Aylesbury Vale Area

MM209

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3270

Received: 13/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Josie Howard

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Office's summary
The whole housing issue is in need of a profound rethink to avoid the creation of permanent stressful living in a blighted and traffic-jammed locality. As with HS2, the planning seems to have been undertaken with no real ear for those affected.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

I am writing to express my extreme concern about this plan, especially in relation to the planned housing growth and the lack of joined up planning in relation to the necessary infrastructure and, especially, roads.

The road network in the Aylesbury area is already extremely congested, even at non-peak times. There seems to be no current investment or plan to ameliorate this problem. The current building of houses and estates is causing additional problems, making it difficult or impossible to make journeys of any predictable duration. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment.

This suggests to me that there is no real understanding in the councils' planning processes of how to plan for the travel needs of housing growth. The dramatic growth of housing build is itself a dreadful mishmash of unconnected thinking, and the absence of sufficient associated planning for the appropriate road and communication systems is insane. The plan seems utterly to fail in its apparent objective to "meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements". As a resident of the area, a rates payer and contributor to the general economy of the area, I am appalled by the clear disconnect between the council planning process and general resident opinions. The whole housing issue is in need of a profound rethink to avoid the creation of permanent stressful living in a blighted and traffic-jammed locality. As with HS2, the planning seems to have been undertaken with no real ear for those affected. I am appalled.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3276

Received: 14/12/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sharine Carter Allison

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The other issue HS2, no decision has been taken on this gigantic costly project although much of the beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside has been devastated. How can this happen when the final agreement is still pending? It is a complete waste of the tax payers money!

Change suggested by respondent:

Not stated

Full text:

I would like to comment on two of the issues being proposed in the local plan.

Our first area of great concern is the increase in housing capacity from 'around' to 'at least' on five separate sites.

We feel the road network is straining at present and the extra housing numbers will cause gridlock. We feel this increase in numbers will not only impact on the road network but also on all facilities as schools, hospitals (already at capacity), and surgeries . In short we do not feel the plan seeks to meet development and infra structure requirements.

The other issue HS2, no decision has been taken on this gigantic costly project although much of the beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside has been devastated. How can this happen when the final agreement is still pending? It is a complete waste of the tax payers money!

We sincerely hope our comments are taken into account on challenging these very important issues.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3277

Received: 14/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith Allison

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
The other issue HS2, no decision has been taken on this gigantic costly project although much of the beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside has been devastated. How can this happen when the final agreement is still pending? It is a complete waste of the tax payers money!

Change suggested by respondent:

No comment

Full text:

I would like to comment on two of the issues being proposed in the local plan.

Our first area of great concern is the increase in housing capacity from 'around' to 'at least' on five separate sites.

We feel the road network is straining at present and the extra housing numbers will cause gridlock. We feel this increase in numbers will not only impact on the road network but also on all facilities as schools, hospitals (already at capacity), and surgeries . In short we do not feel the plan seeks to meet development and infra structure requirements.

The other issue HS2, no decision has been taken on this gigantic costly project although much of the beautiful Buckinghamshire countryside has been devastated. How can this happen when the final agreement is still pending? It is a complete waste of the tax payers money!

We sincerely hope our comments are taken into account on challenging these very important issues.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3291

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: W K Boxhall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposed elevated road development over the railway line to Stoke Mandeville is dependent on HS2 funding. This suggests a convenient 'grab' at possible funding and not a well thought out solution to the traffic issues and the need for a bypass route around the town. The prospect of this 'rat run' being created horrifies me and would only result in yet more bottlenecks as motorists and emergency services seek alternatives to an already congested road network.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not given

Full text:

Once again the views of people directly affected by such large scale housing developments in the Vale of Aylesbury is being totally ignored. For example, . Housing numbers have been either increased or now qualified by 'at least' indicating a desire to build more rather than less or manageable developments.
. No evidence of improvements to road infrastructures which have become increasingly over congested creating queuing throughout the day, particularly at morning peaks and school times leading to delay, frustration and excessive pollution. Any accident, roadwork or similar incident causes major traffic holdups for long periods of time.
. In the context of a 'Garden Town' , the image portrayed by this Plan of large scale house building, heavily congested roads and a polluted environment fails to enthuse me and suggests little consideration has been given to alternative solutions.
. The replacement of roundabouts and the ever increasing traffic lights are not the solution and continue to restrict traffic flows and increase the risk of congestion and associated disruption to day to day travel.
. The proposed elevated road development over the railway line to Stoke Mandeville is dependent on HS2 funding. This suggests a convenient 'grab' at possible funding and not a well thought out solution to the traffic issues and the need for a bypass route around the town. The prospect of this 'rat run' being created horrifies me and would only result in yet more bottlenecks as motorists and emergency services seek alternatives to an already congested road network.

