logo image

HOW TO RESPOND TO THE VALE OF AYLESBURY LOCAL PLAN

August 15th, 2016  |  Published in Actions  |  26 Comments

SHORT VALP SUMMARY RESPONSE FINAL

PLEASE EMAIL RESPONSE TO : localplanconsult@aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk

 

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND THROUGH THE ‘YOUR COMMENTS’ FORM BELOW – this is for comments to HFAG.  THANKYOU

26 Comments

  1. Jane Stratton says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  2. Graham Edwards says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”. My daughter already has to stand from Wendover to Marylebone daily. Not enough trains or rolling stock.

    15000 homes equates to another 20,000 cars on a gridlocked road network. Where are you going to park? What about Schools to cope with 25,000 children, where are the shopps, doctors surgeries and where are the jobs coming from?

    All this and the HS2 FOLLY at the same time. This is a recipe for disaster on all fronts.

    There appears to be a total lack of holistic thought and planning. There is NO joined up thinking. What is the real agenda here because it makes no sense whatever.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. Stoke Mandeville is already under pressure without a population increase of around 60,000 people.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

    Graham Edwards

  3. Andy May says:

    Building 15.845 new houses in the South of Aylesbury will cause traffic gridlock, overload the existing infrastructure & services and destroy village communities.

    The AVDC plan fails to address the Traffic issues which will be created by these housing developments. The Grammar schools are already overloaded with pupils from all over the county – Will these housing developments include new Grammar schools?

    As a resident of Weston Turville the proposed developments will replace countryside with houses, destroy wildlife and footpaths and kill the village community we enjoy. This is a small and proud village that is currently being attacked on all side with planning applications including the massive Hampden Fields proposal.

    I urge AVDC to reconsider alternative options rather than focus so much of the housing on the small area around Aston Clinton & Weston Turville.

  4. Rebecca Ward says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  5. Rebecca Ward says:

    Too many houses planned on green space.
    No infrastructure.
    Traffic already congested this side of town

  6. Sally Harrop says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  7. Sue Bowers says:

    Whilst acknowledging the shortfall in housing there are serious flaws to the planned developments of AVDC. Primarily the lack of infrastructure that will be needed in an already overcrowded road network and oversubscribed schools, hospitals and GP provision. Where is the planned road system and provision of additional medical and education needs? These need to be in place before any plan for additional housing is considered.

  8. Barbara White says:

    Having been through the VALP documents and the questionnaire on the AVDC website it becomes clear that these documents are unnecessarily complex and very difficult for the general populous to follow. Rather than fill out a very difficult questionnaire I have expressed below my significant concerns regarding the VALP and the process that AVDC has followed to come up with the document.
    • AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury. Over 500 letters of objection to the earlier version of the VALP have not been considered.
    • The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths. This is clearly coalescence which AVDC say it will avoid.
    • Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    • There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    • The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    • The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    • There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    • Overall the VALP is meaningless. The VALP states that “OUR plan is YOUR plan”. This is no more than lip service to the people of the Vale of Aylesbury. You did not listen last time so what confidence do we have that you will listen this time. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    • The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  9. Glynn White says:

    Comments on Vale of Aylesbury Draft Local Plan

    I have a great deal of experience in business and am very use to drafting and filling out questionnaires. The questionnaire for the VALP is unnecessarily complex and is obviously not designed for the general public to complete. It is one way of not getting objections to the VALP as many people will not have the time or expertise to fill it in. Therefore I am writing my objections to the VALP in the document.

    1) Inappropriate strategy

    The Issues & Options consultation, earlier this year, asked people for their suggestions of where to put the new developments. The vast majority of comments suggested that AVDC consider a strategy for growth other than placing the majority of development to the South of Aylesbury. There is no evidence in the VALP that other options have been considered. In fact the VALP states “we’ve accommodated the comments where possible”. Does this mean that other options are not feasible? I would expect a draft VALP to provide at least some options for people to consider. The VALP only presents one, which suggests a preconceived decision.

    2) Housing numbers

    Why does the VALP have the additional 10-12,000 houses from surrounding authorities? These should have been resisted a long time ago and not included in the VALP.

    3) Major information gaps in the Draft Plan

    The VALP consultation documents to allow a meaningful consultation on the strategy AVDC promote as there are serious gaps in the information provided in the consultation document. In the VALP (page 24) the council makes it clear that it is a key part of the plan that infrastructure needs to be secured in a “timely and well located” manner yet, there is no detail of infrastructure requirements including plans for health and education provision.

