Anger as M40 junction is mooted for Flackwell Heath

(From left) Wendy Mander, Colin Clarkson, Carol Remsbury and Chris Remsbury

(From left) Wendy Mander, Colin Clarkson, Carol Remsbury and Chris Remsbury

First published in News Bucks Free Press: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter

RESIDENTS are preparing for battle as anger grows over new plans for a £12million M40 motorway junction in Flackwell Heath.

The proposed development, a part of Wycombe District Council’s Local Plan which hopes to ‘meet future needs of businesses in the town and relieve congestion’, shows a proposed new route could run through Spring Lane, near Heath End Road, Flackwell Heath.

The new junction 3a would enable motorists to access the northbound M40 from Wycombe, without having to drive to the already congested Handy Cross – although the council says this particular plan is just one of several options being considered.

Resident Chris Remsbury, who lives on Heath End Road, almost opposite Spring Lane, said: “A new motorway junction would knock thousands of pounds off the values of all these properties. Have you got a for sale sign in your car? I would put that up straight away.”

Mr Remsbury who built eight of the houses along Heath End Road and has lived there for 45 years fears this would ruin the area for good.

He said: “We sometimes hear the traffic from the road, but at the moment it doesn’t bother us too much. I don’t think we could live with that though.”

“Where would all that traffic go? It isn’t just the additional traffic, its danger and also noise. This area has been spoilt already but I think this would make it a lot worse.

“What we know to be beautiful as it is today, could all be ruined tomorrow.”

The council says a junction would markedly alter the pattern of traffic volume and growth within High Wycombe.

The WDC local plan says: “A new junction – 3a – could help meet the future needs of business in the town/ district and relieve congestion in the area by attracting inward investment.

“Without a new junction, businesses would be highly unlikely to locate here on a significant scale.

“This would create a highly accessible location triggering a significant change in the market’s perception of High Wycombe and deliver improved connections to new and existing employment areas on and close to the London Road.”

An angry reaction to the proposal has also been met by the Flackwell Heath group ‘Residents Against Inappropriate Development’, which campaigns to protect green belt land in the area.

A member of RAID, who did not want to be named, said: “It is obvious that it is likely to be at Spring Lane, currently a narrow, steep, winding road. It is an abomination. It’s not just close to us, it is actually in the village.”

“Traffic through the village is already a problem and this will make it intolerable with traffic noise massively increased. Roads around the village are already in a poor state and are unable to support the volume of traffic.”

“We do not need another motorway junction so close between 3 and 4 compounding problems at this accident blackspot – there are already a number of accidents in between these junctions and this would prove to be another hazard.

“Residents have fought a development here in the past and it was rejected then, it should not even be considered now.”

Cllr Neil Marshall, WDC Cabinet Member for Planning and Sustainability, said: “The local plan explores various options for long term planning right up to 2031.

“It looks at all sorts of ways we can help the district grow in terms of ensuring there are enough homes for local people to live and finding new employment sites in the district to attract new jobs into the area.

“Junction 3a is one of many options under consideration. It would be a long term, high cost project which would need more detailed feasibility work and the approval of the Highways Authority, if we were to progress the idea."

To have your say on the WDCs Local Plan, please email: newlocalplan@wycombe.gov.uk, or write to Wycombe District Council, Queen Victoria Road, High Wycombe, Bucks HP11 1BB.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:30pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Monty Cristo says...

"Without a new junction, businesses would be highly unlikely to locate here on a significant scale".
Absolute rubbish. From the Eastern end of town it is not exactly unacceptably onerous in terms of time and distance to drive East to Beaconsfield then come back again - if one wishes to avoid Handy Cross. I imagine it takes less than 10 minutes. Or, we could spend 12 million pounds in a time of austerity when our current roads don't get fixed properly, and make the life of the residents affected a complete misery into the bargain.
Given that choice, I simply would not build it.
"Without a new junction, businesses would be highly unlikely to locate here on a significant scale". Absolute rubbish. From the Eastern end of town it is not exactly unacceptably onerous in terms of time and distance to drive East to Beaconsfield then come back again - if one wishes to avoid Handy Cross. I imagine it takes less than 10 minutes. Or, we could spend 12 million pounds in a time of austerity when our current roads don't get fixed properly, and make the life of the residents affected a complete misery into the bargain. Given that choice, I simply would not build it. Monty Cristo
  • Score: -15

