pennandtylersgreen.org.uk - Local Plans ( WDC & CDC)

Local Plans ( WDC & CDC) – Penn and Tylers Green Residents Society

Pennandtylersgreen.org.uk Spined HTML

Local Plans ( WDC & CDC) – Penn and TylersUntriedResidents Society Penn and TylersUntriedRS HomeAbout Us Residents Society GrantsVillage VoiceVillage Pre SchoolCommon Wood LocationPenn and Tylers GreenHistory Village Life Education and ChildcarePlanning and Conservation Ashwells DevelopmentLocal Plans ( WDC & CDC)Stirring in the undergrowth …. a Penn School updateVillage developments Clubs, Societies, ServicesWalksPlaces to VisitTravelPoliceCouncilJointPolitySafety Latest News News and Views ContactGallery Churches and ChapelsCommonsCommon WoodFarmsGaragesGeneralGomm ValleyHallsHouses and CottagesKingswoodPenn Parish CouncilPenn TilesPharmacy, Surgery, Care HomePubsRayners (Penn School)SchoolsShops EtcWar Memorial Village Life » Planning and Conservation » Local Plans ( WDC & CDC) Local Plans ( WDC & CDC)   Report of Mark Shaw and Sarah Gibson visit to Penn & TylersUntried31st January 2017 P&TGRS hosted a visit from Cllr Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation and Sarah Green, Senior Transport Strategy Officer, Bucks CC, pursuit an invitation to view the key traffic related issues in the village. P&TGRS were represented by Miles Green, Brian Bennett, Robert Robinson, Gill Markham, and invited guests were Ken Cooke and Gerry King representing the Ashwells Forum and Peter Miller representing the Penn School Working Group. The visitors were shown the pursuit route ( with thanks to Gerry King for chauffering) :- Village Hall to Cock Lane, noting road restrictions by the Middle School and the need for HGV “No Entry” signs, up the sharply rising entry to Ashwells, then Cock Lane to the planned point of connection to the Spine Road, on lanugo to our proposed volitional connection point (just whilom Pimms Close), up & lanugo Pimms Grove then crossing the narrow railway bridge, turning left (more yellow crosshatching requested) withal A40 then up Hammersley Lane, noting the narrow railway tunnel, the site of proposed roundabout in the middle of the steeply rising and usually immensely congested twisting hill road (just lower than Robinson Ave), then finally withal the narrow, unpavemented section running lanugo towards the Old Queens Head. A second route followed – to show the archway to Penn School, then to Hazlemere Roundabout passing the Horsefields noting the long queues when to the Mayflower pub. Although, there were many comments made during the trip, the opportunity to discuss the whole situation took place at the meeting in the Village Hall, Mark Shaw well-considered that pursuit the meeting, he and Sarah would prepare their response to the issues raised. The key points raised by all representatives during the visit. ( thanks to Ken for his notes) 1. Ken opened the discussion saying ‘Cock Lane is inappropriate for wide-stretching widening’ a. In its current form, Cock Lane is one of the defining characteristics of Penn & Tylers Green. The proposed changes will result in a loss of distinctiveness and character. It is regarded as an integral to the local landscape weft and its widening would be an wade on that character. This is recognised in the Chilterns Conservation Board guidelines for highways (jointly published, among others, with Buckinghamshire County Council) which state: “Many roads in the Chilterns are single track, with occasional passing places. They are a full-length which helps to conserve the rural weft of the area” b. There is a danger of creating a vicious whirligig by ways of so-called improvements that indulge for increasingly traffic, resulting in increased use at faster speeds, leading to safety concerns, which in turn results in the need for mitigation measures that have remoter rabble-rousing effect on the rural character. c. If safety is an issue, a straw poll of the people at the meeting (all of us have been P&TG residents for many decades), indicated nothing worse has overly happened than a minor shunt. Which goes to prove that, by reducing traffic speeds, a single track road such as Cock Lane, is inherently safe. d. This is snooping well-nigh the use of Cock Lane by pedestrians and cyclists as well as cost, how to get the weightier value out of whatever funding is misogynist to spend on Cock Lane. Far largest value would be gained for the local polity by spending the money on creating a new pathway running slantingly the east side of the hedge, and landscaping enhancements at the junctions. e. Ken terminated by quoting Chilterns Conservation Board guiding principles for the diamond of all highway works in AONB: “Unless there is an overriding safety issue, do as little as possible.” 