Widmer End Residents’ Association
WERA sent the letter, below, to Wycombe District Council, in response to the Consultation on the Draft Development Brief for the Terriers Development. It would also be helpful for residents to respond on an individual basis. The deadline for comments is November 28th, 2016.
Dear Sirs,
Terriers Farm Development Brief
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to look at the above document and to comment on it. May we first of all congratulate you on producing a well thought out brief against what has clearly been a tight schedule.
Despite our reservations about the scope and character of the proposed development at Terriers Farm, as expressed in our letter of 3 March 2016 relating to the draft infrastructure delivery plan for reserve sites, we broadly approve of the Terriers Farm development brief and can understand the rationale behind many of its proposals. We accept, for example, that it is inevitable that the main purpose of the development is to provide housing, and we support the principle that “affordable housing should be distributed through the site ... [and] be indistinguishable in their design from open market houses” (TFP1, p.28).
However, there are several points to which we feel not enough attention has been given. Some of our concerns will need addressing to avoid stress and frustration for the future residents of both Terriers Farm and the surrounding areas, including our own village of Widmer End and the settlement at Four Ashes.
Roads and transport.
In our letter of 3 March we expressed agreement with the proposal to have two road entrances to the development, one in Kingshill Road and the other in Amersham Road. But now that we have had a closer look at the two possible routes for the Amersham Road entrance, both of which are problematic due to their adverse effect on woodland and recreational facilities respectively, we believe it would be strongly preferable to have only one entrance to the site for normal vehicular traffic. If safety considerations dictate a second entrance, this should be for emergency vehicles only and could perhaps be located further up Kingshill Road as indicated in your plan.
The Terriers Farm development will inevitably increase the traffic volume on the surrounding roads, as has already happened in Widmer End following the development of the Wellesbourne site. We welcome your concern for our village as expressed in your aim of “implementing traffic calming measures on North Road and Brimmers Hill through Widmer End to limit the potential for through traffic to use it as a route” (TFP11, p.41). Please consult with us on any proposed measures in this regard, as there is likely to be some conflict between such measures and the attractiveness of the road scene.
Northern boundary.
We welcome the proposal for a buffer zone between the northern housing area (shown in blue on the map on p. 27) and the Ladies Mile bridleway, but we feel this is inadequate. The NPPF (in para 115) states that "great weight should be given to conserving the scenic beauty ... and AONBs have the same planning status as National parks". Therefore the existing wide green buffer on either side of Ladies Mile should be retained and enhanced, not only within the AONB on Grange Farm but also within the Terriers Farm development. It should be wider and both visually and physically impermeable except where the north-south public footpath crosses it, thus maintaining the green corridor and mitigating the view into the development from the AONB.
Street lighting in the northern housing area, if any, should be low level and not intrude on the night sky within the AONB. Also, the dwellings should follow Chilterns guidelines and the development rights normally permitted for new homes should in this instance be removed. (Incidentally, the key to the map on p.44 which defines the housing areas is wrongly coloured and caused some momentary confusion to at least one reader.)
Legal considerations.
We believe that some of the hedges scheduled for removal may in fact be protected by the terms of the General Enclosure Act of 1845 and the Hughenden allotment awards made in 1855 and 1862. We are planning to consult Bucks County Council records to find out if this is the case, and hope you will be able to allot some extra time to allow us to make further comment on this point.
Schools.
We stressed in our letter of 3 March mentioned above that we would wish to see primary children from the Terriers Farm development being able to walk to a local school. This is good for creating a new community and would relieve some of the pressure from the already high level of commuting to school in the area which the development brief acknowledges in para 6.88 (p.49). We are therefore disappointed that no new school is proposed for the development and that there is still apparently no indication as to whether any existing local schools will be expanding. We note that BCC has undertaken feasibility studies at Cedar Park and Hazlemere CE schools to assess the feasibility of expansion, but the brief does not say what conclusion the studies came to. In any case, Cedar Park is a long walk for a primary school child and it is likely that children going there from Terriers Farm will be taken by car, thereby adding still further to the traffic problems already envisaged.
We note that there will be a new school in the Gomm Valley development but that it is unlikely that children from Terriers would attend this school; rather, the new school would free up places and displace "out of catchment" children back to their local schools. We also note that the brief says there is a "clear functional relationship between the Terriers Farm development and the additional capacity that would be created by the new school on Gomm Valley" (para 6.89). Unfortunately we do not understand what this functional relationship is and where the review of catchment areas of other local schools fits in.
