Consultation responses in relation to Abbey Barn South

Development Brief

May June 2016

A: Statutory and Non-Statutory Consultees

Communities Department, Wycombe District Council Queen Victoria Road High

Wycombe Bucks HP11 1BB

p30 Transport The brief mentions a requirement for cycle and pedestrian paths joining the

play areas with the residential development but not that these paths should be disabled user

friendly, or joining up the areas within The Ride itself to enable disabled users to easily

access all facilities.

p31 Air Quality/ Noise The area is highlighted as having poorer air quality/ higher noise

levels in parts (including the allotment area). Are there any implications for allotment use

even if the allotment passes the soil quality tests? It should also be noted that we are still

waiting for results of the soil surveys on the allotment site p39 Recreation & Leisure There is

no mention of the baseball pitches in the existing use of the site. These will need to be

reprovided as part of the proposed development. These are briefly covered on p75 but the

requirement should be clearer.

p38 Community & Culture There is no mention of any additional community facilities being

required, only a very brief note about the new community hall on Pine Trees. A community

room is required.

p48 Design Response Mentions ‘proposed community facilities’ but no further information on

what this would include- is this the new community room required under the Community

Facilities Strategy requirements set out in our briefing note?

p60 The Ride Covers the construction of a building for public use. No further details covering

location or purpose. It is not clear whether the it could be located on The Ride (the same

space is identified as a possible site for 2 different options)

p61 Sports Pitches The sports requirements follow our briefing note, with 1 x playing field, a

cricket pitch and changing facilities. However there is no clear indication of how many teams

the changing facilities should accommodate (4 teams were specified).

p60/61 Play Areas There is mention of a MUGA being required, but no specific location

identified on the plans. No further information on the types of play equipment required or the

size of the areas.

p60/61 Allotments There is no mention of the proposed access route to the allotments; only

that it will be served by a ‘dedicated access and parking’. We believe it will be via the

employment area on the RAF Daws Hill site from a brief mention elsewhere.

p75/76 Public Open Space There is no mention of the MUGA. Location of the trim train and

other play areas is unclear as the plan is of very poor quality.

p96 Management & Maintenance Some of the facilities to be adopted by WDC, but no

specifics. General I think it is worth noting that the plans, photos and maps that they have

used to illustrate the document and their proposals are all of appalling quality. This makes it

very difficult to see what the intentions actually are, especially for the site layout plans.

General The s106 Agreement should be structured to prevent the development being

completed without the required sports, allotment, community and play facilities being fully

provided. It should state an agreed % of completed dwellings which would act as an end

date for the full provision of the agreed facilities (sports, allotment, community and play).

*****************************************************************************************************

Housing: Wycombe District Council

The Housing Service of the District Council welcomes the proposed inclusion of affordable

housing - in accordance with policy.

Principal Housing Officer Strategy and Enabling, Environment Service, Wycombe District

Council

*******************************************************************************************************

Highway Authority, Buckinghamshire County Council, County Hall, Aylesbury

3.16.2 Routes through Keep Hill wood are unsuitable for all users of the development due to

security ie the lack of lighting and overlooking in the dark and the sympathetic materials

used for the construction of the footway surface is unlikely to be practical for all users

mobility requirements. 3.16.5 (Transport cont) " provide suitable facilities for a frequent high

quality bus service through the site , linking to Handy Cross hub, the town centre, bus and

train station". I note the Wycombe Summit planning proposal does not include a vehicle link

to the Abbey Barn South site. The development site is not large enough to qualify a bus

route to enter the site off Abbey Barn lane. In order to access a bus route residents will need

to walk through on the pedestrian linkages to Abbey Barn South to access a bus stop which

should be in walking distance of Wycombe Summit. The transport and access opportunities

of the Wycombe Summit site are dependent on the development and implementation of

transport infrastructure associated with the development of the Abbey Barn South site. In the

absence of Abbey Barn South the Wycombe Summit site does not meet National and Local

Planning policy requirements.

************************************************************************************************

Natural England

Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received by Natural England on

04 May 2016.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that

the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present

and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England is satisfied that the Development Brief addresses the main impacts and

opportunities for the natural environment associated with future development in the Abbey

Barn South and Wycombe Summit areas of High Wycombe.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you

have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

********************************************************************************************************

Strategic Access Officer, Rights of Way Officer, Buckinghamshire County

Council

Much of the development brief is supported from a rights of way perspective,

including surface improvements inside and outside the development, outlined in

paragraph 6.4.4. The following two elements are worth highlighting in this

response:

1) Co-ordination with any legal work that will emerge as part of 16/06045/FUL at Wycombe Summit to divert public footpaths. This appears to be underway, as outlined in paragraph 10.3. While the outcome

of Wycombe Summit remains uncertain, it seems likely that a diversion proposal

will delete that section of footpath HWU/58/1 leading to Abbey Barn Lane and

the alternative will pass to the north of that development (A – B – F: green line on

Extract 1). The application also proposes the creation of a route leading towards

the area proposed as the new access road for this development (near B – E:

blue line on Extract 1):

2) Creating a safe and convenient, legally defined route for cyclists and walkers to connect from A (see Plan 1 below), possibly to B, then onward to any future opportunities alongside Daws Hill Lane and Heath End Road. The legal status of a walking and cycling route could be achieved by dedication of a

bridleway under Section 25 Highways Act 1980. The network of routes indicated on Extract

2 (in green) below suggest this can largely be achieved, but attractive onward walking and

cycling connections are needed that link users conveniently to Winchbottom Lane (for

cyclists) and any route that might be provided in future alongside Daws Hill Lane and Heath

End Road for walkers and cyclists wishing to access Amersham & Wycombe College (High

Wycombe Campus & Sixth Form Centre) and Flackwell Heath. These destinations could

then be added to paragraph 6.4.1. The brief outlines a non-lit leisure route along the

Deangarden Wood buffer and this seems the ideal route of the suggested bridleway above.

Paragraph 6.4.4 suggests the applicant has this in mind to deliver.

Extract 2

***************************************************************************************************************************

County Education, Buckinghamshire County Council

No comment.