2. Gerry King then circulated a rundown on the traffic volumes on Cock Lane and Hammersley Lane, based on Jacobs’ (Traffic consultants to BCC & WDC) own transport framework report, pointing out that categorically it does not recommend the widening of Cock Lane. a. Re Cock Lane: Jacobs own reports show that the incremental peak hour traffic spritz from all the Reserve Sites will be just 1 uneaten vehicle / minute in Cock Lane. This is not the ‘material increase in traffic flows’ that Jacobs say would necessitate an upgrade to / widening of Cock Lane. b. Other sections of the Jacobs’ report indicate Jacobs’ preference for the Spine Road to be primarily for the goody of the local residents and not be such to encourage the use by through traffic. c. Re Hammersley Lane: While the incremental flows (10 / hour + 30 / hour from Parcel 1) are not significant, any infrastructure to indulge Parcel 1 to wangle Hammersley Lane at such a geographically constrained point would have a major impact on an once jammed up roadway, so Parcel 1 should connect only to the Spine Road, not to Hammersley Lane. d. Jacobs’ own data shows that the AM peak hour spritz on the minor road that is Hammersley Lane is once as heavy as the 520 vehicles / hour heading east out ofUpperWycombe on the A404 main road. e. An spare zipper (Cock Lane) was provided to the visitors for fuller subtitle of the Jacobs overall conclusion (no widening of Cock Lane) and listed the benefits of linking the Spine Road to Cock Lane at the ‘Christmas Tree’ section of the lane, not at the top of the Spine Road, so that the upper part of the Spine Road becomes a cul-de-sac, protecting new residents from through traffic. f. Gerry King then provided upper level insights into the data on vehicle numbers, through traffic v local traffic, use of Cock Lane and Hammersley Lane. The issue of HGVs using these lands. He quoted from reports suggesting that the widening of Cock Lane was not needed, and moreover suggested the spine road concludes at the ‘ Christmas tree’ section of Cock Lane. Please see the tying papers for all the details 3. Peter Miller then provided the data on the issues virtually wangle to Penn School, ( thanks to Peter for his notes) a. For nearly 100 years Penn School has been a Special School supporting a maximum of 100 pupils plus 40-50 members of staff b. The purchase of the site by the EFA was made with the intention of opening a new 5 or 6 form of entry secondary school for up to 1000 pupils (which would moreover need well-nigh 150 staff) i.e. an order of magnitude worthier in terms of traffic movements c. The WDC planning note from Dec 2015 significantly restricts car parking on the school site which would result in wide-stretching rogue parking in the vicinity of the school d. Bucks CC is providing less bus transport resulting in increasingly car journeys e. Most pupils would travel to this school from Wycombe – exacerbating traffic flows in Hammersley Lane, Cock Lane and through the Hazlemere crossroads f. In addition, a large proportion of Y13 students momentum their own cars and this would add to parking problems in the zone g. There is a single, narrow wangle from the school site onto the B474 where there are dangerous veiling bends in both directions h. Buses and HGVs cannot pass hands on this stretch of the B474 without doing forfeiture to property on either side i. There is limited footpath provision and no street lighting in the zone j. The site is very tropical to the Londis shop, JJ’s sideboard and the First School – all of which present spare traffic and parking hazards k. A visualization on the Wave 12 self-ruling school applications is due be made by April 2017 and so Bucks CC Highways comments on the suitability of the site from a Highways perspective would be very timely and helpful as input to this decision. 4. In wing there were a number remoter points made a. Traffic flow, including the increase due to the new developments does not justify it widening the road b. The spine road should service the developments and not encourage a through route c. The untried ‘ pathway’ from the marrow of Gomm Valley to Ashwells should protract to Kingswood without a 2 way road intersecting it. d. The issue of HGVs travelling on Cock Lane / Hammersley lane were raised and a request for improved signage at the top and marrow of the lanes. ( seemed a welcome comment) e. Noted that Aldi will be built on A40 (B&Q site ) so will increase traffic on A40 f.Scuttlebuttmade of lack of minutiae on infrastructure with all the spare homes, businesses withal the A40 g. Hammersley Lane, lacks a footpath under the railway line & dangerous footpath at the PTG end h. The issue of Junction 3 & improving Junctions 3-5 Gerry King circulated an spare paper at the end of the meeting on the broader picture concerning the level of excessive out-of-area traffic flows on the life and worriedness of the village, then based on reports by Jacobs. These show that: a. Every morning at peak hour virtually 1800 to 2000 vehicles / hour spritz into and through our small village trying to find their way through to the main roads (A40 & A404), well-nigh 4 times the level of traffic generated by the village itself (460 vehicles / hour peak flow). b. The village has to suffer the same level of total through spritz as that heading east out of HW on the A40, a major trunk road. c. Hammersley Lane suffers as heavy a spritz load as the A404 main road east out of Hazlemere (520/hr). The paper asked BCC to find ways to mitigate the traffic sear on our village caused by these excessive out-of-area flows ….and plane suggested a route for a bypass. 