12:47pm Sun 30 Mar 14

mother henpeck says...

what a great idea!!!!!!!!!!! this should have been done years ago I back it 100 %!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what a great idea!!!!!!!!!!! this should have been done years ago I back it 100 %!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! mother henpeck
  • Score: 30

2:02pm Sun 30 Mar 14

MattHopkins1620 says...

"Without a new junction, businesses would be highly unlikely to locate here on a significant scale."

Does this mean that if it isn't built we won't need it? Well here's a plan, let's not build it.

On the other hand it could be fun watching the carnage as hundreds of vehicles hop on at 3a and turn off at junction 4.

Having driven many thousands of miles on motorways there is nothing more likely to cause problems than junctions. O the joy of having three in the space of five miles.
"Without a new junction, businesses would be highly unlikely to locate here on a significant scale." Does this mean that if it isn't built we won't need it? Well here's a plan, let's not build it. On the other hand it could be fun watching the carnage as hundreds of vehicles hop on at 3a and turn off at junction 4. Having driven many thousands of miles on motorways there is nothing more likely to cause problems than junctions. O the joy of having three in the space of five miles. MattHopkins1620
  • Score: 5

2:26pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place.
The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.
They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place. The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's. Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 31

3:56pm Sun 30 Mar 14

HerculePoirot says...

This new junction would be 1500m from J4 and less from J3. Madness. “This would create a highly accessible location triggering a significant change in the market’s perception of High Wycombe and deliver improved connections to new and existing employment areas on and close to the London Road.” It would also completely destroy the beautiful area around Spring Lane. Do we really want all areas in WDC to be "highly accessible"? "a proposed new route could run through Spring Lane" - go take a look at it.
This new junction would be 1500m from J4 and less from J3. Madness. “This would create a highly accessible location triggering a significant change in the market’s perception of High Wycombe and deliver improved connections to new and existing employment areas on and close to the London Road.” It would also completely destroy the beautiful area around Spring Lane. Do we really want all areas in WDC to be "highly accessible"? "a proposed new route could run through Spring Lane" - go take a look at it. HerculePoirot
  • Score: -19

4:17pm Sun 30 Mar 14

marlow12 says...

I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted
I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted marlow12
  • Score: 9

4:40pm Sun 30 Mar 14

rem708 says...

Won't be permitted by the High Ways agency as its too close to existing junctions. This was looked at when Abbey Barn was considered for the Stadium relocation.
Won't be permitted by the High Ways agency as its too close to existing junctions. This was looked at when Abbey Barn was considered for the Stadium relocation. rem708
  • Score: -6

4:40pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Arkwright says...

As usual no consideration by residents for the wider good of the area - no doubt against HS2 and probably the M40 itself when it was built all those years ago. There is more to life than 'Me & myself'
As usual no consideration by residents for the wider good of the area - no doubt against HS2 and probably the M40 itself when it was built all those years ago. There is more to life than 'Me & myself' Arkwright
  • Score: -3

6:45pm Sun 30 Mar 14

MattHopkins1620 says...

As usual no benefits or consideration for residents.