As notified to you in previous correspondence I continue to object to these proposals and do not consider the modifications made adequately matches the need for good infrastructure that would meet the proposed development demands in terms of roads, services and the environment.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3297

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Chris & Shirley Bull

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
HS2: The area D-AGT2 is stated as being dependent on the delivery of HS2 (para 4.44 and elsewhere). Yet HS2 is still under review and no decision on this project has been taken. Consequently the Plan clearly cannot be approved until that final decision has been reached. Until it is, AVDC and BCC cannot know the extent to which HS2 will contribute to the funding of their desired road system. In the meantime there is much uncertainty about whether the Plan can seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Change suggested by respondent:

No comment provided

Full text:

VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
We have the following comments in response to your consultation:
Oxford - Cambridge Expressway: In the modified Plan, we would have expected the Council to build the Oxford - Cambridge Expressway major road infrastructure project fully into their plan. However, they have deleted reference to it 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) merely 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). There seems to be an absence of strategic thinking and planning here by AVDC and BCC. This is hardly the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, such as East-West Rail. A considerable amount of housing development is dependent upon the Expressway going ahead.
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 severely congested, particularly at peak periods and whenever there is an accident or roadworks. Yet the Plan shows no evidence of any updated transport assessment based on these modified figures. In this respect AVDC and BCC are seriously deficient in their ability and desire to plan adequately for the effects on traffic of housing in this area. Therefore, in our view, the Plan fails 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 HS2 is still under review and no decision on this project has been taken. Consequently the Plan clearly cannot be approved until that final decision has been reached. Until it is, AVDC and BCC cannot know the extent to which HS2 will contribute to the funding of their desired road system. In the meantime there is much uncertainty about whether the Plan can seek to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3306

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Mr Roger Green

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Officer's summary
In addition the VALP makes the continued supposition that HS2 will be delivered, and so fund part of the 'ring road'. Given that there is fierce debate at Government level and with major political opposition from all Buckinghamshire's MPs this is far from definite and cannot possibly be part of a structured plan for the future. Without the 'ring road' the whole plan fails.

Change suggested by respondent:

Not provided

Full text:

Having seen the plan for the main modifications to the VALP, I am somewhat exasperated by the way that this has been approached.

With specific regard to the traffic plan - something that was heavily criticised in the Inspector's report - the modified report appears to have added to the traffic congestion rather than reduce it. The numbers of houses intending to be built have now been increased from the original plans. There appear now to be 'at least' an extra 380 houses which would equate to yet further 750 vehicles. How does this equate to a modulation of traffic plan to relieve the dreadful congestion we already experience.

In addition the VALP makes the continued supposition that HS2 will be delivered, and so fund part of the 'ring road'. Given that there is fierce debate at Government level and with major political opposition from all Buckinghamshire's MPs this is far from definite and cannot possibly be part of a structured plan for the future. Without the 'ring road' the whole plan fails.

In all how can this show that the modified plan"has been positively prepared, seeking to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements" ? It sounds much more like a plan that 'hopefully should work' rather than plan which is a positive future vision to create a thriving efficient community attractive to business etc..

Whilst not averse to the increase to housing numbers nationally and our part in its achievement, the goal surely was never intended to be met by bringing the whole of Aylesbury Vale to a standstill. This Modified VALP continues to be flawed.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3372

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Ms Julie Williams

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

(Officer's summary)
It is not just Stoke Mandiville that will be affected by this proposal but also the surrounding villages such as Weston Turnville and Aston Clinton, both of which has already had numerous new housing developments built in the last 5 years, which has added to vehicular congestion.

Thirdly, D-AGT2 is a crucial part of the proposal and is reliant on HS2 being approved .
Have the planners looked at an alternative if HS2 is not approved in regards to current proposed building/planning and how would it meet the current objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Change suggested by respondent:

Comment not made

Full text:

We writing to raise our concerns regarding the proposed Modified Vale of Aylesbury plan.