******************************************************************************************************

Little Marlow Parish Council

WDC Consultation exercise on Abbey Barn South and Wycombe Summit Development Brief

Little Marlow Parish Council would like to put down a marker that it remains

concerned about the impact the development of the Abbey Barn South and

Wycombe site will have on the existing infrastructure serving the communities

neighbouring these sites, including Little Marlow. The issues of most concern to our

parishioners are the additional strain this new development will put on the roads in

our parish, particularly Winchbottom Lane, and the ability of the Little Marlow

Sewage Treatment works to cope satisfactorily with the growth in catchment. The

Parish Council has already flagged up these concerns in its response to the

consultation on the Wycombe Reserve Sites Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

The Brief acknowledges (para 6.5) that "the vehicular impact on all local connections

will need to be considered in a Transport Assessment" and mentions some of the

road improvements which will be required including reducing the speed on Abbey

Barn Lane and Heath End Road to 40mph or lower. While this seems a sensible

proposal , it is likely to lead to an increase in traffic using Winchbottom Lane which

will become even more of a rat run than it is already unless similar speed restrictions

are introduced. The Brief says (para 3.16) that the site offers opportunities to

"provide resources to improve local junctions, roads and sustainable transport

infrastructure, as part of a considered and co-ordinated modelling lead proposal for

High Wycombe, based on the impact of all the reserve development sites". We

consider some of these resources should be used to introduce traffic calming

measures on Winchbottom Lane, particularly near the houses at both ends of the

Lane to discourage traffic from Abbey Barn South using the Lane as a rat-run.

The Council was both surprised and disappointed at the lack of detail in the section on utilities (para 3.19) in the Development Brief and the fact that sewage is not even mentioned. The brief states that "There is no utility infrastructure within the site that will constrain the proposed development" and "The utility companies have stated that

the development can be connected to existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the site" but discussion with the utility companies seems to have been postponed until the time of development which arguably is too late to ensure that the existing infrastructure will be able to cope with the additional requirement. Thames Water has acknowledged that "in terms of the capacity of the Little Marlow Sewage Treatment the likely increased housing targets in Wycombe, including the development of the reserve

sites means that the sewage works will need to be upgraded in the corning years and sooner than previously anticipated". Whilst the Parish Council is aware that the purpose of the Development Brief is to provide the vision, the development principles and the broad framework which will guide and inform any subsequent planning application, it considers that the brief should say more about how the utility infrastructure requirements like sewage treatment will be met.

*******************************************************************************************************

B: The public, landowners, residents associations etc.

Flackwell Heath Residents’ Association

There are a number of typos and other mistakes in the brief. We respectfully suggest that

before final publication the Brief is very carefully proof read.

Page 12, 3.1.4 -The recreation of the chalk meadows is a positive enhancement of the

Wycombe Summit site.

Page 13 and subsequent pages showing diagrams of the Abbey Barn South site appear to

also include Deangarden Wood giving the impression that Deangarden Wood is also

available for development. Perhaps the development site only could be outlined in red and

the wood in a different colour. The suggested connectivity of Deangarden and Keephill

Woods is another positive asset.

Page 22 - The diagram is misleading due to the footpaths and boundary being the same

colour and in similar notation. It would be helpful if different colours were used.

Page 23 – We agree with the retention of the landscape features as they will enhance the

area.

Page 28, 3.15.2 – The rights of way should be maintained but we would have no difficulty

with realignment as necessary to make them more practical.

Page 31, 3.17.1 – The diagrams are confusing as equivalent keys have not been used on

the comparable diagrams.

Page 31, 3.18.1 – We need to be assured that an up to date Air Quality Assessment and its

area will be included in the planning application for the site.

Page 36, 3.23.4 – We are pleased that the site’s GI assets will mostly be preserved by

development being restricted to the arable fields in the main and also that the redevelopment

of the Summit site will give the opportunity to improve the management of Deangarden

Wood and the formalisation of public access.

Page 46, 4.2.4 and 4.2.5 and Page 47, 4.2.8, 4.2.10 and 4.2 12 – All of these principals are

important and should be adhered to.

Page 47, 4.2.11 – The proposed eastern vehicular access needs particular attention due to

the proximity of the Summit access.

Page 48 - Mixed use is essential. Also there must be a mix of housing types providing

homes for residents from diverse backgrounds. It is also important that the residential

development is protected from M40 noise.

Page 49, 4.4.2 – Good that pockets of development will have distinct architectural character

as they help develop a sense of place.

Page 51, 4.5.8 – We are pleased to see the integrity of The Ride is being maintained by the

proposed entrance to the new employment area being through the Pine Trees business

development. We feel should the remaining strip of land be developed into allotments its

vehicular access should also be via the business development and not across the ride. We

note however on Page 54 the diagram shows an indication of a proposed secondary route

(we take this to mean vehicular, cycle and pedestrian) along the edge of The Ride. We do

not find this acceptable – see comment re: 4.5.8.

4.5.11 – It is important that a footpath between Abbey Barn South and the Summit is

developed.

4.5.12 – We agree the portion of the site viewed from the North i.e. across the valley is

treated sympathetically to prevent a built up form marring the view.

Page 52, 4.6.1 – Delivery of 40% affordable housing is important however it must be

ensured that it meets need. Hence housing requirements need to be carefully assessed by

the relevant authority and it may be that the requirements for socially rented housing are

different to those for shared ownership.

4.6.2 – We agree that drainage should be used as a feature.

4.6.2 – It is also important that the rights of way are in the RIGHT place, otherwise they

won’t be used and the linkage to other neighbourhoods could be facilitated by this means

(Page 53, 4.6.3).

Page 53, 4.6.4 – It is an excellent idea to encourage the use of public transport but we

wonder how this is to be achieved as we feel at present the frequency and timings are

incompatible with the working day and the leisure evenings and weekends.

4.6.4 – We are in favour of house typologies encouraging social interaction and cohesion

however we have seen developments where there are numerous complaints regarding noise

etc. when elderly residents are placed next to housing with small children (one such site

where this was evident from comments to us from residents was visited in 2015’s Quality

Counts Tour). Hence the mixing of housing and other facilities needs to be given careful

consideration.