Once again anyone with serious concerns about the erosion of their quality of life is dismissed as a NIMBY.
As usual no benefits or consideration for residents. Once again anyone with serious concerns about the erosion of their quality of life is dismissed as a NIMBY. MattHopkins1620
  • Score: -12

6:55pm Sun 30 Mar 14

dbanes says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place.
The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.
+1
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place. The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.[/p][/quote]+1 dbanes
  • Score: 9

7:19pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Monty Cristo says...

marlow12 wrote:
I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted
Much needed and wanted by whom? Who would it significantly benefit, exactly, and how much, in term of time etc? Judging by your name, you live in Marlow, if so, not you for sure.
[quote][p][bold]marlow12[/bold] wrote: I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted[/p][/quote]Much needed and wanted by whom? Who would it significantly benefit, exactly, and how much, in term of time etc? Judging by your name, you live in Marlow, if so, not you for sure. Monty Cristo
  • Score: -2

7:22pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Monty Cristo says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place.
The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.
Why? The emergency services are in the centre of town, so Handy Cross is the logical junction to use from there if going North!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place. The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.[/p][/quote]Why? The emergency services are in the centre of town, so Handy Cross is the logical junction to use from there if going North! Monty Cristo
  • Score: -1

7:56pm Sun 30 Mar 14

marlow12 says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
marlow12 wrote:
I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted
Much needed and wanted by whom? Who would it significantly benefit, exactly, and how much, in term of time etc? Judging by your name, you live in Marlow, if so, not you for sure.
Much needed and wanted buy people who live in the real world not buy peoplewho clog up the roads driving to golf garden centres or meeting friends for tea this is 2014 not 1950 people like you hold Wycombe back this town could be great if it wasn't for all the old people in gods waiting room go for it wdc drag this town into the future and let's face it where they want the junction there is nothing there only fly tip
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marlow12[/bold] wrote: I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted[/p][/quote]Much needed and wanted by whom? Who would it significantly benefit, exactly, and how much, in term of time etc? Judging by your name, you live in Marlow, if so, not you for sure.[/p][/quote]Much needed and wanted buy people who live in the real world not buy peoplewho clog up the roads driving to golf garden centres or meeting friends for tea this is 2014 not 1950 people like you hold Wycombe back this town could be great if it wasn't for all the old people in gods waiting room go for it wdc drag this town into the future and let's face it where they want the junction there is nothing there only fly tip marlow12
  • Score: 4

9:13pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Monty Cristo says...

marlow12 wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
marlow12 wrote:
I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted
Much needed and wanted by whom? Who would it significantly benefit, exactly, and how much, in term of time etc? Judging by your name, you live in Marlow, if so, not you for sure.
Much needed and wanted buy people who live in the real world not buy peoplewho clog up the roads driving to golf garden centres or meeting friends for tea this is 2014 not 1950 people like you hold Wycombe back this town could be great if it wasn't for all the old people in gods waiting room go for it wdc drag this town into the future and let's face it where they want the junction there is nothing there only fly tip
So where exactly do these people live, who will use this junction? And why are they going North (where to?)? And how often? You didn't bother answering that. And why can't they spend very few minutes going to Beaconsfield and back?
I would bet that I drive more miles per year than you, since my job is driving - and from the Eastern end of Wycombe, I use the M40 every day. It is very little hardship to go to Handy Cross or join the M40 at Loudwater and go to the Beaconsfield junction and back. if going North.. The saving in time for very few people (most people go towards London) simply is not worth 12 million of our money. I'd like to know what research the Council has done on this. Have they consulted lots of industries and asked them if the saving of a couple of minutes will really make them move to the area? Do they know this for sure? Or are they just guessing? In modern 2014, we should be encouraging people to work at home where possible, as I did in my previous job. We should also being **** sure , in our current financial circumstances (i.e. those in 2014!) that every penny of our money is only spent because spending it can be fully justified. . Not only that but I think you'll find that the Council has stated that it wishes to reduce commuting as much as possible. Building junctions every mile or so simply encourages people to commute. They can't have it both ways.
[quote][p][bold]marlow12[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marlow12[/bold] wrote: I agree it needs on off ramps in both ways but look at the people trying to stop it they're so old they will be long gone by the time its built good on you wdc much needed and wanted[/p][/quote]Much needed and wanted by whom? Who would it significantly benefit, exactly, and how much, in term of time etc? Judging by your name, you live in Marlow, if so, not you for sure.[/p][/quote]Much needed and wanted buy people who live in the real world not buy peoplewho clog up the roads driving to golf garden centres or meeting friends for tea this is 2014 not 1950 people like you hold Wycombe back this town could be great if it wasn't for all the old people in gods waiting room go for it wdc drag this town into the future and let's face it where they want the junction there is nothing there only fly tip[/p][/quote]So where exactly do these people live, who will use this junction? And why are they going North (where to?)? And how often? You didn't bother answering that. And why can't they spend very few minutes going to Beaconsfield and back? I would bet that I drive more miles per year than you, since my job is driving - and from the Eastern end of Wycombe, I use the M40 every day. It is very little hardship to go to Handy Cross or join the M40 at Loudwater and go to the Beaconsfield junction and back. if going North.. The saving in time for very few people (most people go towards London) simply is not worth 12 million of our money. I'd like to know what research the Council has done on this. Have they consulted lots of industries and asked them if the saving of a couple of minutes will really make them move to the area? Do they know this for sure? Or are they just guessing? In modern 2014, we should be encouraging people to work at home where possible, as I did in my previous job. We should also being **** sure , in our current financial circumstances (i.e. those in 2014!) that every penny of our money is only spent because spending it can be fully justified. . Not only that but I think you'll find that the Council has stated that it wishes to reduce commuting as much as possible. Building junctions every mile or so simply encourages people to commute. They can't have it both ways. Monty Cristo
  • Score: -11