    4) An incomplete and flawed Transport Strategy

    The council is inviting comments on the Aylesbury Transport strategy. Yet the only information on the Aylesbury Transport strategy is a very top line overview showing that the AVDC plan will have a severe impact on the road system. Furthermore, there are severe flaws in the model the council is using which have been identified by the council’s own Transport Consultant.
    The basic premise assumes the road through the proposed ‘Hampden Fields’ development will be built without any housing. This is still a completely unrealistic start point from which to begin looking at the Aylesbury Transport Strategy as the council acknowledges that developer contributions will be needed to make up the budget. If the council is going to suggest that this is made up of “off site” contributions then it should have brought forward a full infrastructure and Community Infrastructure as part of the plan.
    AVDC own consultants conclude that “it is unlikely that the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues in its current form” .The model underestimates the traffic flows around Aylesbury by typically 5% in peak periods – a significant error. The council’s consultants need to go back to the drawing board and develop an appropriate model for such a crucial piece of work such as this Local Plan. The council, of course, should be well aware of the importance of this work, given that it has recently experienced a significant Secretary of State decision, which cited traffic as a major issue in Aylesbury Town.
    The model does not address the fact that there is very little long distance traffic wanting to bypass Aylesbury. What little transport information that is published with the plan clearly shows that the thinking behind the orbital link road strategy around the south of Aylesbury is flawed.

    5) Conflicting policies

    Many of the council’s own polices are flawed and conflict with the strategy.
    Policy S3 is about preventing coalescence but the VALP facilitates an overarching strategy that leads to coalescence between Aylesbury and Weston Turville and Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville.
    Policy NE5 seeks to prevent development if it materially affects “existing and continuous poor air quality” yet the strategy to put mass development to the South of Aylesbury shows significant increases in traffic at key Air Quality Management Areas, especially at the gyratory system in Aylesbury.

    Overall, the VALP consultation is meaningless. The information on fundamental areas such as traffic and infrastructure are extremely weak with little information. How are people expected to comment when these key areas are essentially absent from the document. The whole process suggests that the development is a preconceived plan and makes a mockery of the statement that ‘Our Plan to be Your Plan’. The VALP plan process should be paused until significant information is provided on infrastructure and transport.

  10. Thomas Gordge says:

    • AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    • The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    • There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    • The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    • The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    • There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    • The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    • Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    • Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    • The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure
    regards
    Mr T W Gordge
    4 Penfold Weston Turville HP22 5SW

  11. Michael Gregory says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  12. Ron Fisher says:

    I strongly object to AVDC’s Local Plan – specifically Hampden Fields development on the following grounds.

    AVDC has consistently ignored the residents views to consider alternative plans for a vast and socially damaging development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals are flawed and outdated based on assumptions containing many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    So far AVDC have totally failed to come up with a single workable plan for the town’s present traffic chaos. Any future transport strategy will never work with a poorly thought out county wide traffic model that states there will be significant additional congestion on the roads if the plan is approved.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round to the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is far too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    Most damaging of all, there is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here to make it work BEFORE a single house brick is laid.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on schools, health centres and public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages used by all for recreation need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the AVLP is completely meaningless. More worrying, it shows a complete lack of intelligent thinking in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is an obvious attempt by AVDC to push through an outcome that the people of Aylesbury do not want.
    The process should be scrapped until other options have been exhaustively considered based on sound, logical evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  13. Christine Dawtrey says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  14. S Robinson says:

    Save our villages that why we live in them because we don’t to live in the town & that why we have paid premium prices for our property because we don’t want to live in towns if we are joined to Aylesbury & are properties are devalued we deserve compensation

  15. Stephen Parsons says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  16. Kenneth Shaw says:

    As a long term resident of Weston Turville I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of local planning authority empathy with the views of a significantly large number of people with regard to the Hamden Field development proposals. Start listening and acting in accord with the wishes of the people.

    My responses to the plan are:

    1. AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.

    2. The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.

    3. There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.

    4. The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.

    5. The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.

    6. There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.

    7. The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.

    8. Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.

    9. Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.

    10. The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

    Kenneth David Shaw

    8 William Burt Close
    Weston Turville
    Aylesbury
    Buckinghamshire
    HP22 5QX

  17. ROBERT JONES says:

    The road structures are insufficient,the school and hospital facilities are not enough for the number
    of extra residents

  18. Charles Griffin says:

    The authorities completely ignore the current daily shambles on the roads. Motoring into Aylesbury is a complete nightmare taking at times a half an or more most of it in a static gridlock. As most families these days own two cars even allowing 1 1/2 per house the eventual traffic total is unimaginable , frightening and utterly impossible.
    The roads cannot cope with these figures, the projected roads are a joke.

    Villages are the backbone of this country and are being systematically destroyed for the
    financial greed of developers. It is time our councillors woke up. There is a lot of greenery north of Aylesbury which could support smaller developments and spread the load

  19. Robert Latham says:

    I write to object in the strongest possible terms at the proposed development of Hampden Fields. Aylesbury just cannot support this proposed extra development. We do not have the health services – both GP and hospital, amenities, and most important, the road network to support such a development. Aylesbury is just one big traffic jam, the parking facilities in Aylesbury are at maximum usage, the town centre cannot support so many people shopping. Living off the Wendover Road A413, there is a traffic jam every day from the Stoke Mandeville side of the Bedgrove roundabout all the way to the gyratory system often resulting in gridlock. The road system in and around Aylesbury has not been substantially changed for many years and any new roads just direct traffic into the centre of Aylesbury. If the ring road planned over 30 years ago had materialised, this would have been better spending of money and Aylesbury would have been a much nicer place to live – as it used to be. The Hampden Fields development is just a product of the greed of the developers and the lack of understanding about Aylesbury and its ability to support such a development.

