Agenda item

This is included in the agenda pack. 

Jim Stevens to present the report for Community Board approval.

North West Chilterns Active Travel Aspirations Report

JS stated that this document was the work of the Transport and Road Issues Action Group, which had been undertaken over the last two years and was about the North West Chilterns Active Travel Aspirations – see report in the agenda pack and the NWC Active Travel Aspirations document and presentation attached.

JS informed the Board of the recommendations which were being presented tonight to the Board for decision – these were:

• To support and adopt our document – so it had a different status and held a greater weight and was not seen as an action group document.
• Formally request Buckinghamshire Council to:

Ø  Use the document to help develop the Countywide Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).

Ø  Adopt the document as a supplement to the Countywide LCWIP and make it readily accessible on the Council’s Website – so there would be more coverage and publicity.

Key highlights from the presentation:

The format of the document was textural information around the geography of the North West Chilterns, including reference to the recent consultation and policy context.  In addition there were nine maps showing aspirations for improved cycling and walking infrastructure.  An overview of these were as detailed below.

Map 1 – Inter-settlement routes: Buckinghamshire Council (BC) officers were working on inter settlement routes across Bucks as part of developing the Countywide strategic Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. BC officers had recently engaged directly with BC local Members on this specific subject, and in order to help Members with this task, Map 9 had been sent to them by the Community Board Manager along with what the action group felt should be the top 3 priorities, namely:  (1) A4010 active travel route (2) the A40 West Wycombe to Stokenchurch and (3) the links between Princes Risborough and Longwick.

Map 2 – A4010 Active Travel Route: This was an important active travel route and JS had promoted this as such to Buckinghamshire Council many times. JS stated that the A4010 was more than a cycling and walking route between the settlements that were situated on the route itself, but it would also act as a feeder route to five  existing promoted cycling and walking routes within the Chilterns which crossed the A4010, four railways stations, many local places of interest and villages either side. For example Bledlow Ridge via Haw Lane. Risborough was also due to expand so having the A4010 Active Travel Route something in place prior to or during the expansion would encourage more people to walk and cycle from the outset.  In addition, there was expansion in Aylesbury, HS2 were building a new bypass in Stoke Mandeville and Buckinghamshire Council had approved a HS2 funded cycleway along the A4010 linking the proposed Stoke Mandeville bypass with Terrick roundabout, so the jigsaw was coming together but much more focus was required by Buckinghamshire Council on the A4010.

Map 3a – Links between Princes Risborough and Longwick: These were also referenced in the Wycombe Local Plan.

Map 3b – Princes Risborough: These were local improvements identified by the local Climate Action Now group. For example, a cycle route from the Marks and Spencer’s roundabout to the New Road zebra crossing which could then link into the High Street.  Another example was a link beneath the current railway bridge at Park Mill, Princes Risborough.  A Public Right of Way route already existed but the route passed beneath the railway bridge, which was not lit at night, but with 2,500 houses due to be built and major employment around the area, it would make sense to have a proper active travel route linking the new development with Summerleys Road and Kites Park.

Map 3c – Princes Risborough, Potential Barriers to Cycling and Walking: When construction on the relief road works commenced, it was hoped that the existing cycling and walking routes would  be protected so they didn’t put people off cycling and walking.

Map 4 – Longwick: Routes were defined within the Longwick Transport Vision and include two links from Longwick village to the Phoenix Trail - (1) Walnut Tree Lane via the bridleway and (2) along the B4009 Lower Icknield Way. Three locations were defined for enhanced crossings due to the housing expansion. In addition, links were shown on the map between Meadle Village to the Relief Road.

Map 5 – Road Crossings: This map showed new or improved road crossings points for pedestrians and cyclists. There were six on the A4010 that were aimed to reduce risk and improve safety for walkers, cyclists, wheelers and dog walkers, so the action group were looking for enhancements. Locations shown were around the Golden Cross Public House, Hearing Dogs for Deaf, Little Lane (near the Rose and Crown), the B4009 at Great Kimble (which would form part of the Princes Risborough Relief Road and the Wycombe Local Plan identified this as a crossing that required improvement) and Walters Hill and Naphill, which was part of a petition received by the Community Board approximately one year ago.

Map 6 – Cadsden: To tie up two important Public Rights of Way - the Ridgeway crosses the road in a stagger and was on a bend. There was lots of traffic and was very hazardous. The plan was to re-surface off road. It was noted there had been some very recent vegetation clearance which had opened up the area.

Map 7 – Ridgeway and Phoenix Trail: The aspiration was to connect Bledlow to the Phoenix Trail and improve the Phoenix Trail between Lower Icknield Way and Horsenden. The Chilterns Conservation Board (CCB) Officer that has provided input to the action group had indicated that there were a number of potential projects that were related to the Ridgeway that CCB officers were working on.

