Core Strategy
1. Taken as a whole the documents do not contain a vision of Aylesbury and the Vale as the Council wants to see them but rather they simply address how the council should cope with its allocation of houses.
2. In particular, there are no policies or narrative addressing the creation of employment and assessing how many jobs are needed. The Strategy does not seem to go beyond allocating some land and hoping. Of course, some jobs will arise in new retail provision, additional schools and expanded public services, but the Council has to go well beyond that. It is vital that there is a strategy for attracting new private sector employers to Aylesbury Vale in general and the Town in particular. There must be a minimum ratio of 1 job per house and the Council should aim for closer to 1.25:1. At the moment job creation seems to be little more than an aspiration; it must become a key aim.
3. Nor is there any real consideration of the needs of Aylesbury’s Town Centre. Of course, little of the housing will actually be provided in that area but this development is going to mean at least 25,000 more people in our town (in addition to the 10,000 coming with Weedon Hill and Berryfields) and that must have a dramatic impact. So, the proposals for development must formally recognize this and there should be a commitment to the production of a Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document to ensure that the centre evolves in a satisfactory manner both in terms of preserving what is good and providing the new that will be needed.
4. Equally a transportation (as opposed to roads) strategy seems to be missing – where are the policies on transport and transport infrastructure? The maps show the provision of new roads but this does not amount to sustainable transport policy. Where are the strategic requirements to link Aylesbury with Milton Keynes, Leighton Buzzard, the A41/M25 corridor and the M40 north and south? The rail is hardly mentioned nor is the need to develop Chiltern Line to increase capacity and provide a faster service to London to meet the inevitable increase in the number of commuters. The link to East – West rail developments - the Oxford to MK part of the Swindon- Peterborough line – is not given the importance that it deserves either.
5. It appears the only consideration given to moving people within Aylesbury is by car. There are no policies on the promotion of public transport, bicycle, and walking. These failings must be remedied.
6. Aylesbury Vale District Council is committed, on a cross-party basis, to sustainability. Among other things, this means:
a) promoting means of transport other than the car;
b) minimising the increase in commuting to London;
c) encouraging public transport and safe cycling;
d) promoting the Aylesbury to Milton Keynes Rail Link.
Yet this consultation does not even seem to recognize these requirements, let alone press them as key factors in the Development Framework. For instance, locating housing to the north of Aylesbury will promote communing to Milton Keynes and strengthen the case for re-opening the line, whereas locating housing in the south east will promote commuting to London and do nothing to support that case.
7. The balance of advantage may point to the preferred direction of growth being to the south of the town of Aylesbury, but this is not quantified and does not appear to be overwhelming. For instance, we understand that the transport model only shows a very small difference in congestion between the ‘all south’ model that is preferred and a 2:1 south north split.
8. It is clear that growth in a northern and eastern direction is possible. Given the lack of any transport infrastructure provisions in the plan, particularly public transport, the total overlooking of rail and the absence of sufficient data to enable consultees to question the [car] transport planning assumptions, the alternative options for growth must be further explored and all realistic individual sites for development must be evaluated in detail. A comprehensive policy covering all modes of transport must be developed and the assumptions in the traffic planning model must be subject to scrutiny and debate.
9. There needs to be a discussion on what measures are needed to the implement the social cohesion policy, as without positive and detailed planning, health and education, transport and crime prevention policies the social cohesion policy remains no more than a pious wish.
Allocated sites
10. Six out of seven secondary schools and colleges in Aylesbury are already in the southern arc. If the proposed allocations are approved another two secondary schools will appear in that area. The County Council wishes to move the final one out of Aylesbury altogether. The consequences for the traffic patterns in Aylesbury are frightening. Much of congestion in Aylesbury occurs at ‘school run’ time. There are no transport and inadequate social cohesion policies in place to cope with the effect of the daily movement of pupils and teachers in to the southern part of town.
11. The County Council states that no new primary school places will be required. On the one hand (especially given their track record in the growth areas of Fairford Leys and Pitstone where inadequate provision was made) this is not believable unless children under 11 are going to commute well out of Aylesbury, which is socially and environmentally unsound and should not be allowed. Primary schools should be local and the thought of over 9,000 households not having a local Primary School is ridiculous. On the other hand, if the County is right, where are the pupils for their two new Secondary Schools coming from – obviously not the non-existent local Primary Schools? This needs re-thinking.
12. Even if the south of Aylesbury can accommodate further flood alleviation measures there is a cost attached. If this is to fall to the developers, it will add to the tariff, leaving less available for other infrastructure and social costs. It could be more effective to use all sites where further flood alleviation is either minimal or not required. This has not been put in to the evaluation of south against north.
13. Why is it proposed to allocate the Pembroke Road estate (off Stocklake) for residential development when it has the best access to the A41 (east) and M25 of any employment site in the town and Aylesbury desperately needs more employment? This should be reviewed.
14. Inadequate advantage is taken of the new station to be built to the north of the town. Because of the lack of a transport infrastructure policy and any commitment to public transport either within the town or to other destinations, it is astonishing to find no further use made of this existing investment. This should be reviewed.
15. Whilst there are advantages to be had from putting all the housing in one sector, these can be minimized by the tariff approach and by treating the development as a single entity. However, the disadvantages in terms of the differential stress put on the existing Town and its inhabitants and the damages to social cohesion cannot be so easily minimised. This is not a matter of fairness but rather ensuring that the benefits and problems from development are appropriately spread so as to strengthen the social fabric of our Town.
16. The crematorium – No evidence has been submitted to justify the building of a new crematorium anywhere. This proposal seems to have been bolted on to the consultation and is not supported. The need for any crematorium and its possible location should be the subject of a separate county wide consultation (preferably including Milton Keynes), considering all the issues, not just planning. The proposal should be withdrawn from this consultation.
|