Page 55, 4.7.2 – We have concerns regarding the noise barriers to the M40. Firstly we note

the proposal for these does not cover the employment area and we would hope to see

calculations showing these are not necessary for this land. Our main concern however is

this is a separate project promoted by the M40 group and there is therefore no certainty it

will go ahead.

Page 59, 5.1.2 – Placement of Senior Living Accommodation needs to be very carefully

considered. See comment on Page 53, 4.6.4.

5.1.3 – Mixed affordable and market housing is proposed but will this be totally practical i.e.

maintenance or will the market housing have a service charge to cover these aspects and

facilities such as up keep of public spaces etc?

Page 61, 5.7.1 – Whilst we understand the requirement of providing sports facilities we feel

the loss of the kick-about area due to the apparently single storey, one form entry school

being extended to become two form entry could be avoided with forward planning with the

provision of a two storey school as it is recognised there will be a deficit of school places for

these age groups. This would preserve the kick-about area and negate the need for

additional sports facilities on land east of Abbey Barn Lane and land between the M40 and

Heath End Road and the erosion of green space between Abbey Barn Lane and Flackwell

Heath. We have concerns the air quality is not sufficiently good enough for sports. Also as

U17/U18 matches are likely to be played in the evenings or weekends; parking, noise and

light pollution have not been taken into consideration. This could be enabled by the

developers making a contribution to the improvement of existing sports provision already

available in the area for these age groups and not providing this provision on the site.

Page 64, 6.0.2 - As in our comments on the Wycombe Summit application we feel that a

right turn lane on Heath End Road for Abbey Barn Lane when travelling from Flackwell

Heath and one for Winchbottom Lane when travelling from Daws Hill Lane would facilitate

smoother traffic flow. The Heath End Road/Abbey Barn Lane/Winchbottom Lane junctions

are currently unlit at all times; particularly in winter we consider that lighting would improve

road safety. We also suggest as per our comments for the Wycombe Summit site that not

only should there be a right turn only lane for accessing this site from the Kingsmead area

but also there should be similar to access the Abbey Barn South site.

Page 64, 6.0.3 – We agree that employment uses must gain access to this site from the Pine

Trees employment access road.

Page 65, 6.1.2 – The unallocated parking on site must be sufficient to accommodate not only

visitors to The Ride and residential properties but also service and other vehicles so that the

site is not littered with unauthorised parking.

Page 68, 6.5.3 – We would agree with the lowering of the speed limits on both Heath End

Road and Abbey Barn Lane.

Page 69, 6.7.1 – The Buckinghamshire new parking standards of October 2015 should be

strictly adhered to or bettered.

6.7.3 – We agree that parking on individual plots is preferable.

Page 74 & 76 – The diagram shows the old RAF Daws Hill site and not the new Pine Trees

site which might promote confusion because of the positioning of the original and new

schools.

Page 75, Indicative Public Open Space Framework diagram – We now note there is a

possibility of a community/leisure building at the eastern end of The Ride. Whilst we have

no objection to this in principle the access and parking must run adjacent to Abbey Barn

Lane with no access to The Ride in order to preserve the integrity of The Ride. Perhaps an

alternative use could be a retirement facility with the advantage that there would be activity

24/7 lessening the prospect of anti-social and inappropriate behaviour on The Ride.

Also we are not sure why the locations for play and other open air uses are all in a straight

line on one side of The Ride, we wonder if it might be better to spread these over both sides

of The Ride.

Page 77, 7.3 – We agree that the incorporation of the SuDs strategy into the Green

Infrastructure network, including attenuation ponds in The Dell is a positive approach.

Page 82, 8.1.2 – We agree that 2 -21/2 storeys should generally be the maximum height.

Page 83, 8.2.1 – The impact of the development on views from the other side of the valley

must be mitigated and therefore heights of built form should be restricted to a maximum of 2

storeys in the visible areas?

Pages 83-87 – Character areas are important to give a sense of place.

Page 96, 10.6.1 – A management company is essential to preserve the future appearance of

the site and service charges should be paid by all tenures.

Page 97 – We note this page is incorrectly titled.

We note that no consideration appears to have been given to secondary education. Whilst

we appreciate this cannot be offered on site this will need careful consideration to ensure

that the locations of this do not give rise to large movements of traffic at peak times.

We understand transport and other infrastructure are being dealt with separately.

Flackwell Heath Residents’ Association

Chair of Planning & Environment

*********************************************************************************************************

Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum (DHNF) Daws Hill Neighbourhood Forum (DHNF) have had representatives attend the Abbey Barn South Liaison Group and The Reserve Sites Infrastructure Roundtable meetings. We have read the Abbey Barn South Development Brief, the Hambledon Land Ltd planning application for Wycombe Summit (1606045FUL), and the Wycombe Reserve Sites Infrastructure Delivery Plan. As a Neighbourhood Forum, we recognise that (re)development is necessary, and we are

