Posted on Mar 1st, 2011

Around 200 individual objections have been sent to AVDC's planning department so far, demonstrating that the local community rejects the Barratt Homes proposal to build 2,450 houses near Broughton Crossing. Despite this, many local residents have recently received a glossy brochure from Engage Planning on behalf of Barratts waxing lyrical about the site. However, it is just standard practice for developers to do this during the planning application process and does not mean anything new. Their claims should be taken with a pinch of salt:-

·         The photos inside the brochure are of other parts of Britain and cannot be regarded as showing what a massive housing development on existing greenfield land will really look like.

·         There is a huge funding gap between what Barratt Homes want to pay for and what the actual cost of all the infrastructure would be (eg education)

·         There is no funding for the southern leg of the Eastern Link Road and no financial commitment from anyone to ever pay for it.      

Posted on Jan 16th, 2011

Barratt Homes has lodged a planning application for 2,450 new homes on land east of Aylesbury beside Broughton Crossing. This threatened development simply will not go away!

If you opposed the Eastern Arc, we urge you to send in a written objection to this new plan to AVDC by 3 February.  If you don’t object again, Barratt Homes could tell another inspector that there were not many objections to their planning application!

How to object by email:-

• Visit www.Aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk

• Click on planning applications

• Click on “I accept” terms & conditions

• Enter plan number “10/02649” in the search box

• Click on “make a comment”

How to object by letter:-

Write to Head of Planning, AVDC, 66 High Street, Aylesbury HP20 1SD heading your letter up with: “Planning application 10/02649 Land East of Aylesbury, Broughton Crossing, Bierton” .

Why we oppose the Broughton Crossing planning application

1/ The residents action group is disappointed but not surprised that Barratt Homes has lodged a planning application with the Council for 2,450 new houses adjacent to Broughton Crossing. The site has been the subject of significant public opposition already, voiced in the 2008 eastern arc consultation and 2009 core strategy consultation. The general reaction of local residents now is that they thought this site was thrown out by the first inspector in 2002 and again by the core strategy inspector last year and they are questioning why it has come up again.

The Government Inspector in 2002 said that: “there were fundamental objections to development at Broughton Stocklake that cannot be satisfactorily overcome and that it would be a visually intrusive area of built development extending into open countryside”.

The second Government Inspector concluded last year that there were serious doubts about the overall viability of the eastern growth arc. We do not think the Broughton Crossing site is financially viable. To be commercially viable, the developers of the site say they would need more than £19 million of grant funding for their affordable homes and they would also want the Council to reduce their 106 infrastructure obligations by a staggering £58.85 million. That adds up to someone other than Barratts needing to find £78 million. That is the infrastructure funding gap for the Broughton Crossing site. It is clear to us that Barratts cannot afford to fund both part of the Eastern Link Road and some of the other infrastructure that would be vital to make the site viable. This is partly due to the high cost of flood control and ecological mitigation compared to other potential sites.

There is a cost attached to flood alleviation and ecology mitigation. If this falls to the developers, it leaves less available for other infrastructure costs. Moreover, the proposed primary schools and reserved space for a secondary school would be difficult to fund, bearing in mind the problems Bucks CC already has with its resources.

In terms of traffic, we feel it is important that people are not taken in by the idea that a development at Broughton Crossing could help solve the town’s traffic problems. It would add to them! It was accepted in the core strategy hearings last year that proportionately more cars would be on the road if the Broughton Crossing site was developed than any other alternative site. The site is also not the best alternative for encouraging bus travel.

By putting 5,000 more cars on the road from a Broughton Crossing development, with no certainty that the southern section of an Eastern Link Road would ever be completed, it is impossible to expect that there would be any improvement in traffic flows into or out of Bierton on the A418. More roundabouts and traffic lights equals more congestion on our roads.

2/ At a recent AVDC cabinet meeting, Councillors voiced support for the idea of localism and the right of local people to decide the level of new housing needed in their area. The Broughton Crossing proposal certainly does not fit into that concept. The residents action group will be registering strong objections to this planning application.

If you submitted comments to AVDC last year about the core strategy then you may have received by post a letter from Programme Officer Lynette Duncan, enclosing the inspector’s interim report and an invitation to comment on it by 2 July.

If so, read on.

We are currently preparing the action groups’ detailed responses to the inspector’s interim report. If you also intend to respond but would like some individual advice from us, please email this website.

Do not worry about points 1 and 2 in the inspector’s interim report – these are technical matters which we will answer. As a local resident, you should concentrate on point 3 onwards. You will almost certainly agree with the inspector’s serious concerns about the eastern arc.