Firstly the withdrawal of positive support of the Oxford /Cambridge Expressway road. We feel that this is a short sighted move and is this the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives? The new road will reduce congestion on alternative routes and improve not only the lives of those living in the surrounding areas but will open up the job opportunities for those potentially new house buyers/renters in the new houses being built.
An unspecified point in the future is a not a solution to the problem and indeed cause potentially cause more problems/inconvenience in the future.

Secondly, we are very concerned of the potential implications of the increase in housing numbers from 6,771 to approx. 8705 homes on top of the housing projects already underway or completed. leading to the population increasing by at least 40,000 many of whom will be driving - if not immediately then in the foreseeable future- adding additional 35,000 cars to an already congested traffic system( have you tried to drive into/around/through Aylesbury/Stoke Mandiville during normal working hours - it adds additional time and pollution to any journey).
The Planners need to seek to meet the objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements to build the housing proposed and that already agreed and built.By that I mean schools( both primary and senior),doctors and surgeries, hospital beds, social services, policing ,refuse collection, jobs and bus routes etc.
It is not just Stoke Mandiville that will be affected by this proposal but also the surrounding villages such as Weston Turnville and Aston Clinton, both of which has already had numerous new housing developments built in the last 5 years, which has added to vehicular congestion. David Liddington MP was aware of the issue in Aston Clinton was trying to help to reduce the traffic concerns of local residents prior to the election and hopefully Robert Butler MP will continue to do so.

Thirdly, D-AGT2 is a crucial part of the proposal and is reliant on HS2 being approved .
Have the planners looked at an alternative if HS2 is not approved in regards to current proposed building/planning and how would it meet the current objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements.

Lastly ,how does the planning of infrastructure and development requirements of the Aylesbury Garden Town proposal impact on Modified Aylesbury Vale Plan?

We are both concerned that Aylesbury Vale is has not looked fully at the impact on their existing residents when undertaking this plan( which we are given to believe includes taking on new housing requirements of neighbouring areas- Chesham) and not building the infrastructure that actually support that development. They are turning it from an area where people chose to live to an area where they don't.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3478

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Susan & Rex Horton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Officer's summary
HS2
The Plan relise heavily on funds being made available from HS2 (para 4.44) to construct the area D-AGT2. However this project is under threat and no final decision has been made on whether it will scrapped or goes ahead. The Plan cannot be approved until there is a final decision on HS2.
Surely this is not the best strategy when there are reasonable alternatives to be considered, what does it say about AVDC and BCC's strategic thinking and planning? What do you make of this

Full text:

We feel that this Modified Local Plan has a number of major flaws and should not be submitted to the Inspector in it's current form.

Housing Numbers

It shows an increase in the number of New Home planned for the larger developments D-AGT1, D-AGT2, D-AGT3 and D-AGT4 and fails to take into account the number of new homes currently being constructed on a large number of developments in Aylesbury, Stoke Mandeville, Bishopstone, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville, Bierton and Marsworth. These current development are considerably adding to the strain being put on the local infrastructure, eg. roads, trains, education, doctors and hospitals etc. The new increased numbers of new homes shown in the modified plan, will only reduce the quality of life in the area.
All major routes in and out of Aylesbury are already heavily congested now, with vehicles often travelling at walking pace at peak times. This plan offers no change to the current situation and vehicle movements will only get worse.
What does this say about AVDC and BCC's strategic thinking and planning? How does this make you feel? Could you agree or disagree that this is the best strategy when there are reasonable alternatives to be considered, what are your thoughts ?
HS2
The Plan relise heavily on funds being made available from HS2 (para 4.44) to construct the area D-AGT2. However this project is under threat and no final decision has been made on whether it will scrapped or goes ahead. The Plan cannot be approved until there is a final decision on HS2.
Surely this is not the best strategy when there are reasonable alternatives to be considered, what does it say about AVDC and BCC's strategic thinking and planning? What do you make of this?

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway

The Modified Plan make reference to this project several times, but fails to link any road infrastructure projects into the plan. They have also deleted reference to any major infrastructure projects that require co-operation (para 3.39) and state they may (para 3.81) consider them at some unspecified time in the future. It would also appear that they no longer support the project.
This does not give a very good account of the AVDC and BCC strategic thinking and planning. How does this make you feel and what do you make of it?