    The infrastructure of Aylesbury just cannot cope with the increase in people and traffic – it is struggling to cope now it will collapse if this development is allowed to continue.

    If Aylesbury Vale District Council really cares about Aylesbury and its residents this development must be stopped now and for good.

    Robert Latham

  20. A.DANIELS says:

    We DO NOT need any more building and road clogging in AYLESBURY, we have more than enough. Keeping some countryside around us would be good..FRESH AIR WALKS, lovely!

  21. Graham Forrester says:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations  with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.The number of houses planned is too high,  especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than  10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot  simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS. The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the  outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer,   and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between  Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.  

  22. MR KG Oldknow says:

    • AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    • The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    • There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    • The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    • The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    • There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    • The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    • Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    • Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    • The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

  23. Kevin Bottomley says:

    Dear Sirs,

    I wish to register my objection to the proposed plans for Hampden Fields for these reasons:

    AVDC has ignored people’s explicitly expressed views to consider another strategy other than vast development to the South of Aylesbury.
    The traffic proposals uses a flawed set of assumptions and calculations with many errors. Even AVDC’s own traffic consultants acknowledge it is “unlikely the model can be used to accurately identify future and existing transport issues”.
    There is no proper transport strategy at all, just a few outputs from the poorly constructed county wide traffic model. And these state that there will be significant additional congestion on the roads.
    The “orbital road” strategy is based on flawed thinking. There are serious flooding issues with some sites in the draft Plan. If those sites cannot be built, the Council will seriously struggle to get enough money from developers to build the “orbital road” round the south of the town.
    The number of houses planned is too high, especially considering that we should not be accommodating more than 10,000 houses from other places like Wycombe and South Bucks.
    There is no infrastructure plan to show how roads, hospitals and schools will be provided for. The Council has a responsibility here: they cannot simply leave this to other statutory authorities such as the NHS.
    The policies set out in the draft Plan conflict with the outcome AVDC say they want. For example, villages will be joined up, air quality will be poorer, and there will be major impacts on public footpaths.
    Highly valued landscapes between villages need explicit protection, especially the area threatened by ‘Hampden Fields’, the West End Ditch, and the green buffers between Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury.
    Overall the VALP is meaningless. It puts the “cart before the horse” in key areas such as traffic planning, health and education provision. It is a post-rationalised attempt by AVDC to push through a pre-determined outcome.
    The process should be paused until other options have been genuinely considered based on appropriate evidence, especially in relation to transport and other infrastructure.

    Regards,

    Kevin Bottomley

  24. Andrew Smith says:

    This is to record my concern about the lack of professionalism in the preparation of this plan.

    – The only “strategy” appears to be a vast development to the south of Aylesbury, incorporating some 10,000 houses from other areas of Bucks such as High Wycombe and South Bucks. No other option appears to have been given serious consideration.

    – The transport strategy and infrastructure use a model has been acknowledged as flawed and it is “unlikely that the model can be used to accurately define existing and future traffic needs”. If this is the case then it does AVDC’s case no good and questions must be asked on why AVDC commissioned and perseveres with this – and was this a good use of Council resources.

    – It is the Council who have the responsibility for planning infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and roadways – this cannot be left to other statutory authorities such as the beleaguered NHS on a piecemeal basis.

    – Bottom line – the VALP looks to me to be classic “Answer Analysis” . The outcome was predetermined, based on who knows what, and the assumptions in the various models flexed to give the “right answer” – except that as noted above even this did not happen.

    – Please – suspend this whole operation until other options have been fairly considered and where modelling is required realistic and challengeable assumptions are used using proven models.

  25. John H. Restall says:

    Dear Sirs,

    I totally agree with the objections of the Hampden Fields Action Group to the Council’s Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan.
    In view of the Council’s poor planning in the past, I feel that this will be another example of an agenda greatly opposed to the well being of the local residents.
    I strongly urge you to think again.

    Yours faithfully,

    J. H. Restall.

  26. A c fennell says:

    These development plans have obviously been thought of by people with little or no connection to Alesbury but who are only intent on destroying Aylesbury as we who have lived here happily for fifty years or even from birth and have seen the very essence of this town destroyed by random ll thought out and totally unwelcome , Development which ha made this town a substandard and soullnes place to live .
    For Gods sake , no more of this dlstruction of the villages surrounding this town , no more land being grabbed for the avarice of so-called developers and muddled , even stupid planners of this once lovely town.!
    The current development. plans WILL NOT WORK to the advantage of this town in their present format and should be stopped NOW before such damage is irreversible ! Then, and only then should some very clever people be emplord to devslse plans to benefit this town.

Your Comments


  1. Fill out this form if you want to become a supporter of the Action Group.