The independent planning inspector has issued an interim report which says:-

I have some serious concerns about the strategy for a growth arc to the east of Aylesbury which could lead to a finding that the core strategy is unsound, because the proposals do not represent the most appropriate strategy when compared with alternatives.”

The inspector has concluded

“...I consider my concerns about the EGA to be sufficiently serious to justify asking the Council to reconsider its approach before proceeding further with my examination of the core strategy.”

The inspector has highlighted some key reasons why he does not believe that the eastern growth arc to the north and south of Bierton and east of Watermead is the most suitable option:

• Landscape impact
• Costs of ecology mitigation
• Costs of flood alleviation
• Overall viability
• The serious impact on the communities of Bierton and Broughton Crossing.

We agree with the inspector that the Council must consider Fleet Marston. He identifies that Fleet Marston would have less impact on existing communities and has a number of key benefits going for it – not least its proximity to the new Parkway station. Fleet Marston came out well in the hearings and is a more viable option than the North East and East options within the eastern arc. We note that the only site in the eastern arc that the inspector appears to favour is the South East site.

Now that the regional strategy for housing supply is to be abolished by the new Government, AVDC has an opportunity to reduce the enormous number of homes proposed, the obvious way being at most two sites instead of three. This would lessen the negative impacts of development on existing Aylesbury Vale residents, such as years of major road works. However, the inspector has said the Council should investigate combining Fleet Marston with the South East site and one other site.

We understand why the Council is reluctant to start again, having already wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds of local taxpayers’ money advocating the wrong sites. However, if the Council finds it must proceed to re-examine three growth arc sites around the town, then this should not include the North East (Watermead/Bierton) or East (Broughton Crossing) sites.

We are delighted that the voice of local residents has finally been heard. It is clear to us that the eastern arc is now terminally ill and we await the announcement in due course that it is dead!

Councillors criticise draft housing master plan

Posted on Jan 3rd, 2010

Your action group and Parish Councillors attended the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 14 December to protest about the draft master plan for the eastern arc, particularly the lack of buffer zones and the absence of green space within the developments. We were pleased to hear a torrent of criticism from District Councillors in the committee. Here are some of their comments:-

·         “We were told in May the villages would be protected by a green buffer zone. We must protect our villages. I wasn’t convinced then and I’m not convinced now.” (Andrew Cole, Conservative)

·          “The two areas of green space in the East and North East SDA’s are not part of the development at all. Surely this has to be wrong. Why can’t we have a similar sort of protection to Bierton and Watermead as afforded to the South East SDA?” (Alan Sherwell, Liberal Democrat)

·         “To include the green space north of the link road as 50% of the North East SDA is pushing it to say the least.” (Steve Patrick, Liberal Democrat)

·         “Watermead is an established community. They should be allowed to keep their identity.” (Jenny Puddefoot, Liberal Democrat)

·         “Why are the green buffers not nearer the housing?” (Jenny Bloom, Conservative)

·         “We need to revisit this master plan.” (Derrick Isham, Conservative).

AVDC Head of Planning responded: “There are some issues we need to reflect on and other points will come up during the consultation process....the consultation process is the right place for that.”

MAKE SURE YOU TELL THE PLANNERS WHAT YOU THINK OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLANS AT THE FORTHCOMING PUBLIC EXHIBITIONS FROM 3PM UNTIL 7PM AT JUBILEE HALL IN BIERTON ON 26 JANUARY AND WATERMEAD VILLAGE HALL ON 29 JANUARY.

Action group criticises Council‘s green infrastructure strategy

Posted on Jan 3rd, 2010

AVDC published their green infrastructure strategy for the Vale and invited responses by 31 December 2009 (you’d be forgiven for not realising this was going on).

Your action group has told the Council that we disagree with the strategy because of the proposed location of Riverside Park north of the Northern Link Road (NLR), by the river Thame and the Wetlands Park east of the Eastern Link Road (ELR), for five reasons:-

1.       They will not be easily accessible for residents who would LOSE much of their existing green space

2.       Placing the parks north of the NLR and east of the ELR will simply encourage motorised transport to reach it, going against the strategy to reduce car use

3.       The strategy  ignores the needs of local residents in Watermead, Bierton and Broughton Crossing who want green infrastructure as a buffer against the proposed new developments

4.       The parks will have restricted and uncertain use because of the conflict between ecology and human recreation

5.       There is a lack of green space in the AGA North East housing development master plan, which will result in new residents congregating by Watermead lake due to lack of alternatives.