11:10pm Sun 30 Mar 14

bluebanana says...

Going by the info provided in the article, the proposal is not just about saving a few minutes for the users of the M40. It is to relieve congestion across a wider area and attract investment. Now I can't comment on the validity of the research used to justify the specified objectives, but you can't disagree that businesses are unlikely to move to an area blighted by severe & frequent traffic congestion. IF this proposal would reduce congestion & attract investment then surely that is a good thing?
Going by the info provided in the article, the proposal is not just about saving a few minutes for the users of the M40. It is to relieve congestion across a wider area and attract investment. Now I can't comment on the validity of the research used to justify the specified objectives, but you can't disagree that businesses are unlikely to move to an area blighted by severe & frequent traffic congestion. IF this proposal would reduce congestion & attract investment then surely that is a good thing? bluebanana
  • Score: 19

12:04am Mon 31 Mar 14

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place.
The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.
Why? The emergency services are in the centre of town, so Handy Cross is the logical junction to use from there if going North!
So an accident northbound just past junction 3... how do they get there?
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place. The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.[/p][/quote]Why? The emergency services are in the centre of town, so Handy Cross is the logical junction to use from there if going North![/p][/quote]So an accident northbound just past junction 3... how do they get there? Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 6

6:18am Mon 31 Mar 14

MunsterX says...

WDC are not the roads authority, no information or opinions from BCC / Transport for Bucks?
WDC are not the roads authority, no information or opinions from BCC / Transport for Bucks? MunsterX
  • Score: -3

8:28am Mon 31 Mar 14

I know who I am says...

rem708 wrote:
Won't be permitted by the High Ways agency as its too close to existing junctions. This was looked at when Abbey Barn was considered for the Stadium relocation.
Junctions 7 & 8 at Thame are about 3rd of a mile apart with 5 & 6 Stokenchurch and Watlinton only about a mile apart and they don't seem to cause a problem
[quote][p][bold]rem708[/bold] wrote: Won't be permitted by the High Ways agency as its too close to existing junctions. This was looked at when Abbey Barn was considered for the Stadium relocation.[/p][/quote]Junctions 7 & 8 at Thame are about 3rd of a mile apart with 5 & 6 Stokenchurch and Watlinton only about a mile apart and they don't seem to cause a problem I know who I am
  • Score: 8

8:56am Mon 31 Mar 14

Monty Cristo says...

Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
Mr Totterdge Hill wrote:
They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place.
The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.
Why? The emergency services are in the centre of town, so Handy Cross is the logical junction to use from there if going North!
So an accident northbound just past junction 3... how do they get there?
South to Beaconsfield, then North again, as they presumably do now. Or close the Southbound carriageway and get access via that if necessary for the relatively few times it is needed. Using your logic, there would be a junction every few miles of every motorway, but they haven't seen fit to provide that for the emergency services have they? It is about 6.5 miles between Beaconsfield junction and Handy Cross. But it is too between Handy Cross and Stokenchurch - so do we need a junction in between those two too, for the emergency services? It is also 11 or so miles between J8a and J9. Do we need another one between those too? It is completely impossible to provide absolutely perfect access for every part of a motorway. Proposing the new junction on that basis is unjustifiable in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Totterdge Hill[/bold] wrote: They shouldn't have been allowed to build the junction without on and off ramps in both directions in the first place. The emergency services will support this as I'm sure will many... down with NIMBY's.[/p][/quote]Why? The emergency services are in the centre of town, so Handy Cross is the logical junction to use from there if going North![/p][/quote]So an accident northbound just past junction 3... how do they get there?[/p][/quote]South to Beaconsfield, then North again, as they presumably do now. Or close the Southbound carriageway and get access via that if necessary for the relatively few times it is needed. Using your logic, there would be a junction every few miles of every motorway, but they haven't seen fit to provide that for the emergency services have they? It is about 6.5 miles between Beaconsfield junction and Handy Cross. But it is too between Handy Cross and Stokenchurch - so do we need a junction in between those two too, for the emergency services? It is also 11 or so miles between J8a and J9. Do we need another one between those too? It is completely impossible to provide absolutely perfect access for every part of a motorway. Proposing the new junction on that basis is unjustifiable in my opinion. Monty Cristo
  • Score: -8

9:26am Mon 31 Mar 14

KTinBucks says...

Remember “Jams today, more Jams tomorrow” and “Wycombe deserves better”?

Well those involved have looked at transport options to reduce congestion in the whole town. And the nearest thing to a silver bullet to address the numerous road issues is this new junction.

However, it has been rejected before; BCC have said no only a few months ago when they published their Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy (SQTS); and the Highways Agency, who have responsibility for our motorways have been implacably against it. So what has changed since December 2012?

Is WDC just fueling a debate to divert from their crazy plans to build an excessive amount of homes, encroach on Green Belt and make forays into AONB-designated land?

Watch this carefully!
Remember “Jams today, more Jams tomorrow” and “Wycombe deserves better”? Well those involved have looked at transport options to reduce congestion in the whole town. And the nearest thing to a silver bullet to address the numerous road issues is this new junction. However, it has been rejected before; BCC have said no only a few months ago when they published their Southern Quadrant Transport Strategy (SQTS); and the Highways Agency, who have responsibility for our motorways have been implacably against it. So what has changed since December 2012? Is WDC just fueling a debate to divert from their crazy plans to build an excessive amount of homes, encroach on Green Belt and make forays into AONB-designated land? Watch this carefully! KTinBucks
  • Score: 6

9:31am Mon 31 Mar 14

Monty Cristo says...

bluebanana wrote:
Going by the info provided in the article, the proposal is not just about saving a few minutes for the users of the M40. It is to relieve congestion across a wider area and attract investment. Now I can't comment on the validity of the research used to justify the specified objectives, but you can't disagree that businesses are unlikely to move to an area blighted by severe & frequent traffic congestion. IF this proposal would reduce congestion & attract investment then surely that is a good thing?
Well, it depends why industry needs the better link. Is it to deliver goods more easily, or allow its workers to get to its premises more easily? I agree it would be nice to know the facts.
What you say is true if it would reduce congestion. In my view it will not significantly do that. however, since the addition of new industry plus the fact that 500 homes are to be built in this district every year will inevitably add yet more congestion.. So then we need more roads....etc etc, ....

While this may seem to justify the new junction, paradoxically though providing fantastic access makes it easier for workers to commute to the area from outside, and for our population to commute elsewhere - which the Council has stated in its Devt Plan document it definitely wishes to avoid.
In my opinion what we need is local industry for local people, and adding a new motorway junction like this will do little to provide that in my view.