not against (re)development in the district. We are however very concerned at the quantum, nature and appropriateness of development at each of the reserve sites individually and in combination, when taken in combination with other local developments recently completed — Wycombe Marsh, St Michael’s School expansion, the John Lewis expansion, Next, High Heavens, the Gas Board Site, Hughenden Quarter … all in the southern part of Wycombe, and in combination with the two large developments bordering our NF: Pinetrees and handy cross hub. Given our Neighbourhood Area is between Pinetrees and Handy Cross, and given that the only major non-motorway east-west route in the southern part of Wycombe — Daws Hill Lane — runs through the Neighbourhood Area, we experience the impact of these current and recent developments acutely, and are concerned about the additional impact of the Reserve Sites when those sites are built out. We say again: DHNF are not against (re)development, as long as it does not adversely impact the quality of life for our Neighbourhood Forum members. In terms of infrastructure — specifically traffic: In 2012, we (at the time we were an association of Daws Hill Residents Association (DHRA), School Close Road Association Limited (SCRAL), Fair Ridge, Spinney, Foxleigh Residents Association (FSFRA)) commissioned and paid for our own report on the veracity of SQTS, questioning the base of traffic counts, movements, predictions Jacobs used when writing SQTS. Despite repeated written requests to BCC, we were unable to obtain the underlying information from BCC. Seemingly, it would have to been too costly for Jacobs to have communicated this information with our consultant at WSP. Notwithstanding that, our report showed quite clearly that much of SQTS was deficient, and the WSP report was freely sent to Cllr Peter Hardy and John Lamb (Service Director, Place Services) and to others at BCC and WDC, but it was never acknowledged. Via the Scrutiny committee, the routing of the Daws Hill Area Transport link (on Daws Lea) was called into question, and that decision was subsequently overturned. From comments made recently in the reserve sites and Infrastructure liaison group meetings, it is our understanding that the suitability of SQTS is now in question. Maybe that is in hindsight, maybe not. Further, one of the many proposals put forward in SQTS was SCOOT. SCOOT was promoted as the answer to easing traffic flow throughout High Wycombe as it would synchronise and regulate traffic, especially in light of the expected increased traffic on Daws Hill Lane, Marlow Hill and Handy Cross. We’ve heard variously in the reserve sites and Infrastructure liaison group meetings that it was either not fully implemented in the areas recommended, or not optimised across the network, or not installed at all. Both the Handy Cross planning application and Pinetrees planning application leaned heavily on SQTS to convince the Planning Committee that the traffic impact of these developments ‘would not be severe’, whilst quantifying the definition of severe is impossible. WDC repeat the same mantra with each planning application: that the developer is not responsible for existing traffic issues and cannot be expected to rectify existing deficits unrelated to their proposals. It is our assertion that the highway improvements each developer is asked to deliver are based on inadequate modelling and additional traffic movement are badly underestimated; that the improvements are insufficient to mitigate the impact of their own developments, and that over a period of time, these ‘development deficiencies’ accumulate and are further exacerbated by the number of in-fill developments, by the increase in number of people living in houses, by the topography of the area, and by the increase in the number of children being driven to school instead of being bused to and from school for any number of reasons: cost, cuts in services; lack of travel plans proposed and implemented at schools and so forth. We suggest that S106 and CIL contributions should be re-examined in light of the accumulation of deficiencies and in terms of the topographical location of developments sites.

When we have raised these topics in meetings, we’re told the ‘Transport Authority’ (and by extension Jacobs) use standard modelling (TRICS) that is used up and down the country by other LPAs and developers. We’re also told the problems only happen at rush hour. Not always so: it is our assertion that the road network in the Wycombe District (rather like other infrastructure) is at capacity and needs a major overhaul. The evidence we’re seeing first hand suggests the standard models used by LPAs and developers are deficient, and the problems are getting worse, for longer periods of time, more often during the day. Repeatedly pointing a finger at TfB is not acceptable, ditto with Thames Water and the Little Marlow Sewage Treatment works; ditto with NHS trusts and GP and dental practices — have a look at your map (Map 8.1) of where doctor’s surgeries are compared to where the reserve sites are and how people are expected to get there and back. And the impacts are getting more and more severe. How much ‘more severe’ are residents expected have to put up with? How many more times will raw effluent be discharged into the Thames or sewage have to be tankered out? We feel very strongly that unless the infrastructure (roads, schools, surgeries, water, sewage …) is sufficiently robust and constructed to the correct grade (e.g. why is Daws Hill Lane breaking up under current traffic type and levels?), can absorb the requirements of the quantum of developments currently underway (e.g. LMSTW discharging effluent in to the Thames), and WDC has received (and validated) assurances that the infrastructure improvement time-lines match the quantum of the build-out of the reserve sites, then planning permission for development(s) must be postponed. For example, we reference paragraph 9.16 (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) … do those timelines (2020-2025) properly match with WDCs expectations on the development of the reserve sites? Perhaps an ‘early warning’ RAG (red, amber, green) status flag for each area/element of infrastructure might be helpful for BCC, WDC and residents to understand the level of usage of local infrastructure, and which might help to alleviate residents’ concerns in relation to future Development Briefs and Planning applications? ********************************************************************************************************

Chiltern Society Wycombe Planning Team

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Chiltern Society.

1. We are broadly happy with Brief, subject to the points below.

2. There needs to be clearer, stronger and more consistent guidance about the treatment of

The Ride and the need to protect its character and appearance. Currently the Brief

contains three significantly differing layout plans for The Ride; and similar variability and

lack of definitiveness in how the key features of and objectives for The Ride are described

in different sections of the document. Because another objective, of facilitating public use of

The Ride, may be in tension with protecting its integrity (4.2.6 point 2), it is especially

important to have total clarity about which aspects of The Ride are integral to its character.

In line with the Brief's analysis and the public's opinions expressed in response to the

summer 2015 exhibition, we suggest the most vital element in landscape and character

terms is a central avenue free of visual clutter and artificial features or surfaces. Some

encroachment by artificial features into the spaces between the roundels may be

acceptable, but this, too, should be minimised, and the use of non-natural materials

avoided whenever possible. Overall, to protect its character, The Ride should only be used

for "quiet public recreation". Also important is The Ride's ecology, which mostly stems from

the presence of mature and semi-mature trees. In terms of specifics, and with reference to

some of the elements suggested in the various layout plans: any surfaced cycle track

should be located away from the central avenue, instead meandering on the outer edge of

roundels; the central avenue should essentially be left to grass, although with a sensitively-

surfaced pedestrian path positioned along one edge; the grass would need to be mown to

enable use by the public, although strips of more biodiverse vegetation (for example longer

grass / meadows etc.) could be left across most of the width of the central avenue where it

adjoins the green infrastructure linkages to the north; (See also point 4 about the need for

mitigation / compensation for loss of species-rich grassland.) areas of longer grass could

also be left in some of the spaces between the roundels; any play equipment in the spaces

between the roundels should be small-scale and of natural materials; a trim trail could be

appropriate between the roundels on the southern side, although again design and

materials need to be sympathetic; although there must be no structures or equipment within

the main length of the avenue, a suitably designed sculpture or similar feature might be

acceptable at the eastern end to provide a focal point for the view down the Ride.

Although, in order to respond to the current content of the Brief and to expand on our

thinking, we have gone into specifics, it may be better for the Brief to merely set out the key

elements of The Ride that must be protected and the other subsidiary objectives, against

which future proposals could be assessed; but to avoid over-prescription, either to omit any

Ride layout plans, or make it absolutely clear they are only indicative examples. Even if the

finalised Brief does not rule out buildings anywhere in The Ride, the rather perplexing

range of “appropriate uses” in para. 5.5.3 must be significantly narrowed, restricted to those

that would contribute to or be compatible with quiet public recreation.