Action group prepares for first day of inspector’s public hearings

Posted on Jan 3rd, 2010

Your action group and Parish Councils have prepared statements for the first of the Government Inspector’s hearings on 2 February 2010 at the Civic Centre in Aylesbury, commencing at 10am. The first day, which will last until 5pm with an hour for lunch is called “Core Strategy Overview”. The main points we will be putting across on that day include:-

·         The Core Strategy is not compliant with national policy guidance as the eastern arc is the wrong choice due to its good agricultural land, most ecological sites, flood risk, conservation areas and excessive car use

·         The eastern arc is not the best choice to deliver sustainable development as the southern arc  is a more suitable urban extension with better opportunities for walking, cycling, bus routes and rail

·         The Sustainability Appraisal shows a clear preference for the southern arc and should also have assessed northern options

·         The 2008 consultation did not provide a true reflection of public opinion as northern options were excluded

·         The Core Strategy is inconsistent in its treatment of villages – Newton Longville and Weston Turville are to be protected but Bierton, Broughton Crossing and Watermead are to get no buffer zone. We would lose our settlement identity

·         The Core Strategy fails to acknowledge that the Interim Viability Assessment lists a number of unknown variables that would considerably increase the cost of development, making it unviable.

RESIDENTS ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THE HEARING SESSIONS AS AN OBSERVER  

Massive opposition to AVDC's controversial Core Strategy

Posted on Sep 22nd, 2009

Around 900 people, bodies or organisations responded to AVDC's Core Strategy and in most cases made a number of responses on different parts of the document. Many thanks to all those of you who wrote to tell the inspector of your disagreement. Our action groups submitted nearly 100 pages of objections and there were also strong objections sent in by our local Parish Councils - Bierton with Broughton, Hulcott, Watermead and Weedon.

We have also seen objections from developers. For example, Fleet Marston developers said: "The Council's subsequent selection of the eastern arc is without foundation in either the sustainability appraisal or the evidence available more generally.... It is not financially viable....There should be no development at all north of Bierton". A developer in the southern arc told the inspector: "The Council's own evidence concludes clearly that the most appropriate option is the southern arc....the Council concludes that if Broughton Crossing is developed, significant mitigation/compensation would be required and that as a consequence there would be a net ecological benefit. This rationale is perverse, flawed and contrary to Government guidance."  

So, we are not alone in voicing our opposition and we now await AVDC's summary of these objections and their response 'defending' their Core Strategy. 

A Tory Government would allow Councils to "change elements which are particularly unpopular"

Posted on Sep 15th, 2009

Our protests will continue until the housing threat is lifted!

Tory Shadow Minister Caroline Spelman MP has recently written to Tory Councillors spelling out what will happen if the Conservatives return to Government next year. In the letter she says: "Local authorities will be able to review the housing local development frameworks imposed by Labour's regional strategies. This would take the form of a partial revision by councils - changing elements which are particularly unpopular or undesirable. However, there is no intention of going back to square one in terms of planning." In the meantime, she continues, local councils should prepare both for the continuation of current government policy in the event of a Labour win and for a change of Government policy in the event of a Tory win.

 Hence, AVDC Council planners have said that their role is to 'defend' the Core Strategy enroute to the inspector.

 What this means is that local residents should continue to attack the eastern arc proposals at every stage, including the masterplan and not let the Council get away with ignoring our opposition.

What's happening next?

Posted on Sep 15th, 2009

We have been asked by residents when they can expect a response to the views they submitted for the inspector on the Core Strategy. Here's the timetable:-

• Submission of AVDC Core Strategy to Government October 2009
• Summary of comments made by the public and AVDC's responses October (or November) 2009
• Inspector holds pre-hearing (ie preliminary) meeting December 2009
• Inspector holds examination of Core Strategy February/March 2010 

Although AVDC should notify residents who responded to the Core Strategy when the summary of comments has been published, we will also keep you updated of news.

As well as the Core Strategy, another important event will happen quite soon. Bierton, Broughton Crossing, Hulcott, Weedon, Watermead and Elmhurst residents will be given the opportunity to consider the "masterplan" layout for the eastern arc in roving exhibitions by AVDC around January/February 2010. This masterplan will not be considered by the inspector as part of his/her remit. Southern arc developers have however told the inspector that they: "do not consider detailed masterplanning can overcome fundamental issues of actual and perceived coalescence of development with Bierton." Get ready to voice your opinions when the time comes!

YOUR OPINION WILL COUNT! This is your last chance!