Earlier Planning applications have been rejected by the government Inspector on the basis of the Aylesbury Road Network will not cope with the increase of traffic flow. However this plan shows there will be a considerable increase in the number of vehicles on our roads but fails to produce an update of any transport assessment based of the new homes to be built.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3507

Received: 02/12/2019

Respondent: Ether Solutions

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The modifications include references to both HS2 and the Oxford Cambridge Expressway as individual discrete items. This is an absolute nonsense. If two major investments do not co-ordinate and integrate they are both failing to address basic principles. The VALP needs to consider the integration of the two schemes and how they will impact / benefit the area. A simple application of logic says there will be a "Parkway" station at the intersection and that will have consequences for VALP.

Change suggested by respondent:

The VALP needs to consider the integration of HS2 and the Oxford Cambridge Expressway and how they will impact / benefit the area

Full text:

Housing Numbers.

There are several increases in housing numbers in the modifications, yet there is no assessment of the additional impact on traffic.
I live on the A413 and the congestion brings traffic to a crawl during both the morning and evening rush hour. More houses means more traffic and worse congestion, how does that fit with Aylesbury being a Garden City - are the planners trying to grow pollution?

A single traffic incident in Aylesbury results in gridlock. Even the police recently posted advice about a recent incident - "just avoid the area"!

The traffic problem needs to be sort BEFORE any additional housing.


HS2 and Oxford Cambridge Expressway.

The modifications include references to both HS2 and the Oxford Cambridge Expressway as individual discrete items. This is an absolute nonsense. If two major investments do not co-ordinate and integrate they are both failing to address basic principles. The VALP needs to consider the integration of the two schemes and how they will impact / benefit the area. A simple application of logic says there will be a "Parkway" station at the intersection and that will have consequences for VALP.

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3520

Received: 09/01/2020

Respondent: Cllr Roger King

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

4.17 The report says 'to continue to grow the town successfully, key transport issues need addressing including tackling congestion, managing demand, enhancing access, increasing active travel and enhancing public transport in Aylesbury'. One key issue is the completion of the ring road. This is reliant on HS2 and the developers. Two key parts of the ring road are missing and are unlikely to be built. These are a link road north from A413 to the A418 and west from the A418 to Berryfields on the A41. In addition the ring Roads are not conformal dual carriage way but a mixture of carriageways.

Full text:

Comments with paragraph reference:

Background

I notice that the unit of measurement used throughout the report is metric i.e. Kilometres and sqm
Given that all road signs are in miles and very few of the public reading this document use metric I think it would be useful if distances were given in miles (imperial) as well as metric.

Some of my comments are duplicated as some of the VALP statements overlap.

1.15 The report says the indicative target for convenience floor space is 6,980 sqm in Aylesbury town centre by 2033.
Given the increase in the town's population over the past 10 years, vacant shop floor space has increased. This is particularly true with Vale Retail Park, Friars' Square and Hale Leys. With the increase in on-line shopping I would say that this figure is optimistic.

Strategic Delivery

4.17 The report says 'to continue to grow the town successfully, key transport issues need addressing including tackling congestion, managing demand, enhancing access, increasing active travel and
enhancing public transport in Aylesbury'.
One key issue is the completion of the ring road. This is reliant on HS2 and the developers. Two key parts of the ring road are missing and are unlikely to be built. These are a link road north from A413 to the A418 and west from the A418 to Berryfields on the A41. In addition the ring Roads are not conformal dual carriage way but a mixture of carriageways.

4.18 The Aylesbury Transport Strategy says it wants to -
* Improve transport access and movement to the town centre.
From the south there are only two ways into Aylesbury. One is Tring Road and the other is Walton gyratory. There is no mention on how these two pinch points can be overcome. The chance of widening lower High Street by compulsory purchase has been lost as overdevelopment has taken place right up to the pavement edge.
* Minimise the impact of future growth on traffic levels, congestion and air quality.
This could be contradictory to later statements in the report saying that an increase in the use of the town centre is envisaged to help the economy and help with its vibrancy.
* Make it easier and more accessible through provision of walking and cycling connections and the
use of public transport.
Cycling is decreasing in the town and walking is only possible from homes within less than a mile of the centre. Given that buses are heavily subsidised and most routes stop after 8.00 pm, the car will still be used as the primary means of access to the town centre.