Questions:

Sophie Payne (SP) asked if reductions in traffic flow or what people could do as a result of some of the proposals were included in this document, so for example, children travelling to school safely and active travel routes to school.  SP asked if these existed in the document.  JS said they did and stated that there was an underlying assumption in the document that Buckinghamshire Council would continue its positive work with schools and school travel planning. JS agreed to make reference to this on the document.

Action: JS to add to the document.

SB recognised the work that had gone into developing this document and taking information from local people. Buckinghamshire Council however had deliberately consulted with all Community Boards together on their countywide strategic  Local Cycling and Walking Improvement Plan (LCWIP) and in due course would be going out to a wider, more formal consultation, as would they on LTP5.

SB stated that “Wheeling” was missing from the document and said that active travel must include less abled bodied people. SB urged this be included.  Furthermore, SB stressed that there was no capital funding for active travel schemes beyond that which could be secured from Government, as funding was all from developers. This was not a financial choice by the Council on whether to fund this and felt that something on this should be referenced in the document.

JS advised that “Wheeling” was already referenced in the actual document although not specifically referenced in tonight’s power point presentation. In terms of SB’s comment no funding being available, JS said he was aware of this, but felt it was really important to have the aspirational document in place so that when money was available through, for example, S106 and CIL, we had a plan which was ready to go.  JS advised that the document was referenced as “aspirational” and that it was quite difficult to find the right words to say that no funding was available and that this is stressed in the document.

RC raised the point that SB raised that Community Boards had been consulted on the strategic LCWIP. RC asked if this document was the response to that. RC stated that if this document was a supplement to the LCWIP, there would be 16 and how would there be a priority over one particular Board. Taking the first point, JS confirmed that the action group had taken the initiative to do something around walking and cycling and this document represented this. Other Boards across the County either don’t have an action group relating to transport or their action group were focusing on other things.  In totality there was probably three similar projects of this sort that could act as supplementary documents to the strategic LCWIP.  In relation to the second point, JS said that SB mentioned that Buckinghamshire Councillors had been consulted on the countywide, strategic LCWIP. JS advised that all Members across the 16 Community Boards had been engaged with and were sent an email from the Transport Strategy and Funding Team (TSFT) which clearly set out what they wanted Buckinghamshire Council Members feedback on in terms of their top three inter settlement routes (shown on Map 1). JS and JB sent an email to all NWC Members and advised that when they started thinking about what three priorities they wanted to put forward, that they consider the A4010 active travel route, the A40 to Stokenchurch and links between Princes Risborough and Longwick.  One that was just outside the top three was the Hughenden Greenway, but we could only have three. JS stated that he wasn’t sure if all Members responded and/or what three priority routes they chose.

RC felt that the action group was encouraging unitary elected Members to be casting on what they felt was an improved plan, when Members represented their own constituents priorities. RC therefore was uncertain on the total document.  MW confirmed that the email sent from JS/JB to all Buckinghamshire Councillors in January 2023, was responded to by himself, Gary Hall (GH) and Alan Turner (AT) in support of the three recommendations, but he did not know if other Buckinghamshire Councillors responded. As the Community Board Chairman, he had a briefing meeting with TSFT and different proposals were reviewed. An additional meeting was requested but it was not granted by the officers.

MW stated that he, JS and AT were very heavily involved in the Risborough expansion work, and that they learnt a valuable lesson in that you need text to be included in the overall plan. If you don’t, issues would be quickly forgotten in their entirety. AT agreed and said that you definitely required written policy back up. MW advised that it wouldn’t just be the Community Board that would look at this document, it would be developers too in terms of contributions within the Risborough expansion, so the work of this group that was put forward to Buckinghamshire Council detailed the aspirations of the North West Chilterns and our preferred schemes at this time.

MW added that the A4010 was regularly used but thought the A413 took priority. Carl had mentioned this at Council. AT added that the aspirational document was invaluable for large scale planning applications as developers would look at every conceivable document that was held by Buckinghamshire Council to see what they might be being asked for when submitting an application.

SB stated that the email sent from TSFT to Members was more than that. It included quantitative data evidence of traffic movement, demand lines, economic information, suggested identifiable routes, and priorities that Members may have from that, and then a meeting, so it was not just an email and was important to stress.  SB confirmed that a lot of hard work was carried out by officers at this stage, where they sought local input early in order to formulate a plan, taking into consideration additional input into the countywide LCWIP, which then enabled a draft proposal to be developed. This draft would go out to public consultation so there would be another opportunity to review and make comment.