We assume that the new Gomm Valley school would provide additional places over and above those needed for the Gomm Valley development and that what is intended is some sort of domino effect with children, say in Micklefield, taking up places in the new school thereby creating vacant places in schools local to Terriers. However, this will only work for children in their first year at school; other primary children will find local schools already occupied. Moreover, it also depends on the Gomm Valley development providing the school in advance of the occupation of the Terriers site.
We would suggest that there is a real problem here and we are unconvinced that WDC has found an adequate solution.
Health and community facilities.
There is little mention in the development brief of any infrastructure that would cater for the demands of residents for healthcare and social facilities. Building on Terriers Farm and other reserve sites will increase the pressure on doctors' surgeries and health centres throughout Wycombe District. Many of those who need to visit a doctor or report to a clinic are far from fit and may not have their own means of transport. There is therefore a need for local facilities that will relieve pressure on adjacent areas and contribute to the sense of community we hope to see established on the site.
Shopping.
We strongly disagree with your assertion that “no additional retail facilities are required to be provided either on or off site” (para. 6.92, p.49). The few existing shops along Amersham Road at Terriers are quite inadequate for everyday needs. We still believe, as stated in our letter of 3 March, that the two thousand or more expected residents of Terriers Farm will be enough to profitably support a 'village shop' that will supply a good proportion of their everyday needs and, hopefully, will also include a Post Office.
Looking to the future.
We applaud the brief's emphasis on the preservation of green areas such as copses, open spaces and play areas, and on the maintenance of green corridors in both north-south and east-west directions. What appears to be missing from the brief is any mention of future maintenance of this green infrastructure. It is well known that council-run activities like grass cutting and hedge trimming are an easy target for cutbacks when the money supply is tight, which now appears to be the normal state of affairs. So what provision, if any, has been made for future maintenance of the site once the major construction work has been done?
A similar warning applies to flood prevention, which depends, among other things, on there being adequate and regular maintenance of drains and culverts. As recent events in Cockermouth, for example, have shown, planning for a once-in-100-years event now seems irrelevant in the light of climate change and more erratic weather patterns.
We hope the above considerations will be taken into account in the preparation of your final development brief.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Guy,
Hon. Secretary, Widmer End Residents' Association.
WERA sent the letter, below, to Wycombe District Council, in response to the Consultation on the Draft Development Brief for the Terriers Development. It would also be helpful for residents to respond on an individual basis. The deadline for comments is November 28th, 2016.
Dear Sirs,
Terriers Farm Development Brief
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to look at the above document and to comment on it. May we first of all congratulate you on producing a well thought out brief against what has clearly been a tight schedule.
Despite our reservations about the scope and character of the proposed development at Terriers Farm, as expressed in our letter of 3 March 2016 relating to the draft infrastructure delivery plan for reserve sites, we broadly approve of the Terriers Farm development brief and can understand the rationale behind many of its proposals. We accept, for example, that it is inevitable that the main purpose of the development is to provide housing, and we support the principle that “affordable housing should be distributed through the site ... [and] be indistinguishable in their design from open market houses” (TFP1, p.28).
However, there are several points to which we feel not enough attention has been given. Some of our concerns will need addressing to avoid stress and frustration for the future residents of both Terriers Farm and the surrounding areas, including our own village of Widmer End and the settlement at Four Ashes.
Roads and transport.
In our letter of 3 March we expressed agreement with the proposal to have two road entrances to the development, one in Kingshill Road and the other in Amersham Road. But now that we have had a closer look at the two possible routes for the Amersham Road entrance, both of which are problematic due to their adverse effect on woodland and recreational facilities respectively, we believe it would be strongly preferable to have only one entrance to the site for normal vehicular traffic. If safety considerations dictate a second entrance, this should be for emergency vehicles only and could perhaps be located further up Kingshill Road as indicated in your plan.
The Terriers Farm development will inevitably increase the traffic volume on the surrounding roads, as has already happened in Widmer End following the development of the Wellesbourne site. We welcome your concern for our village as expressed in your aim of “implementing traffic calming measures on North Road and Brimmers Hill through Widmer End to limit the potential for through traffic to use it as a route” (TFP11, p.41). Please consult with us on any proposed measures in this regard, as there is likely to be some conflict between such measures and the attractiveness of the road scene.
Northern boundary.