4.21 The report says 'In creating a Garden Town, the Plan must include green spaces and natural environments for local communities. Strategic multi-functional green infrastructure assets should be identified, retained and enhanced, including improving connectivity through the development of green
corridors. Local open spaces should be protected and where possible connected to strategic
multi-functional green infrastructure networks.
With the exception of the Canal, green corridors are not possible into the town centre. If anything any green space in or near to the town centre has been identified elsewhere the report as prime development land i.e. Thame Road, Ardenham Lane and Friarage Road

4.19 Quoting from the report 'The Aylesbury Transport Strategy builds on previous and currently planned improvements to transport infrastructure. The initial work has identified a list of potential transport interventions Proposed Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan as Proposed to be Modified 70 for Aylesbury which will enable growth, influence travel behaviour and meet the strategic objectives'
My comments are as follows on the objectives
* completing a series of outer link roads that will take traffic away from the town centre and allow
public transport priority improvements to take place on the main radial roads closer to the town
centre, improving public transport journey time reliability.
As already mentioned elsewhere in my comments this wish is entirely dependent on developers and HS2. Two big gaps in the scheme look as though they will never be accomplished.
* implementing an overarching strategy to connect new developments, with each other, to key
destinations and to the town centre by active travel and public transport.
Transport for Bucks are already making it difficult to connect communities. I would point out a series of no right turns implemented on major routes into the town. i.e. A4157 Douglas Road into Stocklake, A418 onto Churchill Avenue
* considering new ways to redesign roads within central area of Aylesbury to ensure access for all.
This is difficult with the A41 running through the town centre and no room for widening. The 20 mph speed limit within the inner ring road is not enforced and Bucks CC policies (street parking) allow free movement of traffic in so called pedestrian areas such as the High Street and Market Square. The idea to traffic calm Exchange Street is ludicrous and has been spoken about for at least 20 years but never implemented.

4.30 The report says 'Aylesbury's most valued assets such as the historic old town, conservation areas, the river Thame, the Grand Union Canal and Hartwell House historic park and garden will be protected and enhanced, allowing communities to celebrate their history, their identity and their diversity'. There is no mention of the River Bearbrook which is a great underused asset running through the town centre, most of which cannot be seen. This is probably because the plan is to culvert it for more development.
'The growth will be planned in a way which minimises the need to travel by private car, with more and more people choosing to walk, cycle or use public transport through integrated forward looking and accessible transport options which supports economic prosperity and wellbeing for residents. Traffic growth will be managed to control congestion'.
I have mentioned this elsewhere but will repeat my comments. Cycling is decreasing in the town and walking is only possible from homes within less than a mile of the centre. Given that buses are heavily subsidised and most routes stop after 8.00 pm, the car will still be used as the primary means of access to the town centre.
* All residents will feel a strong sense of distinctive local identity as part of the garden community of Aylesbury Garden Town, including residents and visitors to its attractive and functioning centre.
This is a major task for an incoming council. Over 15% of Aylesbury's population are from other ethnic origins. Very few participate in the leisure activities in the town be it theatre, cinema, restaurants, pubs or the arts centre. This statement is a meaningless just to be politically correct.

4.209 The report makes a number of statements relating to Aylesbury Town Centre. 'Market Square, Walton Street and Friars Square. Make more of the area's presence as a key retail, catering and leisure hub. Town centre policies to support proposals for retail and other main town centre uses, provided they are in accordance with the vision and aims for the town centre Kingsbury (including George Street and Pebble Lane)'.
At present AVDC are not supporting their own policy and are allowing non-retail into key areas. i.e. 10. High Street & new units in Ling Lionel

Create a more attractive environment for residents, visitors and businesses and improve it as the gateway to the Old Town. Town centre policies to support public realm improvements and improving
the quality of the town centre Aylesbury Old Town (the historic quarter). Preserve and enhance this residential area as a key part of the town's heritage and culture offer and improve its links with the rest of the town centre, in keeping with its conservation area status Heritage assets policy to ensure these
are properly considered when assessing development proposals.
I very much support this initiative but it needs to be carried through. The hidden gem of the old town has been neglected for too long. i) Poor surfaces, cobbles and brick sets tarmacked over by utility companies, bad potholes. ii) Poorly placed traffic signage iii) pedestrian areas are not safe and are not policed. Traffic ignore speed restrictions and one way streets.

Gateway South (railway and bus stations) Improve the railway and bus stations as key arrival points and improve their connection with the rest of the town centre. Allocation of area for comprehensive
redevelopment (as shown on the policies map) including co-locating the bus and railway stations to create a public transport interchange.
By far this is the daftest idea in the town centre plan. Firstly the bus station in its present form brings passengers directly into the heart of the town. The new scheme would add a physical barrier in the A41 in order to get to the town centre. Older visitors to the town centre would not want to walk that distance. Morrison's is a much used supermarket particularly for the residents across the Bourg bridge in Southcourt. The demolition of the supermarket would deplete the shopping offer in the town centre, something VALP says it wants to enhance. This idea should be depleted from VALP along with the demolition of the Friars Square car park.

