Page 108 - Ickford NP Consultation Report

108 VISION FOR ICKFORD : ICKFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION REPORT

Table Three continued

Table C comments arising from Consultation Process by Bucks CC:

Responder Comment INP Reference Comment Response Change
Number Number Page Policy Para Required

TRANSPORT STRATEGY & HIGHWAYS
12 1 CC is supportive of Policy TT1, specifically; New Noted No
development in the parish will only be supported where change
it can be demonstrated that any severe adverse impacts
on the road network would be mitigated and pedestrian
safety would not be compromised.
12 2 This is supported by the NPPF, in particular Agree with comments Change
paragraphs 108, 109 and 110[1]. However, BCC wording
suggest ‘…any severe adverse impacts on the road of Policy
network…’ is amended to ‘…any severe adverse
residual cumulative impacts on the road
network… and highway safety would not be
compromised’. The reference to cumulative
impacts ensures developers take into account the
impact of sites in proximity, in addition to that
being specifically assessed. Whilst BCC
understand the Parish are concerned with respect
to pedestrian safety, referring to highway safety is
encompassing and would therefore be a reference
to both vehicular and pedestrian safety.

12 4 Where the Policy states; ‘All development should AVDC parking guidance No
provide adequate off-street parking’, the Parish is referenced, but is not change
Council should take into consideration that BCC and yet in place. (AVDC are
Aylesbury Vale District Council(AVDC) have both using BCC standards, so
published guidance for parking schemes associated the referenced standards
with new developments. We would advise that the are a summary of the
Parish Council to look at AVDC’s Parking BCC standards) Tandem
Guidelines when determining the number and size parking is not helpful
of parking spaces required with new developments. because it leads to
With respect to the references to parking, parking parking on the highways
currently needs to be provided in accordance with and it is hoped that the
the Aylesbury Vale Parking Guidance[2]. new guidance will make
Unfortunately, tandem parking is not restricted in reference to this issue.
this guidance and as such the highway authority
would find it difficult to sustain an objection to such
a layout in an appeal situation

12 5 Policy TT1 states that traffic calming will be It is important that traffic Replace
required. Traffic calming usually requires a TRO calming is provided as ‘appropriate’
and as such is subject to public consultation. In part of potential new with
addition, some elements of traffic calming require housing development in ‘required’
enforcement, such as a 20mph speed limit / the village. Recignising
parking restrictions. As such, it is not appropriate that any planning
to state that they ‘will be required’. It should application will have
further be noted that the County Council would requirements placed on
not support the implementation of a 20mph the scheme by the
speed limit. Vertical traffic calming features are Highways Authority, the
unlikely to be supported by the Highway Np can refer to ‘required’
Authority as consideration should be given to the traffic calming.
associated impact of such measures such as an
adverse impact on bus routes, noise, vibrations,
increased omissions and maintenance (and
possible bus routes). Horizontal traffic calming
also has implications and therefore further
research into what would be considered
acceptable would be required. The document

VISION FOR ICKFORD – NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
www.visionforickford.co.uk