Posted on Jun 22nd, 2009

We are now at the stage of the process where there is an opportunity to object to an INDEPENDENT Government Inspector.  It is important that your voice is heard. To effectively enable you to object to 6,000 houses swamping the local villages and communities of Bierton, Watermead, Broughton & Hulcott, we, your Residents Action Group, have thoroughly examined the AVDC’s Core Strategy document and compiled an easy and yet comprehensive guide on how to complete the objection form. Each adult in the household could complete a form. Also try to encourage your friends, family and neighbours to complete the form. The more people who object, the more chance we have of making an impact with the inspector!

Don’t Miss Your Chance To Tell The Government Inspector You Object To The Eastern Arc

Posted on Jun 2nd, 2009

For a six week period from 10th June, we all have the opportunity to tell an INDEPENDENT Government Inspector that we think the AVDC got it wrong when they chose the eastern arc as the direction of growth in their core strategy.

It’s important that each of us fills in the form that will go via AVDC to the Inspector. Around the middle of June, we’ll provide advice on this website about how to complete the form correctly and effectively. We are awaiting final details of the procedure from AVDC.

Come along to a public meeting, hosted by Bierton with Broughton Parish Council and the Bierton, Broughton, Hulcott and Watermead residents action group. At the meeting, we will update you and explain how to obtain and complete a form to make your views known to the Inspector.

AT 7.30PM ON MONDAY 15 JUNE. AT THE JUBILEE HALL, BIERTON

Many Reasons Why The Core Strategy Is Unsound

Posted on Jun 2nd, 2009

The Government Inspector’s job is to decide whether or not the Council’s core strategy is sound. We have reviewed the draft version of the core strategy and await the final version. We consider the core strategy to be unsound for the following reasons:-

1. The evidence still favours the southern arc
2. The eastern arc proposal is not supported by the comparison of the options in the sustainability appraisal
3. The southern growth arc has much less environmental constraints – landscape, biodiversity and flood risk
4. In its response to the previous core strategy in 2007, the Environment Agency stated: “Before allocating sites or areas for development, the local planning authority should apply the sequential test from government policy PPS25. This should demonstrate how the local authority has identified all reasonably available sites and directed development to those at lower flood risk.” The Environment Agency said in April 2009 that: “In terms of overall flood risk the eastern arc performs worst.”
5. The evidence informing the core strategy fails to justify why development at Broughton Crossing is capable of conserving and enhancing wildlife – mitigation remains a serious doubt. The decision was made to choose the eastern arc when the ecological study had not been completed. This went against the views of Bucks CC, which had said in its submission: “There needs to be a full understanding of the ramifications of developing in the east for ecology PRIOR to a decision being undertaken.”
6. The higher costs for flood alleviation measures, ecology mitigation, water supply and sewerage in the eastern arc will adversely affect other infrastructure funding such as schools and community facilities
7. The viability study shows that the infrastructure costs are not viable for developers
8. The eastern arc will rely more on car use and will result in many more car journeys per day by 2026 than the southern arc
9. The consultation failed to consider all reasonable alternatives and demonstrate why the eastern arc is superior to alternatives. The northern options (Fleet Marston, Berryfields East and higher density at Berryfields) should have been assessed side by side with the other options
10. There is no clear explanation as to why the combined option (the southern arc reduced by placing 1600 houses at Broughton Crossing) was rejected
11. The consultation booklet was biased on eastern link road delivery and this affected how some people responded. Developers for the site between Bierton and Watermead will NOT be helping to fund the eastern link road, yet the impression was given that the eastern arc was required to fund the eastern link road
12. Bierton and Watermead would be engulfed by the proposals, whereas Bucks CC said in response to the previous version of the core strategy in 2007 that: “There are many relative points made about social cohesion but nothing about the creation of green buffers to prevent coalescence. The Council would like to see explicit reference within the policy approach about their creation, their form and how they will be maintained.” This is NOT covered in the new core strategy.
13. The employment proposals in the core strategy fail to show how jobs will grow in line with the new housing
14. We know from our discussions with various prominent people that the choice of the eastern arc was pre-determined by council leaders BEFORE the public consultation commenced. By way of example, there was no dialogue with southern developers after April 2008

Action group calls for review of road funding costs

Posted on Mar 26th, 2009

One of the main reasons given for the re-consultation was road funding.

At the AVDC Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting last Monday night, the residents' action group read out a statement calling for the road costing comparison between the southern arc and the eastern arc to be revisited in the light of the bridges issue.

This resulted from the action group initiating an investigation into rail bridge costs for the southern arc after an AVDC cabinet member claimed on 10th March that the two bridges that would be necessary to cross rail lines in the southern arc would cost £30 million "and that's each I might add".