SB added that none of the work carried out by TSFT prevented the discussions and review of the “aspirational “ document. SB felt there would be differences in opinion between Community Boards on what should be prioritised, but the work of the action group prior to being asked the question by Council officers meant that they were able to submit the NWC CB’s local priorities. The strategic LCWIP was more than three identified schemes as it included traffic movements, current volumes and estimated uplifts. Buckinghamshire Council would not obtain funding without this because Government would say it did not meet criteria. The action group had identified the Board’s local desires, so it was right to identify inter settlement routes.

JS emphasised that the three priority inter-settlement routes identified on the map for local Members to look at were ones that the action group decided from local intelligence. This information was passed onto local Members, not prescribing what they should do as it was totally respected that Members would have their own views.

Shade Adoh advised that she was unsure on how the NWC’s document tailored into the countywide document. JS stated that only the three priority routes that were detailed in the NWC’s document would be in the strategic LCWIP. In principle, JS said he would like anyone that contacted Buckinghamshire Council about cycling, walking and wheeling/active travel in general, would not only be signposted to the strategic LCWIP, but also signposted to our aspirational document if their enquiry related to the North West Chilterns because our document included detailed local information on cycling and walking routes and crossing points which would not be in the strategic LCWIP, other than three priority inter-settlement routes. The two documents would work hand in hand. The mechanics on how the NWC document would be signposted to would need to be agreed.

MW highlighted that the three priority routes recommended in the strategic LCWIP were not the same three routes as detailed in the NWC’s aspirational document. JS confirmed that they were not and that was why the group requested a meeting with TSFT to understand the logic and make the case to officers to try and get the three routes included.  JS said he was very concerned that whilst Buckinghamshire Council officers had referenced the A4010 as an inter-settlement route, it was only part of it - West Wycombe to Saunderton. JS said that there was a high propensity to cycle form Bledlow Ridge and Princes Risborough and in his opinion, a good way to travel from Bledlow Ridge to Princes Risborough would be to come from Bledlow Ridge Village Centre, down Haw Lane, and then drop onto the A4010 active travel route – this would be the quickest route in, the flattest and maybe the safest. Simon Breese thought that you needed to think about the difference between people that were trying to get somewhere and proficient cyclists who liked to stretch themselves going up the hill to the household waste site, so he believed you had two communities. JS advised that Buckinghamshire Council had lots of data and that some was derived from reviewing population centres, distances and whether a route was cyclable, and then looking at propensity to cycle through rankings and connections throughout the North West Chilterns. JS confirmed that many of Buckinghamshire Council’s medium priorities matched our map, but it was the top priorities that would feature in the countywide LCWIP, and at the moment it only included one of our priorities,  Princes Risborough to Longwick, and didn’t include A40 to West Wycombe and only a small part of the A4010. JS explained that was why it was important to put our priorities forward to Buckinghamshire Council Members to give them the choice to propose them.

Darren Hayday (DH) asked if Buckinghamshire Councillors should make comment on the three priority routes.  JS requested that at this stage, Councillors should only vote to agree or disagree on the two recommendations in the presentation, and then if the Board was given the opportunity to have a meeting with Buckinghamshire Council officers, then arguments would be put forward as to why the groups three priority routes should be included.

MW suggested that the recommendations be changed in that the Community Board use the document subject to further consultation with Members of the North West Chilterns. But, before it is presented any further, Members should be given another opportunity prior to the vote, to confirm that they were happy with the three priority routes and all aspirations.

SB did not feel there was a point in voting on the aspirational document during the meeting because some Members had formally expressed this, but felt it should not stop a view being taken on the entire document, but not just the three routes.

RC asked JB what the threshold was for voting on this document as some Members not present may oppose it. JB advised that there was no formal threshold, so it was up to the Chairman to agree how the Community Board should take a vote on this document going forward.

DH thought that the vote should be taken this evening and was happy to support it. DH said the document should be taken forward and recognised the work that had been put in by the action group.

MW said that he fully supported the work that had been done but wanted the aspirational document to have as much weight and legitimacy as possible and didn’t think delaying the vote to double check for a month to six weeks would be an issue.

Surrinder Marshall asked if she was correct in thinking that the document was more granular and not just about the three priority routes, and included what our aspirations were around cycling and walking routes were which would then feed into the strategic document.  JS confirmed this was correct and that our document was intended as a supplementary document to the strategic LCWIP.  JS stressed that our document was not just about the three priority routes.

After listening to Members, MW requested a separate meeting be held in September 2023 to enable a formal vote to taken.

Action: JB to organise a separate Community Board meeting.