Upper and middle High street Create a more attractive retail environment (especially in middle
High Street), improve connections between upper High Street and Exchange Street, ensure both upper
and middle High Street are part of the retail circuit and flow with the rest of the town centre.
I oppose the demolition of the former Granada cinema/Gals bingo hall. This should be made a central feature of the generation of the High Street

Town centre policies to support public realm improvements and improving the quality of the town centre, including improvements for pedestrian access Cambridge Street, Buckingham Street and New Street. Cambridge Street: Improve the quality and attractiveness of the whole area, the continuity of active frontages along Cambridge Street and the appeal of Cambridge Street to independent shops.
I applaud this idea, although it is not a new ambition. Bucks County Council have introduced parking in Cambridge Street as a money making machine. There has never been a will to have a fully pedestrianized area in the town centre or the will to enforce it. Active frontages would need fair landlords and the enforcement of AVDC's own shop front policy.

Buckingham Street and New Street: Improve the physical environment, reduce dominance of the car and integrate the area more fully into the rest of the town centre and the retail Town centre policies to support proposals for retail, public realm improvements and improving the quality of the town centre, including improvements for pedestrian access.
Buckingham Street once had an avenue of trees. As each one has been felled through one reason or another they have never been replaced. Until Bucks CC or the new Unitary changes its policy of a dislike for trees the town centre will lose more trees. Reasons given by Bucks CC include, leaf fall hazard, cost of clearing up leaves, utility cables and loss of parking spaces.

Break down the concrete barrier of the inner ring road and improve links and accessibility from the rest of the town centre to Aylesbury Waterside Theatre, Aqua Vale Leisure Centre, Vale Park and the retail parks.
Given that the inner ring road are trunk routes, A41, A413 & A418 I don't see how this can be achieved. Traffic is already gridlocked on these roads and adding pedestrians into the mix will only make things worse. The mixed use areas at the top of Great Western Street and at the Bourg bridge crossing of the A41 are an accident waiting to happen.

6.1 & 5 Employment and the Protection of key employment sites
The report says 'The vision for the Plan in relation to employment is to ensure the availability of a diverse and flexible range of employment opportunities for new and existing businesses, which match the expectations for employment growth in the district. To support this, there is a need to maintain
a flexible supply of employment land and premises. This includes making the best use of
existing employment land and premises by retaining the most suitable sites and encouraging
their refurbishment and renovation where necessary.'
Your own published data says the 2011 Census shows that 35,025 residents commute out of the district to work (predominantly to areas just outside the district, but also further afield such as London), yet office space in the town centre has almost disappeared where office blocks have been converted to residential. The Economic Development Team at AVDC have said that there is a shortage of office space in and near to the town centre and supports the growth in office space in the local economy. Yet they did nothing to stop the demolition of Derby House in Wendover Road or the conversion of small and large offices blocks in Walton Street, Buckingham Street and Oxford Road. The loss of employment space not only loses trade for shops in the week-day but also increases car journeys out of town.

Primary shopping frontages

6.22 6.23 The council recognises the importance of the retail role of primary shopping frontages, and of having a mix of uses within Aylesbury town centre, and says it will to ensure that A1 (shops) continue to predominate while allowing some provision of A3 (restaurants and cafes) and A2 uses, provided the overall mix of uses is considered acceptable. Whilst I applaud this approach as I have said previously
at present AVDC are not supporting their own policy and are allowing non-retail into key areas. i.e. 10. High Street & new units in Long Lionel



E7 Tourism development
The plan says 'The council will promote a growing, sustainable tourism sector, and will support
proposals. Proposals for new or expanded tourism, visitor or leisure facilities will be supported
within or adjacent to settlements'. I would suggest reinstating a tourist office in Aylesbury and providing decent stop offs and parking for coaches.

