Background
In March 2012, a rather substantial planning application to build a mixed use, urban development in the constituency was submitted to Aylesbury Vale District Council. The original proposals consisted of 3,200 homes, a nursing home, a retail development, commercial premises and other services. David was contacted by over 150 constituents who all expressed their opposition to the plans. The initial consultation received approximately 4,000 responses; the overwhelming majority of which objected to the application in the strongest possible terms. The plans were extremely complex and it took David a considerable amount of time to study them in depth and formulate his own response to the consultation.
In July 2012, the Council gave the Developers the opportunity to amend their plans and submit a revised proposal which could address a number of important issues that had been raised, following the consultation process.
These revised plans were submitted towards end of November, and although equally lengthy and complex, they differed significantly to the original application. Given the considerable nature of the new plans and recent changes, David was surprised when he learnt that the Developers have submitted an appeal on the grounds of non determination to the Planning Inspectorate. Following the decision that the developers appeal was valid David wrote to David Rose, the Planning Inspector in charge of the inquiry, to emphasise that he still opposes the development. The inquiry is also examining two further planning applications for the Aylesbury Vale area (Fleet Marston and Weedon Hill). David's letter to Mr Rose is below and includes a link to David’s original consultation response.
Letter to David Rose
I write in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Aylesbury with regard to the revised development proposals submitted by the Hampden Fields Consortium. Having carefully considered the amendments, I am not satisfied the primary issues raised in my initial consultation response have been adequately addressed. I have enclosed, for ease of reference, a copy of my submission to Aylesbury Vale District Council about the developer’s original proposals. (To read this please click here).
As I explained previously, I have been contacted by a large number of constituents (at the time of writing, just short of 200 people) who have all expressed profound opposition to the plans. Even with the proposed amendments, not one constituent has written to me in support of this application. As with the original plans, my constituents, as well as the local Parish Council, have submitted carefully considered, logical arguments which I would urge the Planning Inspectorate to take into account when reaching its final decision.
Furthermore, with the imminent revocation of the South East Plan, people remain concerned that this is an opportunistic application by the developers in an attempt to bypass the emerging Local Plan. The fact that an appeal was lodged just weeks after submitting their revised proposals, without adequate time for public consultation, would also seem to support this conclusion.
Both the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework place much emphasis on local community involvement and greater democracy within the planning system. Given the overwhelming volume and strength of local opposition to these proposals, I think it would be fair to say that if this application was approved, key elements of the Government’s localism agenda would have been completely disregarded.
This is a particularly large scale development which would have a permanent impact upon existing local residents and communities. The crucial concerns expressed by my constituents have related to the coalescence of the surrounding settlements and loss of community identity, the likely impact on traffic and road infrastructure, and the effect on education and health services in the area.
These concerns can only be attributed to the sheer size and scale of the proposals. I am not convinced that reducing the number of houses from 3,200 to 3,000 and reducing the plot size by a mere sixth of a hectare will quell the overwhelming level of local concern. Whilst I acknowledge the increased area of open space and green land, in no way does this mitigate the fundamental concerns that continue to cause much local unease.
I believe, therefore, that a scheme of such significance for the future of Aylesbury Vale should be subjected to detailed and thorough analysis and challenge. I will outline the primary concerns in more details below.
Coalescence and loss of community identity
As I made clear in my original consultation response, this is one of the primary concerns raised by my constituents, particularly those in the village of Weston Turville. If the development went ahead, it would essentially join the village to the main town of Aylesbury. Given the scale and density of the plans, I am not satisfied that the green belt ‘buffer’ between the application boundary and the existing settlement would allow Weston Turville to retain its own separate, independent village identity.
I have already touched upon the Government’s new planning framework which emphasises the importance of community identity and bottom up influence on local development. Whilst I recognise that the developer has made an attempt to address the risk of coalescence by increasing the areas of open space around the perimeter, I remain concerned that if this development were to go ahead, any surrounding village identity would be diminished thereby contradicting the essence of the Government’s objectives.
The developers themselves seem to readily acknowledge the close proximity of their plans to the existing settlements, including Bedgrove and Stoke Mandeville, by referring to ‘pedestrian links’ which will allow for the establishment of ‘community cohesion’. It would certainly be fair to infer from this that the development would serve to merge the surrounding settlements.
Traffic and Roads
This is another theme that has consistently been raised by my constituents in response to this application. As I stated in my initial consultation response, it is clear that main roads and in particular key junctions around Aylesbury are already operating at or close to full capacity. Both the A41 and the A413 are particularly congested during peak hours, and it is logical to assume that this problem will only become worse with the addition of 3,000 homes with an average of 2 cars per household.
The arguments on which the applicants base their assertions that any potential traffic issues are manageable are, as far I as I can see, rather questionable.