3. The proposed layout of the Abbey Barn Verge residential zone must provide a soft

interface with The Ride, i.e. no fencing or edge of built development should abut it.

4. The summary of the ecological findings (3.13ff) indicates that the location proposed for

allotments is currently an area of species-rich semi-improved grassland (assessed in 3.13.2

as one of the habitats of highest nature conservation value within the site). Although this

seems the most appropriate location for the allotments, the Brief must therefore include

specific measures to provide adequate ecological mitigation / compensation.

5. The high frequency bus service referred to in 6.5.3 must be provided early in the

development (as soon as the first dwellings are occupied) to ensure sustainable travel

choices are embedded. Allied with this must be the advance completion of the primary

route between Abbey Barn Lane and the Pine Trees development. Both of these

requirements should be mandated within the Brief. This early provision will also be

beneficial in relation to the proposed ski centre development, which, if progressed in

advance of approval of the main ABS site proposals, might be nearing completion around

the time development of Abbey Barn South proper commences.

6. For perhaps understandable reasons, the ski centre development has been grafted on to

the draft Brief at a late stage, rather than being considered as an integral part of the overall

Abbey Barn South site proposals. Should circumstances change, and allow full integration

of masterplanning for the ski centre and Abbey Barn South sites, we suggest there need

only be one access route off Abbey Barn Lane to serve both sites, which could have road

safety advantages.

7. It seems reasonable to allow formal sports provision to occur off-site, given the amount

and nature of other on-site open space. It is important to avoid harm to the appearance or

character of the AONB or its setting, so of the two site options suggested at 5.7.4, B is

preferable (since A is immediately adjacent to the AONB); BUT this should not be taken as

positive support for either of these sites, and other sites elsewhere in the District may be

more appropriate.

***************************************************************************************************

Abbey Barn Holdings SA (Owners of part of Abbey Barn North)

On behalf of our client, Abbey Barn Holdings SA, we thank you for the opportunity to

comment on the draft Abbey Barn South Development Brief.

As you may be aware our client owns a significant proportion of the reserve site at Abbey

Barn North and has begun formal pre-application discussions regarding its development with

your Council’s planning and property departments. This process, it is expected, will

culminate in the production later this year of their own development brief and the submission

of a planning application in the early part of 2017.

Our clients welcome the production of the development brief for Abbey Barn South/Ski Slope

and support its aspirations for the future development of those sites. The brief does

however raise issues, particularly in relation to highways and access, which are common to

all sites by reason of their close proximity. These have the potential to affect the ability of

our clients to achieve their aspirations and we would be grateful if regard could be had to the

following matters in the final draft of the brief:

Paragraph 6.0.2, Page 64 – Entrance from Abbey Barn Lane: The proposals for

vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Abbey Barn Lane are noted but it should be

made clear that any proposals have regard to the future development of Abbey Barn

North and ensure that no prejudice would be caused to its future development.

Paragraph 6.5.3, Page 68 – Off-site Highway Improvements: It is noted that based upon

the findings of the County’s Transport Study it is expected that development at Abbey

Barn South will makes contributions to a number of off-site highways improvements.

The Transport Study is somewhat limited in detail and we would request that it be made

clear that any highway works common to Abbey Barn South and Abbey Barn North are

shared in the proportion to the scale of development. ( see attached note from PBA

dated 2/5/16 which further justifies this approach)

We trust that these comments are helpful and should you have any queries or require any

further information please do not hesitate to contact myself or my colleague Lynsey Rigg.

Yours faithfully

Geoff Armstrong, Director, Armstrong Rigg Planning

*********************************************************************************************************

London Youth Baseball League (LYBL)

Chris Deacon, Orchard Grove, Chalfont St Peter

On behalf of London Youth Baseball League (LYBL) and Daws Hill Spitfires, the two

baseball organisations that used the western part of the Ride for many years prior to 2016

we comment as follows:

1. We welcome the references to the Local Plan RT3 and to NPPF 74 regarding the

consideration of existing playing fields and their reprovision as part of the development.

2. Additionally, we welcome the specific reference in 5.7.2 of part 2 response of the draft

development brief, that on current evidence the baseball facilities will need to be re-provided.

3. As previously notified, baseball has been played on the site for well over 25 years. In

1995, a diamond was used as a location in the Disney film, A Kid in King Arthur’s Court.

4. In 3.1.1 of part 1 analysis of the draft development brief it states “The westernmost corner

of the site is currently occupied by a baseball pitch with associated practice areas.” As

previously notified for the avoidance of doubt, there are 4 baseball fields as follows: a. One

90ft diamond covering an area of approximately 120yd square b. Two 60ft diamonds

covering an area each of approximately 90yd square c. One t-ball diamond covering an area

of approximately 50yd square d. There are no practice areas per se just the grass spaces

between the 4 fields in a-c above.

5. In 3.23.34 of part 1 analysis of the draft development brief, it states that public recreation

is limited to a footpath network. While we recognise that the land was used by our

organisations only, it provided recreation facilities open to all members of the public in the

local area who wished to participate either as a player or as spectator. We regularly had

members of the public passing by and indeed this is how some became involved. In the

Daws Hill Spitfires team, we have 12 members who consider the team to be their local team.

Over half live within 5 miles of the site in areas including Flackwell Heath, Hazlemere,

Loudwater and High Wycombe itself. Indeed one player regularly walked to the site for

practice and home games.

6. In 5.6.2 of part 2 response of the draft development brief, it states “Local Plan Policy RT3

and NPPF paragraph 74 highlight the importance of existing sports pitches and serve to

protect them from development. These policies continue to apply to the baseball fields

notwithstanding that they are no longer in use”. We would like to point out that the only

reason why the baseball fields are no longer in use is because the lease was not renewed

by the landowner in expectation of the redevelopment going ahead. Therefore, the

discontinued use is not through the choice of our organisations but the decision of the

landowner in consultation with the prospective developer that the prospective developer will

require access to the site. In addition we would comment as follows: a. We informed the

landowner that our understanding was that this development process was not likely to

require us to vacate the site for LYBL’s 2016 season which comes to an end later this

month. This clearly has been proved correct as evidenced by this draft brief process.

