housing developments and the biggest quarrels between neighbours is parking issues which has to be taken into account on new development plans
I also object to the high density housing of the plan as it does not provide any play area and leisure spaces for young children and parents. It does not provide any green spaces needed to create a good liveable environment where people want to live. The plan does not include all the mature trees that have TPO's, and the trees are need to be retained for wildlife habitat. None of these items were provided in the original Bovis Development of St Johns Drive and Creslow Way, and as this is another Bovis Homes Development there is the opportunity for Bovis Homes to rectify some of the shortfalls of the original development. A number of the mature trees are in an area to the rear of St Johns Drive house numbers 24 to 28. So there is an opportunity to incorporate the trees into a play area, leisure and green space area to the rear of St Johns Drive numbers 24 to 28.These houses are mainly occupied by young families and their rear gardens have back gates which in the proposed plan will open out onto the road that leads to the new housing, which is unsafe in the proposed plan. The biggest issue the young families have is there is not safe play areas for their kids, they have to play in the road, this is the second biggest issue with the recent high density housing developments. The council publications talk about building sustainable housing communities where people enjoy living but at the proposed density it is not meeting these expectations.