Ahead of the 13 April public hearing on the transport policy of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan, we are continuing to work hard on our case to put before the Inspector. As usual, we are getting invaluable help from the independent transport consultancy who was engaged throughout this and our other cases.

This has been made easier by the generous donations made by supporters, so thank you. 

If you wish to support our ongoing work, our JustGiving page is still open.  Please go to this page.  

We appreciate your help.

After the Strategic Sites Committee met to — wrongly in our view — give a following wind to Hampden Fields, it was our turn.

Step 1 was for the HFAG Committee to meet to review the SSC discussion and agree our next steps. Done.

Two more meetings have been arranged to review the decision. As before, our professional advisers will play an important part.

And, since we really like meetings, HFAG is also registered to speak at the Inspector’s public hearing on Transport in the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan on April 13th. The independent transport consultant who did such a fine job last time (in 2018!) will be assisting us again.

The Bucks Council Strategic Sites Committee today voted unanimously to approve the Hampden Fields application. This, despite Councillors expressing concerns over no money allocated to hospital healthcare, volumes of construction traffic at the same time that HS2 HGVs may be using the A413, coalescence, lack of any marketing strategy with regards to who will be purchasing the houses, 5000 objections, a lack of effective dialogue with the WT Parish Council, the forecast volume of traffic on the road (~ 45,000 per day) through the new development…

As this was one of the possible outcomes, we will now action our next steps. 

Stay in touch with the news on this site.

The campaign continues!

Even more than three years after the committee agreed to defer and delegate this application, they are still only being recommended to do the same tomorrow. It is highly unlikely that they will grant planning permission at their meeting, given that serious flaws still exist in the plans and the proposed ‘Section 106’ agreement.

Which is what HFAG representative Phil Yerby will be saying to the committee members tomorrow. Given only 2 minutes to speak, Phil is honing his points to maximum sharpness!

But HFAG is not alone. In addition to 5,467 individual objections levelled against this proposal, other bodies objecting include Weston Turville Parish Council, Aylesbury Town Council, Aston Clinton Parish Council, Wendover Parish Council, The Chilterns Conservation Board, The Wendover Society, Bierton with Broughton Parish Council and the Richmond Road Petition Group.

Plus the NHS Buckinghamshire Healthcare Trust, who have raised serious concerns about the provision of healthcare facilities.

The meeting is available to view online from 10.00 Wednesday 24 February. Go to the Bucks Council website here.

An independent transport consultancy recently examined Aylesbury’s transport plans in great depth. Amongst the many flaws and weaknesses they found, this one stood out for us:
“A driver approaching Aylesbury on the A418 near Bierton will have to navigate about 12 junctions to traverse the town on the ‘ring road’ and reach the A418 to the south west. Bucks Council’s own traffic modelling shows that the driver would encounter congestion at many of the junctions …”

So, in practice, many drivers might choose to stay on the existing roads through the centre of town…

Which means that the ££££m to build the ‘ring road’ will have had little or no benefit…

Which is what HFAG are telling the Inspector currently examining the Vale Local Plan VALP.

Your comments need to reach Bucks Council by Friday 8th! The reference to search for at their planning application webpage is 16/00424/AOP.

Here are some topics for you to consider when writing in. As ever, please make your own choices and use your own words if you can.

Coalescence: Our MP Rob Butler has rightly criticised the risk to settlements such as Weston Turville, Stoke Mandeville, Aston Clinton and Aylesbury Bedgrove from urban sprawl. The Hampden Fields estate would fill the space between all four.

Transport: many serious objections have been raised against the traffic plans, which still won’t solve traffic congestion in the town centre. It is planned to get worse. Remember that Hampden Fields proposes an extra 3,000 houses! The Council’s own figures reveal that a very high % of trips are made to or from the town centre, so the wished-for ‘ring road’ will not actually make much difference.

Air quality: Linked to transport, of course. People are right to be concerned about the health risks from traffic congestion, especially from HGVs. Electric lorries are a fair way away yet, unfortunately.

Prematurity: the planning committee shouldn’t approve this substantial development while the wider Vale of Aylesbury Plan is still undergoing examination by the Inspector. (See also ‘Democracy’ below)

Biodiversity: for a Garden Town area, it’s disappointing that the planned biodiversity gain (13.8%) falls short of the Council’s ‘aspiration’ figure of 20%, even if it is above the 10% minimum.

Flood risk: to be fair, the plans say there’s not much risk of flooding. But given recent flood issues locally and further afield, you may want to press the Council to get the developer to guarantee this.

Democracy: Hampden Fields was turned down in 2015 by an independent Inspector and the Secretary of State. That campaign had cost local people time, effort and £’000s. Yet just one year later, the same proposal came back again, as if the Sec of State decision could simply be ignored. 5,000 letters of objection and many more £’000s have since been contributed by the local community, and Weston Turville and Wendover Parish Councils both object, representing 10,000 people. All this can’t be ignored, can it?

More questions? If you want to know more, please contact any of the HFAG Committee via info@hfag.co.uk or on Facebook Everything Weston Turville

Respond to the council: by Friday 8th January, at their webpage https://www.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/search-planning-licensing-applications The planning application number is 16/00424/AOP.

THANK YOU!

Bucks Council have invited your comments on the Woodlands application 16/01040/AOP. Here are seven key questions we have identified. Please choose any that you feel strongly about, and send your comment in. (Use your own words, please — the Council disregards obvious ‘copy and paste’ campaigns.)  

You can use the ‘Make a Comment’ button on the planning webpage at [https://publicaccess.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk](https://publicaccess.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/) or send an email to [devcon@aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk](mailto:devcon@aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk) . The reference to use is 16/01040/AOP and your reply needs to reach them by the end of Monday 4th!

Questions for Buckinghamshire Council about Woodlands: 

1) Do they think it would be right to allow building on this land, 38% of which lies on a flood plain?

2) Sports facilities here will require ‘flood evacuation procedures’ to be in place. What makes the Council think anyone might be willing to invest in building and running such facilities?

3) If the Council let the Woodlands developer get away with 20% affordable housing (not 30% as their policy requires), what will they say to developers on other large sites who seek to do the same?

4) Is the reduction in affordable housing a sign that Woodland is not financially viable?

5) The Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan is still being examined by a government inspector. Would it be right to grant planning permission here before that is completed?

6) How confident are they in the traffic plans that are part of this application? Completely confident? Very? Fairly? Not very? Not at all?

7) Thames Water wrote just days ago that the water and sewerage network will not be able to handle what is proposed here. What does this say about a developer who has been working on this application for more than four years?