Relentless expansion will result in massive urban sprawl as available brownfield sites are exhausted and we spread remorselessly into the green belt and link up with surrounding towns and villages. This is already starting to happen - see the proposal to build in the Gomm Valley for example (I don't live nearby by the way, .I don't mention it as a NIMBY, just as an example). The whole strategy needs to centred upon the provision of new and separate garden cities, not relentless urban sprawl. We need a fundamental rethink.
[quote][p][bold]bluebanana[/bold] wrote: Going by the info provided in the article, the proposal is not just about saving a few minutes for the users of the M40. It is to relieve congestion across a wider area and attract investment. Now I can't comment on the validity of the research used to justify the specified objectives, but you can't disagree that businesses are unlikely to move to an area blighted by severe & frequent traffic congestion. IF this proposal would reduce congestion & attract investment then surely that is a good thing?[/p][/quote]Well, it depends why industry needs the better link. Is it to deliver goods more easily, or allow its workers to get to its premises more easily? I agree it would be nice to know the facts. What you say is true if it would reduce congestion. In my view it will not significantly do that. however, since the addition of new industry plus the fact that 500 homes are to be built in this district every year will inevitably add yet more congestion.. So then we need more roads....etc etc, .... While this may seem to justify the new junction, paradoxically though providing fantastic access makes it easier for workers to commute to the area from outside, and for our population to commute elsewhere - which the Council has stated in its Devt Plan document it definitely wishes to avoid. In my opinion what we need is local industry for local people, and adding a new motorway junction like this will do little to provide that in my view. Relentless expansion will result in massive urban sprawl as available brownfield sites are exhausted and we spread remorselessly into the green belt and link up with surrounding towns and villages. This is already starting to happen - see the proposal to build in the Gomm Valley for example (I don't live nearby by the way, .I don't mention it as a NIMBY, just as an example). The whole strategy needs to centred upon the provision of new and separate garden cities, not relentless urban sprawl. We need a fundamental rethink. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 2

11:17am Mon 31 Mar 14

BucksComment says...

Just have done with it - a new MegaCity called WycMarBeac.

Fill in all the green spaces and have on/off ramps for every house.....

It is about time people started questioning those who say 'because we need it' Houses, roads, whatever. We only need it if we, as a community, decide we want to grow.
Just have done with it - a new MegaCity called WycMarBeac. Fill in all the green spaces and have on/off ramps for every house..... It is about time people started questioning those who say 'because we need it' Houses, roads, whatever. We only need it if we, as a community, decide we want to grow. BucksComment
  • Score: -4

12:49pm Mon 31 Mar 14

no1buzz says...

when they built the motorway, they built some sort of entrance / slip road opposite Spring Lane, I always thought it would be in anticipation of a motorway service area, obviously this isn't the case. Has this been a project in waiting all these years?
when they built the motorway, they built some sort of entrance / slip road opposite Spring Lane, I always thought it would be in anticipation of a motorway service area, obviously this isn't the case. Has this been a project in waiting all these years? no1buzz
  • Score: 6

2:19pm Mon 31 Mar 14

big don g the 1st says...

The bloke who built 8 houses on the previously undeveloped road is against the plan due to noise and ruining the beauty. I find this quite funny lol.
The bloke who built 8 houses on the previously undeveloped road is against the plan due to noise and ruining the beauty. I find this quite funny lol. big don g the 1st
  • Score: 16

3:32pm Mon 31 Mar 14

stevet123 says...

if you travel on the stretch of motorway between j 4 and 3 you will see the road has been set out for a junction from when the M40 was first built, let them junctions come in, not going to make any difference if there is an accident on the M40 as surrounding roads get snarled up anyway, go a head with it i say
if you travel on the stretch of motorway between j 4 and 3 you will see the road has been set out for a junction from when the M40 was first built, let them junctions come in, not going to make any difference if there is an accident on the M40 as surrounding roads get snarled up anyway, go a head with it i say stevet123
  • Score: 11

12:13am Tue 1 Apr 14

Dave2013 says...