At the Environment Scrutiny Committee, Council officer Martin Dalby confirmed our finding that the cost of the bridges would be in the region of £4.5m (and that's not each we might add).

However there would be an expectation that Network Rail would want an uplift from the development value.

We'll keep you posted on this issue. 

The evidence still points south

Posted on Mar 26th, 2009

Speaking at a public meeting in Bedgrove in June 2007, Councillor Carole Paternoster is reported by the Bucks Herald to have said: "The officers hadn't received all the information until last week but all the evidence points towards a southern growth arc from Aylesbury."

In November 2008, John Byrne, Head of Planning at AVDC addressed the Greater Aylesbury Local Area Forum.  This is what he said: "The core strategy will allocate strategic sites, supported and guided by technical advice and sustainability appraisal."

Then, on 27 February 2009, the following quote appeared on AVDC's own website: "John Byrne, Head of Planning, said that based on the technical aspects of the choices, the southern growth arc still came out as the slightly better option."

In the same article, it said the eastern arc is to be recommended to AVDC's cabinet as the preferred option for the 10,000 houses.

Eh? We ask: Exactly whose preferred option?

Eastern arc 'not a political decision' claims AVDC

Posted on Mar 26th, 2009

The Bucks Herald reported last week on the Cabinet Meeting of 10th March.

The report began: "Claims that the decision to locate 10,000 new homes to the east of Aylesbury was politically motivated have been dismissed by cabinet members.  The recommendation was rubber stamped by the cabinet meeting in which 250 people packed into the Civic Centre to hear the debate...Many speakers pointed out that growth in the east would affect mainly Lib Dem wards rather than the Conservative wards to the south.  When the decision was reached, the public gallery erupted with people shouting 'fix' and 'you should be ashamed' lasting for about five minutes.  However members of the cabinet deny the decision was a political one."

Council withdraws false claim after action group contests it

Posted on Mar 24th, 2009

Your action groups expose council 'spin'

Posted on Mar 18th, 2009

The Bucks Herald Reports what the people who live in and around Aylesbury REALLY think...

"The authorities have got the decision on the direction of Aylesbury's housing growth wrong and should have chosen the south instead of the east."

Read the rest of the article...

Many thanks to the hundreds of residents who attended the meeting and saw first hand what a farce the Cabinet ‘debate’ was. We fight on!

We issued the following press statement after the Cabinet meeting, which was on 10 March.

"We do not know how the AVDC Cabinet could have come to the decision it did with some reports still not available, unless it was pre-determined. We remain convinced that the evidence as it stands still does not support a decision to go east, despite the best efforts of the Council officers.

We will not just fade away. This is unfortunately going to be a fight to the finish, which is not good for the reputation of the town.

If you bear in mind the development at Weedon Hill, Berryfields and now a developer’s proposal at Fleet Marston, does it really seem right to build more than 17,000 houses to the north and east of the town and not one single house to the south? Just what is going on here?

We call upon both political parties to publicly announce a free vote of District Councillors at the forthcoming full Council meeting towards the end of April. By then, all Councillors should have had the opportunity to review the completed evidence first hand”.

On Tuesday 10^TH March at 6.30PM the AVDC Cabinet meets in public in the Maxwell Hall in the Civic Centre to decide the direction of housing growth at Aylesbury

The consultation period is over and many residents submitted their comments to the Council in December. However, it doesn’t end there. If you oppose 6,000 houses being built alongside Watermead, Bierton and Broughton Crossing, come along to the Maxwell Hall on 10th March and listen to the debate.

If you live in Bierton, Broughton Crossing, Hulcott or Watermead you should be receiving the attached letter at the start of March. It provides more details on the cabinet meeting and why you should attend. To view the letter click here.

Download

These are some posters that you can print out and put up on your property to show your support for Saying No to the Eastern Growth Arc.

Download

As well as submitting a very detailed response to the consultation in December, we have sent three factsheets to AVDC Councillors since January. They explain why the southern growth arc is the best option and why site C and site G are the wrong choice. To view or download these factsheets click below.

Government Planning Policies Point to The SOUTHERN ARC

Why the Southern Growth Arc remains the correct choice

Why Site C is The Wrong Choice

Why Site G is The Wrong Choice

In AVDC's Own Report!

We have extracted this from the sustainability appraisal and allocated a simple scoring system as outlined in the key. It provides a useful summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the three proposals on offer and will help with the completion of the questionnaire.

It also clearly shows that the Eastern and Combined Growth Arcs are the two worst options.