5. Comments from Mark Shaw a.Well-consideredthat BCC had formally written to WDC & CDC expressing their snooping well-nigh the unsustainable proposed minutiae on horsefields ( they had reviewed the South Bucks/CDCUntriedBelt consultation and queried 5 GB sites including Horsefields) b. The BCC Transport Select Committee is analysing the issue of school transport for the whole county and will be reporting to Cabinet by the end of March. c. We understand that Mark has made 2 visits to Pimms Grove via invitations from the Pimms Grove Action Group. d.Scuttlebuttthat work will be washed-up at Handy Cross and that the Junc 3a will protract to be debated. —————————————————————————- We now wish to write the issues of releasing theUntriedBelt for development, this is stuff considered by both Wycombe, Chiltern & South Bucks District Councils. P&TGRS has been very zippy in providing in-depth comments to both Councils. The pursuit text was submitted to Wycombe District Council Planning Department, in September, as there is significant disquiet well-nigh the towage of theUntriedBelt particularly in relation to minutiae proposals on Hazlemere Road, Penn. Read increasingly here: webv-ptgrs-response-to-wdc-grenn-belt-1-sept-2016 Then P&TGRS submitted the pursuit to Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils responding to their Local PlanUntriedBelt public consultation. This submission is in detail and provides a strong specimen versus releasing the ‘Horsefields’ from theUntriedBelt. We are pleased to report that Wycombe District Council have withdrawn their plans to build on these fields and we hope that Chiltern and South Bucks will do the same. The document was submitted on 12 December 2016. please read increasingly here: webv-ptgrs-response-to-cdc-draft-green-belt-12-12-16 Wycombe District Council Consultation on Sustainability, to inform the content of the WDC Local Plan Draft Sustainability Appraisal of the Draft WDC Local Plan  – Comments by the Ashwells Forum.  Site: HW6 Gomm Valley and Ashwells The Ashwells Forum represents the Penn & TylersUntriedResidents Society, CWPC, and the three local residents groups most unauthentic by the proposals.  Several of the Forum members are moreover on the WDC Liaison Group. Three of the most crucial criteria are assessed at the very worst score possible of  ‘Very Negative’.  These are:Weightieruse of land including soil Transport Place-making – Creating sustainable communities Only two criteria get a ‘Very positive’: Inevitably, a) Population and  Housing; and, bizarrely, b) Education, skills and training. The text twin the colour-coded table says the following: The greater extent of housing in this option would have significant effects in terms of the loss of greenfield land and high-grade agricultural land, as well as having significant transport effects as the site is currently not tropical to existing bus services and would result in significant impacts on the highway network. As the site forms a gap betweenUpperWycombe and TylersUntriedthis option would potentially result in a significant effect on maintaining polity identity. The upper number of homes ways this option would have a significant effect in terms of providing labour supply to support the economy. The Sustainability Appraisal is described as ‘Supporting Evidence ‘ for the Draft Local Plan, but in fact, as demonstrated above, it argues strongly versus the minutiae and unequivocally supports our main concerns well-nigh loss of untried space, increased traffic with the widening of Cock Lane, and separation of communities. P&TGRS Chairman                                                                                                                                             5 September 2016 P&TGRS have significant concerns well-nigh the volume of traffic today but to add the increase in housing the traffic will be unsustainable. We have recently sent a very detailed letter to Bucks County Council and have a number of follow- up meetings planned with key officials to try to mitigate these issues. Please see the pursuit short intro from the letter and then the full document to read the details.  WYCOMBE DISTRICT COUNCIL(WDC) AND CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL(CDC) DRAFT LOCAL PLANS: TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND RELATED HIGHWAY MATTERS We corresponded last year well-nigh our local parking problems, and you were good unbearable to come and see us and met our Chairman, with Cllr Katrina Wood and other Members of the Residents  Society.  We thought we should now apprise you of our growing watchtower well-nigh traffic flows, congestion and related matters resulting from the present uncoordinated house-building plans by both WDC and CDC, and by the unshared possibility that Highways England will propose a new M40 motorway junction 3A.  read increasingly here: webv-traffic-congestion-ltr-to-bcc-18-9-16 Response to WDC Draft Local Plan We have now submitted our full response to the Wycombe District Council Draft Local Plan. the pursuit letter has been copied to all Local, District and County Councillors.  all references in the letter refer to the WDC Draft Local Plan document.  DRAFT NEW WYCOMBE DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN – CONSULTATION to read the full submission sent to Wycombe District Council – read here webv-ptgrs-response-to-wdc-draft-local-plan-1-august-2016  Posted by admin at 3:54 pm Search Ashwells DevelopmentLocal PlansStirring in the undergrowth Penn SchoolVillage Developments © 2016 Penn and TylersUntriedResidents Society WebsiteDiamondPerfect PCs (Perfect Pixels Web Design) Privacy Statement Copyright and Disclaimer Penn and TylersUntriedResidents Society Registered Charity no. 1098879 Company no: 4701734 P&TGRS does not winnow responsibility for the views of individual contributors to the website unless specifically stated Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha This website uses cookies to modernize your experience. We'll seem you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Read MorePrivacy & Cookies Policy Social Media Integration by Acurax Wordpress Developers