Therefore the fields would or could have still been in use, and arguably now to September at

the earliest covering the remainder of the Daws Hill Spitfires season. b. The loss this year

without any reprovision of the fields has lead to substantial disruption to our playing season

as follows: i. Increased costs to hire other fields on a day by day basis ii. Fields hired in

some locations not as suitable for level of play as those at Abbey Barn iii. Multiple locations

used with different travel logistics iv. Scheduling much harder – for Daws Hill Spitfires almost

half of the games had to be rescheduled in some form due to field availability issues. v. Lack

of access to fields as and when required vi. Loss of concessions revenue and increased cost

to parents for concessions vii. Loss of players due to uncertainty over field availability and

increased travel for High Wycombe locals.

7. In 5.7 of part 2 response of the draft development brief, there is reference to the need for

2 football sized pitches and a cricket square between them. In addition, it states that it may

be possible to achieve a more efficient scheme if both the baseball and the football/cricket

pitches can be located together. We would welcome the opportunity to share such facilities

with other sports as this would lead to an expected increase in participation of baseball (and

potentially softball) locally. However , this will need careful consideration for the following

reasons: a. Baseball and other winter sports overlap in the months of March to May and

August to September. This is a well-known problem for many baseball clubs in the UK who

share facilities and can provide significant scheduling problems. As we previously had

exclusive use of the 4 diamonds, we would consider that if collocated, baseball took priority

over the other sports in the event there was insufficient space for separate discrete playing

areas for both. b. Indeed if there was a requirement for a cricket square then this would

make scheduling even more difficult and arguably be impossible to have dual use of the

cricket outfield and baseball outfield if overlapping. For example on a weekend day the

diamonds are used from approximately 9am to 5pm. c. The 90ft and two 60ft baseball

diamonds on the site, had grass infields and dirt running paths like any proper baseball

diamond. This would any replacement couldn’t be used for other sports and combined with

the fencing and back stop areas there would areas not available for multi-use as follows: i.

90ft diamond – approx. 50yd square area, that encompasses 90 ft diamond, surrounding dirt

areas between 1st and 3rd bases, foul territory including the backstop areas, and the

dugouts and fencing. ii. Each 60ft diamond - approx. 35yd square area, that encompasses

60 ft diamond, surrounding dirt areas between 1st and 3rd bases, foul territory including the

backstop areas, and the dugouts and fencing. d. The sites identified as potential solutions

have been reviewed by us and would comment as follows: i. Site 1 – east of Abbey Barn.

We do not believe this site is large enough to re-provide the 4 diamonds as existing at Abbey

Barn South. In any event, it has telegraph poles in it that would make play almost impossible

and possibly dangerous. ii. Site 2 – land between M40 and Heat End Road. This could be

ideal for the 4 diamonds as it is large enough however it is difficult to see how a cricket pitch

could be collated for reasons in b. above. It would also probably need to have a noise barrier

installed between the field and the M40 given the noise levels evidenced in the draft brief. iii.

If both sites were used this may provide sufficient space for all needs.

We look forward to continued dialogue about the future reprovision of the 4 baseball fields.

*********************************************************************************************************

Mike Overall, Magpie Close, Flackwell Heath

General I think the brief and response generally represent an improved quality in WDC

planning public consultation processes. That said, there is a degree of unnecessary

repetition, inconsistency of presented proposals and a use of current planning jargon that

could have been avoided had there been more thorough review of the drafting – and the

time allowed to do it! Overview There is much to support and recommend in the presented

proposals. The downside to that is that, whilst due recognition is given to the special

qualities of the edge-of-town countryside location of the site, and the Ride in particular, the

overall quality of the proposals is compromised by:

1) Ill-considered treatment of how best to respect the landscape and historic characteristics

of the Ride and its potential sustainability value for future generations;

2) Failing sufficiently to extend the high quality design thinking of, for example, the

landscape interface between the building layout and Deangarden Wood edge to the whole

length of the site boundary with Abbey Barn Lane and between the proposed Abbey Barn

Verge and the Ride;

3) The very apparent late inclusion of the Ski Slope development into the overall planning

and integration of the combined sites.

The Ride

There are inconsistent presentations of what is proposed for the Ride. However, the

underlying impression is that insufficient attention has been given to protecting the special

qualities of the Ride and the wide central grassland strip between the tree lines in particular.

Lessons should be learned from the best examples of similar parkland avenues elsewhere in

the country. The following comments are rather detailed but serve to illustrate the

shortcomings of the design layouts shown for the Ride. In this context, the worst offence

would be implementation of the circular cycling route entirely within the central green swathe

of the Ride (see diagrams in section 6.0 and 7.2). This could easily become a racetrack! A

better solution would be to locate a meandering cycle path along the southern edge of the

Ride and to link it via a green cycle route to the end of the cycle route adjacent to the central

spine road at the ABL site entrance. A similar connection at the western end of the site

would provide a circular cycling route, which could be used safely by family cycling groups

(key test). Such a southern route location would also provide cycling access to the allotment

and employment areas. It follows that cycling access from the Abbey Barn Verge character

area into the Ride should be discouraged. Most trim trails typically have 10 fitness stations

that are not located with long jogging gaps between each station. Thus a trim trail need only

be located along one side of the Ride, preferably between round tree clusters and the

allotment area. Another reason for locating the trim trail in this area is that, inevitably, the

jogging route between stations results in a grassless worn path with muddy patches in

winter. Care should be taken to minimise the use of metallic or similarly manufactured

materials in the provision of play stations in the Ride adjacent to Abbey Barn Verge. ‘Natural

play’ wooden structures would better reflect the need for sensitivity in planning this interface

area. The central grassed swathe of the Ride should be planned so as to provide a strong

feeling of a natural parkland setting in which the public can stroll finding ample space for

quiet recreation.