Much emphasis has been placed on the prospective ease for new residents of Hampden Fields to walk or cycle to the town centre or Stoke Mandeville station. This argument appears to be both technically flawed and to fail to take into account how people will actually behave in reality. On the technical side, the traffic model appears to work on the basis that Stoke Mandeville railway station or any other destination such as Aylesbury town centre will be attractive to reach on foot or bicycle because it is only a relatively short distance from the development site.
This argument fails to take into account the sheer size of the application’s perimeter. Whilst I acknowledge that it may only be a relatively short walk to Stoke Mandeville station from the closest edge of the site, I find it hard to believe that someone living close to the Aston Clinton Road will opt to walk or cycle the considerable distance to this station.
The same logic can be applied when considering the distances from various points of the site to Aylesbury town centre. The further south a resident lives, the more likely it would be for them to use a car in order to get into the centre, let alone the north, of Aylesbury.
Furthermore, I am not convinced that the ‘link’ road which passes through the development will act as an adequate ‘relief route’ as cars attempt to pass from the A413 to A41 and vice versa. I foresee implications arising as a result of heavy traffic combined with a high level of pedestrian activity, especially around the mixed use area. The likely impact on the existing roads running through Weston Turville also seriously needs to be considered. I think that it is almost inevitable that some of the excess traffic, whether emanating from one of the major roads or from the new development itself, would try to cut through Weston Turville village in order to find a way to avoid congestion. For example, drivers might well be tempted to go through Weston Turville village to take the lane up alongside Halton airfield in order to avoid congestion. The use of Marroway, Main Street and New Road as a rat run has already been an issue of some concern in Weston Turville for many years and I think it highly likely that, if this application was to go ahead, this problem would only continue to deteriorate.
It is also important to note that there is already a designated air quality management zone along the A41 near the junction with Oakfield Road, a sign that in this part of Aylesbury, there is already concern that air quality standards are not being met. I fail to see how, with the inevitable increase in the number of cars using the A41, pressure on the AQMA will actually be alleviated as as the applicant suggests.
NHS
Many constituents have also expressed concern about health provision.
The Chief Executive of the Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire NHS Cluster wrote to me last year to outline the potential implications that he envisaged if the development were to go ahead. He explained that, when the application is considered in isolation to the other potential developments in the Vale, the impact on the provision of Hospital services would not necessarily be cause for great concern. However, when considered in the context of other planning applications as well as those that have already been approved, he readily acknowledges that there could be notable impact on acute services.
With regard to primary care and GP surgeries, he explained that a development of this size would not actually warrant a surgery of its own and, therefore, Hampden Fields residents would have to register with existing practices which would obviously feel the effects of such an increase in population. He stated that if the Wendover Health Centre and the Aston Clinton Practice were to cope with the considerable influx of new patients from Hampden Fields, it is likely that would have to extend and modify their existing premises. I agree that, in the instance that the application was approved, the developers should be made to fund the necessary modifications mandatorily through a Section 106 agreement.
Education
It goes without saying that an application of this size will of course put pressure on school places.
I wrote to the County Council last year to request their views on the likely impact on school provision, should the development go ahead. They agreed that two primary schools on site would adequately cater for the increase in local population of primary school age, however, as I stated in my initial consultation response, the applicants should be obliged to provide the school buildings, and not simply ‘set aside’ sufficient areas of land for development at the expense of the LEA.
With regard to secondary school places, Buckinghamshire County Council has said that it would be essential for there to be some flexibility in plans for future school provision since much will depend on the overall scale of growth that is allocated or permitted in the town. Therefore, it will not be known until all outstanding planning applications have been determined and until the new Local Plan takes effect, exactly how many school places, and of which type, would be needed or where they would need to be located. This strikes me as a further argument for regarding an application on this scale as being premature. I strongly feel that any application of this nature ought to be considered in the broader context of an agreed Local Plan which can take into account the many different pressures for new housing, for new public services and for conservation and provide a coherent statement of planning policy for the district as a whole, based upon up to date evidence about local need.
I also remain concerned that the revised proposals make no specific provision for special school places, and I know that this is an issue of serious concern given the fact that special schools are experiencing pressure from increasing demand.
In sum, having studied the revised proposals in depth, I remain concerned that the applicants have based their plans on flawed logic and incorrect assumptions about how things will actually work in reality. As far as I can tell, the primary issues that were raised as a result of the original plans have not been adequately addressed. Both my constituents and the local Parish Councils have continued to identify key problems with the application which have the potential to give way to long term local damage, should development go ahead. I would urge the Planning Inspectorate to take these very grave concerns into account when considering the outcome of this application. In addition, I would also remind the relevant case officers to bear in mind the fundamental objectives of the Government’s localism objectives and ask whether this application really fulfils these principles.
