Page 20 - Ickford NP Consultation Report

20 VISION FOR ICKFORD : ICKFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN CONSULTATION REPORT

57 Infrastructure lacking, i.e. Drainage, public transport, cycle paths
(to promote sustainable travel)
58 Traffic. Drainage. Sewage. Small village do not want to become a
large village. Ickford School wants to increase its size hoping that
housing development will go ahead. School development additional
classes will mean more traffic into Ickford, no parking. Ickford school
was and should remain a small village school, and not increase in size
to attract families from Oxfordshire or Thame.
59 There would be too many larger homes and not sufficient smaller
affordable homes. The total number of houses projected at the moment
would make too much impact on the village and its amenities.
60 I am a little concerned with regard to my understanding that 3 sites
have been identified which will mean over 100 houses. This is far too
many for the village taken into consideration the flooding and sewer
problem. Plus more traffic.
61 The assumption is that because Ickford has a school and a shop and a
pub it is set up to cater for development. It is not. These amenities are
village-sized by their nature and the school especially could not
support a doubling of the population through the enormous
developments proposed. Nor could the roads, the ancient bridge over
the Thame, or the eco-system of the area, which has significant value.
For example, an ecological survey stored on the AVDC website
covering the plans for the Pound Green Field developments (https://
publicaccess.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do
?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OKNNJPCLLEK00) states that there are no
records of Great Crested Newt in the area until Shabbington. This is
incorrect: we can provide a survey that records Great Crested Newt
in 2012, and which identifies both the private ponds in Little Ickford
and the village pond nearby as suitable habitats for GCN in 2014.
Giant developments such as those proposed for Ickford would clearly
be detrimental to the established ecology of the area. Flooding is part
of this and is also of enormous concern. The fields around the village and
the orchards in Little Ickford flood regularly. This is a water meadow area
and the village has flooded often in the past and anyone who lives here
knows that the village is a small island in a flood plain with a high water
table. Massive development on the scale proposed would create
displacement flooding affecting houses and roads. The road between
Shabbington and Thame already floods regularly cutting off access to the
village and driving traffic over the C17 bridges to Tiddington or out
th
through Worminghall. This traffic would be doubled whilst at the same
time the flooding would undoubtedly become worse, creating huge
problems.
62 Increased traffic causing increased congestion in the village particularly
the bridges where some sort of traffic management system would need to
be constructed. The school area is very congested at the present at school
drop off and collection times. It will cause delays out of Tiddington at the
junction of the A418. At 8–8.30am it is currently very difficult to get onto
the A418. Most developers do not allow for 2-3 cars per household. They
quote one, which is wholly unrealistic. I have grave doubts that in the
event of any building, that the improvement to the infrastructure –

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