Site boundary treatments

The proposed site boundary treatment of the interface areas between built development and

Deangarden Wood is well thought through. A wider green boundary space is needed along

the site boundary with Abbey Barn Lane in order to respect the countryside location of the

site and to reinforce the need to retain a gap between the built envelope of High Wycombe

and its surrounding countryside assets. Similarly, if sport fields are eventually provided on

the other side of ABL, the same principle should apply. Great care needs to be given to

providing a graduated soft landscape transition from the edge of development at Abbey Barn

Verge into the Ride. An irregularly building line to the edge of that character area would help.

Ski Slope Development

It is very apparent that, whilst this proposed development has been well designed to reflect

its sensitive landscape location, integration within the combined site reflects the fact that the

two developments were not planned together from the beginning. In terms of the ABS design

proposals, the Ski Slope site is a distinct ‘character area’. There is insufficient information in

the development brief to enable constructive comment on how best to address site

integration issues to the improvement of the combined site. That suggests that further

interface review work should be undertaken to ensure a good fit between the two

developments within the combined site. Access considerations should be a key feature of

any such review.

*********************************************************************************************************

Punit Bharal, Daws Lea, High Wycombe

The idea that another new development, with the resultant new families, can simply fit into

this space with no new access for all the cars that this generate is laughable. The RAF re-

development has already brought increased traffic to Daws Hill Lane, which makes it

incredibly congested at peak times. The road cannot take the traffic already there, as

evidenced by the atrocious potholes, flooding during any downpour and the unsafe

conditions for pedestrians from the narrow pavements. The extra traffic leads to more

antisocial driving, and we have already seen the increase in serious pedestrian injuries at

the top of Marlow Hill. Although I support improved cycling paths, given the very unsafe

riding between Daws Hill and Flackwell Heath, one would be naive in the extreme to think

that all these new residents will not be adding considerable strain to the roads with family

cars - strain that the roads simply cannot take. This new development is a terrible idea if it's

simply being dropped onto the existing infrastructure, which cannot cope with the number of

cars already travelling over it. And all this, before families have moved into the ex-RAF base.

********************************************************************************************************

Stephen Boyes, Beech Close, High Wycombe

My key concern is the inappropriate, unsuitable and already dangerous road infrastructure.

Abbey Barn Lane (with the single traffic lane over the bridge close to the sharp bend

adjoining Kingsmead Road), Kingsmead Road (with parked cars frequently reducing it to one

lane traffic flow) and Abbey Barn Road (especially due to the massive congestion created by

cars parked by parents at Marsh Infant and Junior School during arrival and leaving times)

are incapable of handling the increased traffic flow which these developments will create. At

the Southern end, Daws Hill Lane is already, especially at peak hours (morning and

afternoon St Michael's School and people en route to and from the M40 and High Wycombe)

completely congested and the problem has been exacerbated by the Southern housing

development. Unless new and improved road systems are installed the entire area will

become gridlocked. The increasing use of 'Rat-runs' through Mead Way, Beech Road, Kings

Road and Ford Street also needs to be addressed.

********************************************************************************************************

Steve Watts, Templars Way, High Wycombe

This concept plan looks very good. You should be commended for preserving the Ride, Dell

and woods. The bridge at the bottom of Abbey Barn must be replaced or bypassed. I would

like to recommend that the primary school at St. Michaels be closed and the new school be

the primary school. The parking and school drop-off areas in the Pinetrees and the proposed

new development make this ideal as it would keep the parents dropping off their young off

the very, very congested Heath End/Daws Hill Lane. I would have liked to have seen

Winchbottom Lane widened to two lanes as this would provide an alternative route for

commuters attempting to get to the A404 southbound. BTW: I work in the town centre so

these road improvements would not benefit me directly but would lessen the traffic heading

to Marlow Hill.

********************************************************************************************************

Jo Ferguson, Kingsmead Road, High Wycombe

This, along with the Dawes Hill development will add to the already considerable congestion

to the East of Wycombe. As a resident of Kingsmead Road, it is a nightmare at both ends

during rush hour. The plans talk about junction layouts at the Abbey Barn end of the road,

but the Treadaway hill end will also suffer and also needs to be considered and addressed -

as it is you can take 20 minutes getting out of the road in the morning. It's good to have cycle

paths etc. but the fact is a lot of people need cars to work (I don't know anyone locally that

works in Wycombe, they all commute to London or have to drive to other towns for work)

and therefore a realistic approach to the impact of those living in the local area would be

welcomed - if it isn't we are effectively held hostage in the road by traffic blocking both exits.

The plans also talk of incentives for car sharing, unless these are also realistic and

considerable it is lip service to say new residents will be encouraged. There will also need to

be sufficient parking (1 space per property is nowhere near sufficient as demonstrated by

other developments such as Wye Dene)

********************************************************************************************************

Deirdre White You recently contacting me regarding my attendance at the exhibition for the above development. I think it is an amazing concept and wholeheartedly support it however I have concerns.

As a regular user of the A40 in the Wycombe Marsh area I am concerned about the increase in traffic coming down onto the Kingsmead Road and subsequently onto the A40. I am sure that the plan is that all traffic will go to Handy Cross to access the M40 but I think we all know that in real life that won’t happen. Drivers will see Abbey Barn Road as a shortcut. This area is increasingly congested and although there was a plan several years ago to improve the congestion, there has been no improvement. Only last Saturday (7th May) I was caught up in nearly stationery traffic between Bowerdean Road and Hatters Lane. It took me over 15 minutes so when I reached Hatters Lane I gave up and went home, via Terriers, as the traffic going into town was also stationery. I hadn’t reached my destination and did not want to crawl back to get home. I think the last thing needed is increased traffic on the east side of Wycombe. Regards Deirdre White

*********************************************************************************************************

Alan van der Pant, Merlwood Close, High Wycombe

If Abbey Barn South were an island surrounded by sea I would consider the plan admirable,

but it is not: it is a development that will add traffic to an area that is already a congested

traffic nightmare at times of the day. The plans for dealing with the added traffic and

mitigating its effects are nebulous and lacking in specifics e.g. the target of reducing single

car journeys, admirable as an intention but how, how, how????