We welcome the proposal for a buffer zone between the northern housing area (shown in blue on the map on p. 27) and the Ladies Mile bridleway, but we feel this is inadequate. The NPPF (in para 115) states that "great weight should be given to conserving the scenic beauty ... and AONBs have the same planning status as National parks". Therefore the existing wide green buffer on either side of Ladies Mile should be retained and enhanced, not only within the AONB on Grange Farm but also within the Terriers Farm development. It should be wider and both visually and physically impermeable except where the north-south public footpath crosses it, thus maintaining the green corridor and mitigating the view into the development from the AONB.
Street lighting in the northern housing area, if any, should be low level and not intrude on the night sky within the AONB. Also, the dwellings should follow Chilterns guidelines and the development rights normally permitted for new homes should in this instance be removed. (Incidentally, the key to the map on p.44 which defines the housing areas is wrongly coloured and caused some momentary confusion to at least one reader.)
Legal considerations.
We believe that some of the hedges scheduled for removal may in fact be protected by the terms of the General Enclosure Act of 1845 and the Hughenden allotment awards made in 1855 and 1862. We are planning to consult Bucks County Council records to find out if this is the case, and hope you will be able to allot some extra time to allow us to make further comment on this point.
Schools.
We stressed in our letter of 3 March mentioned above that we would wish to see primary children from the Terriers Farm development being able to walk to a local school. This is good for creating a new community and would relieve some of the pressure from the already high level of commuting to school in the area which the development brief acknowledges in para 6.88 (p.49). We are therefore disappointed that no new school is proposed for the development and that there is still apparently no indication as to whether any existing local schools will be expanding. We note that BCC has undertaken feasibility studies at Cedar Park and Hazlemere CE schools to assess the feasibility of expansion, but the brief does not say what conclusion the studies came to. In any case, Cedar Park is a long walk for a primary school child and it is likely that children going there from Terriers Farm will be taken by car, thereby adding still further to the traffic problems already envisaged.
We note that there will be a new school in the Gomm Valley development but that it is unlikely that children from Terriers would attend this school; rather, the new school would free up places and displace "out of catchment" children back to their local schools. We also note that the brief says there is a "clear functional relationship between the Terriers Farm development and the additional capacity that would be created by the new school on Gomm Valley" (para 6.89). Unfortunately we do not understand what this functional relationship is and where the review of catchment areas of other local schools fits in.
We assume that the new Gomm Valley school would provide additional places over and above those needed for the Gomm Valley development and that what is intended is some sort of domino effect with children, say in Micklefield, taking up places in the new school thereby creating vacant places in schools local to Terriers. However, this will only work for children in their first year at school; other primary children will find local schools already occupied. Moreover, it also depends on the Gomm Valley development providing the school in advance of the occupation of the Terriers site.
We would suggest that there is a real problem here and we are unconvinced that WDC has found an adequate solution.
Health and community facilities.
There is little mention in the development brief of any infrastructure that would cater for the demands of residents for healthcare and social facilities. Building on Terriers Farm and other reserve sites will increase the pressure on doctors' surgeries and health centres throughout Wycombe District. Many of those who need to visit a doctor or report to a clinic are far from fit and may not have their own means of transport. There is therefore a need for local facilities that will relieve pressure on adjacent areas and contribute to the sense of community we hope to see established on the site.
Shopping.
We strongly disagree with your assertion that “no additional retail facilities are required to be provided either on or off site” (para. 6.92, p.49). The few existing shops along Amersham Road at Terriers are quite inadequate for everyday needs. We still believe, as stated in our letter of 3 March, that the two thousand or more expected residents of Terriers Farm will be enough to profitably support a 'village shop' that will supply a good proportion of their everyday needs and, hopefully, will also include a Post Office.
Looking to the future.
We applaud the brief's emphasis on the preservation of green areas such as copses, open spaces and play areas, and on the maintenance of green corridors in both north-south and east-west directions. What appears to be missing from the brief is any mention of future maintenance of this green infrastructure. It is well known that council-run activities like grass cutting and hedge trimming are an easy target for cutbacks when the money supply is tight, which now appears to be the normal state of affairs. So what provision, if any, has been made for future maintenance of the site once the major construction work has been done?
A similar warning applies to flood prevention, which depends, among other things, on there being adequate and regular maintenance of drains and culverts. As recent events in Cockermouth, for example, have shown, planning for a once-in-100-years event now seems irrelevant in the light of climate change and more erratic weather patterns.
We hope the above considerations will be taken into account in the preparation of your final development brief.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Guy,
Hon. Secretary, Widmer End Residents' Association.