Heritage assets
VALP declares 'The historic environment is an asset of great cultural, social, economic 8.1 and environmental value. It contributes significantly to our quality of life and to the character of the district, representing
a non-renewable resource that once lost is gone forever' Yet in Aylesbury looking after the assets including listed buildings is poor. AVDC have only paid lip service in the pretence of protecting historic areas, conservation areas and listed buildings. Some examples:
i) The civic group of buildings in Market Square including the old courts has been spoilt by adjacent over development of Friars Square with the garish frontage of the Metro bank.
ii) Taxis continue to use Market Square as a rank, hence spoiling the look of the conservation area and the listed civic buildings. . Bucks CC in the pursuit of income do not want to lose valuable meter parking.
iii) The splendid Grade 2 listed Ardenham House in Oxford Road is spoilt by adjacent businesses, parking uncaring tenants and owners and the promise in VALP of future development nearby
iv) The grade 2 listed Walton Mill house continues to rot.

Conservation areas, listed buildings
8.10 VALP says 'Conservation areas are areas of special historic or architectural interest, the special character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. Conservation areas are locally designated heritage assets. Conservation areas are designated by Aylesbury Vale District
Council, according to strategy set out in the AVDC Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning
Document (adopted March 2011)'.
Again just lip service. Aylesbury's 3 conservation areas continue to be spoilt by dustbins on show, poor pavement and road surfaces, temporary signage such as adverts on Byron House railings in Wendover Road and estate agent for sale boards and the abundance of weeds everywhere in the summer.

Registered historic parks and gardens & Scheduled monuments

I note that there I no mention of Quarrendon Leas on periphery of Aylesbury, owned and managed by Buckinghamshire Conservation Trust

Heritage at Risk

8.38 The report says 'Investing in historic buildings can have a direct impact on the quality of life of residents. Many buildings at risk have a rich historic legacy and contribute to local identity. The repair and refurbishment of declining and/or derelict historic buildings can often be a catalyst in
encouraging confidence and investment in an area.
8.39 Wherever practicable the council will support endeavours to repair and reuse
heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and to provide long-term viable
uses for buildings and structures that are vacant and at risk through cooperation with owners
and Historic England.
AVDC's record of protecting assets is poor and again the comments above need to be implemented. We have lost in the past 30 years many historic unlisted buildings. These include Duck Cottages in Green end, Oxford Road Mill, old police station in Walton Street, cattle market auction rings, electricity showrooms in Exchange Street to name just a few.

Biodiversity and Geodiversity Protected sites

9.56 VALP states 'Where tree loss is unavoidable, they should be replaced with suitable new planting, either within the site or in the locality if this is more appropriate. Replacement planting should, as a
minimum, be of commensurate value to that which is lost Development can make a positive
contribution to the tree and hedgerow resource in the locality through new planting or the
restoration and improved management of existing features. New plantings should endeavour
to link up fragmented areas of existing woodland.'
Aylesbury continues to lose trees on important sites and they are not replaced. Where developments have specified that tree planting should be carried out as screening, there is no enforcement id not carried out.


My main interest has been focused on Aylesbury and particularly the town centre. There is much to commend the report but also much is repeated. It seems to me that authors of the report have no empathy with the town and possibly do not live in the town. There is no talk on how any of the plans and schemes will be funded. I await with some enthusiasm.

Cllr Roger King

Attachments:

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3546

Received: 15/12/2019

Respondent: Hampden Fields Action Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

1. As this alignment is 'critical' to the proposed strategy, it cannot be judged to be sound
while there is uncertainty over HS2.
2. No decision as to the soundness of the plan can be delivered until a final decision over HS2
is taken. If HS2 is not delivered, then HS2 have confirmed that the realignment will not be
paid for.
3. The impact of the realignment not taking place is of utmost significance. The whole of the
strategy falls because people could not access the link road system unless they entered
through Stoke Mandeville Village. As it is part of the Wycombe Local Plan the Inspector
may not be aware of plans to build 3,000 houses just three 3 miles to the south of this
point. Any journeys north from that development must access the Aylesbury network.

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

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 3572

Received: 17/12/2019

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Limited

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Barwood welcome the fact that the VALP continues (via Policy T2) to safeguard and protect the implementation of schemes such as East West Rail.

However Barwood consider that the VALP should be more explicit that such measures are linked with the wider expectations in relation to the CaMKOx corridor (Policy T3 refers to the National Infrastructure Commission report 'Partnering for Prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc').

Change suggested by respondent:

VALP should be more explicit that such measures are linked with the wider expectations in relation to the CaMKOx corridor (Policy T3 refers to the National Infrastructure Commission report 'Partnering for Prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc').

Full text:

See attachment