********************************************************************************************************

Dulcie Bostock, Westminster Close, High Wycombe

Objection to the plans Daws hill lane is not equipped to deal with extra commuters and traffic

that this new development will bring. Following the construction at pine trees the road is

already severally damaged with hundreds of potholes which the council have just left to get

worse Daws hill lane and roads off of this are currently quiet and desirable homes, yet

another large development will decrease the value of our homes and make it less secure

The amount of these homes that have to be given to social housing will also drag down the

reputation of the area and schools

*********************************************************************************************************

Richard Royall, Romsey Way Abbey Park High Wycombe

We have read the proposal in detail. As local residents we are considerably impacted and

inconvenienced every day by traffic congestion and inconsiderate and dangerous street

parking. Whilst the document recognises local congestion, parking problems, road capacity,

road width restriction and noise, there is nothing substantive or constructive planned or

under consideration to ameliorate any of these infrastructure issues, which will undoubtedly

deteriorate when Pine Trees is open and have an even more devastating additional impact

as a result of the proposed Abbey Barn South development. "Maximising sustainable

transport options - walking, cycling and public transport " are hopeful but unrealistic and

unproven objectives given the current road infrastructure and local topography. It is a fact of

life that the vast majority of people use their cars as the primary option for transport.

********************************************************************************************************

Lucy Duncan, Kingsmead Road, High Wycombe

I cant see any mention of improving the existing road structure The mention of a link to

Abbey Barn Road suggest traffic being funnelled into an already over crowded road system.

Neither Abbey Barn Road , Kingsmead Road or Daws Hill Lane can take nay more traffic in

their exisiting structure but in particular Abbey Barn South where there are already

restrictions due to the weak bridge.

********************************************************************************************************

Dominic Banaszkiewicz, School Way Loudwater

The Abbey Barn South development brief looks to be very detailed with most potential

issues being examined and presented within the document. I live close enough for the

Abbey Barn South (and North) to affect my family life positively and also potentially very

negatively. At this stage I would highlight section 2.2.6 Mobility as our greatest concern. With

the local roads such as Abbey Barn Lane and Daws Hill Lane both super congested in peak

times and not infrequently grid-locked if there is an incident on the M40 that can often create

a backlog of traffic with zero alternative escape routes. Whilst I appreciate there are central

govt. demands on Wycombe District Council to provide adequate building plots for new

housing, however, they must get the infrastructure correct before the house construction

even begins.

*********************************************************************************************************

Claire Madden, Rugby Rise, High Wycombe

This area to East of Wycombe is heavily over built. The developments at Wycombe Marsh

and soon to be Pine Trees have had a huge impact on congestion in the surrounding area.

The Kingsmead road has not been taken into consideration in the briefing documents. There

is mention of London Road, Abbey Barn Rd and Daws Hill but most of this traffic are now

using the Kingsmead Road. This has become a high speed thoroughfare and is very

congested at peak commuting hours. What plans are there with this further development to

safeguard such areas that are now becoming main thoroughfares. The brief speaks to cycle

lanes and car sharing, is that really the proposed response to ensuring the road

infrastructure is in place. More PRACTICAL planning is needed if the council is to have 500

more houses in this tightly packed community.

*******************************************************************************************************

Andrew Taylor, Bowden lane, High Wycombe

I am very concerned at the undue prominence given to outdoor play and sports areas within

the development brief, as a consequence of which it is proposed to extend development

beyond the site boundary. Abbey Barn South is clearly a highly unsuitable location for

outdoor sport provision, other than that to be used solely by local residents and schools

within easy walking distance, because of its inaccessibility other than by road transport. The

impossibility of providing adequate transport infrastructure for Abbey Barn and Daws Hill is

widely recognised, so the last thing this project needs is "mission creep" into additional traffic

generating development. Areas 1 and 2 identified for potential sports provision on page 61 of

the draft development brief - land east of Abbey Barn Lane and land between the M40 and

Heath End Road - are in any case unsuitable for healthy outdoor activity due to their

proximity to the M40, making them subject to constant heavy air pollution. At the recent

Abbey Barn Liaison Group meeting, there appeared to be a strong consensus against

developing these additional land parcels for sports use. As I understand it, the WDC

response was that part of the retained Core Strategy specifies that additional football pitches

are required in the district. However, Liaison Group members, including councillors,

suggested that the fields are not in fact needed, and that the Core Strategy is flawed in that

respect. In any event, the Core Strategy will be replaced soon(ish) by the new Local Plan.

Promoting unwanted further development in a ridiculous location because of an error in a

soon-so-be-superseded policy document would be a triumph of bureaucracy over common

sense. The draft development brief should be amended to preclude the possibility of

developing beyond the site boundaries, i.e. onto areas 1 and 2 on page 61.

*******************************************************************************************************

Brian Gilbert, Selwood Way, High Wycombe

Potential problems with increased traffic in the area and through the Town seem to be

overlooked

********************************************************************************************************

Gill Lowry

First of all I am impressed with the presentation of the document.

However, as a resident of Flackwell Heath I am concerned about the size and location of the

proposed development especially with respect to

The increased traffic resulting on Heath End Road and Straight Bit. This road as you

will know from traffic surveys is already busy, especially at peak times. As you enter the

village from the HW direction there is significant on road parking narrowing the road to one

lane and this already causes congestion as well as noise. The restricted road width due to

parking and the peak traffic flow already causes people to take risks with dodging in and out

to move forward. It is particularly bad between The Stag and the roundabout at Swains

Lane. With the additional houses being built on the Daws Hill Lane development there will

already be a huge additional traffic loading (>400 houses so potentially 400-1000 cars?)

before any development at Abbey Barn. There are various ‘rat runs’ up through Sheepridge

Lane and Treadaway Hill which are already causing a huge amount of additional traffic over

recent years and these can only get worse.

The junctions of Abbey Barn Lane and Winchbottom with Heath End Road are

already pretty dangerous at peak times and additional traffic can only make this situation

worse and more concerning.

The additional road and people traffic causing a significant change to the village

nature of Flackwell Heath.

The provision of increased facilities e.g. schools (primary and secondary) and

doctors. Where are the facilities, or plans for facilities, for all these additional people on

Daws Hill Lane and the proposed Abbey Barn developments? Current facilities are bursting.

Kind regards,

Gill Lowy

*********************************************************************************************************