I can't see this junction being built. The access to it will be hopeless. It would just worsen the congestion on Daws Hill Lane or the London Road. Now if they levelled the Amersham Wycombe College site and put an industrial estate in its place you'd have a great place to site all the new businesses eager to come to High Wycombe with great access to the M40. With the industrial estate they could also build a site for travellers, a BMX/Skateboard park and a 100,000 sq ft Waitrose. Everybody would be a winner. Alternatively the Council could stop spending their time considering pie in the sky fantasy schemes.
I can't see this junction being built. The access to it will be hopeless. It would just worsen the congestion on Daws Hill Lane or the London Road. Now if they levelled the Amersham Wycombe College site and put an industrial estate in its place you'd have a great place to site all the new businesses eager to come to High Wycombe with great access to the M40. With the industrial estate they could also build a site for travellers, a BMX/Skateboard park and a 100,000 sq ft Waitrose. Everybody would be a winner. Alternatively the Council could stop spending their time considering pie in the sky fantasy schemes. Dave2013
  • Score: 0

3:53am Tue 1 Apr 14

shaky2 says...

Dave2013 wrote:
I can't see this junction being built. The access to it will be hopeless. It would just worsen the congestion on Daws Hill Lane or the London Road. Now if they levelled the Amersham Wycombe College site and put an industrial estate in its place you'd have a great place to site all the new businesses eager to come to High Wycombe with great access to the M40. With the industrial estate they could also build a site for travellers, a BMX/Skateboard park and a 100,000 sq ft Waitrose. Everybody would be a winner. Alternatively the Council could stop spending their time considering pie in the sky fantasy schemes.
You forgot to mention another new Tesco store will be needed
[quote][p][bold]Dave2013[/bold] wrote: I can't see this junction being built. The access to it will be hopeless. It would just worsen the congestion on Daws Hill Lane or the London Road. Now if they levelled the Amersham Wycombe College site and put an industrial estate in its place you'd have a great place to site all the new businesses eager to come to High Wycombe with great access to the M40. With the industrial estate they could also build a site for travellers, a BMX/Skateboard park and a 100,000 sq ft Waitrose. Everybody would be a winner. Alternatively the Council could stop spending their time considering pie in the sky fantasy schemes.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention another new Tesco store will be needed shaky2
  • Score: 4

10:24am Tue 1 Apr 14

marlowbucks says...

April Fool!! :-)
April Fool!! :-) marlowbucks
  • Score: -3

12:28pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Steve_Loudwater says...

I am totally 100% in favour of this proposed development. I live in Loudwater and this would be of great benefit to Woburn, Flackwell and Loudwater. I'm sorry that it will upset a small minority who live close to it, but you can't have progression without some small sacrifices. It's for the greater good people. Let's get this built. In fact, I'll happily have £100 extra on my council tax to get this done.
I am totally 100% in favour of this proposed development. I live in Loudwater and this would be of great benefit to Woburn, Flackwell and Loudwater. I'm sorry that it will upset a small minority who live close to it, but you can't have progression without some small sacrifices. It's for the greater good people. Let's get this built. In fact, I'll happily have £100 extra on my council tax to get this done. Steve_Loudwater
  • Score: 4

7:05pm Thu 3 Apr 14

buftonp13 says...

At long last what a grata idea! Apart from the small amount of people who live in Flackwell Heath who will probably disapprove sure the rest of the population of high wycombe and surrounding areas would be in favour of this, as Handy cross can't handle the volume of traffic, which effects all the surrounding roads. Why would they half build junction 3 in the first place.
At long last what a grata idea! Apart from the small amount of people who live in Flackwell Heath who will probably disapprove sure the rest of the population of high wycombe and surrounding areas would be in favour of this, as Handy cross can't handle the volume of traffic, which effects all the surrounding roads. Why would they half build junction 3 in the first place. buftonp13
  • Score: 3

9:52am Fri 4 Apr 14

Heathen says...

Northbound access/egress to/from the M40, via a proposed J3A, has benefits for Flackwell Heath residents.

However, the big caveat has to be, that massive investment in the associated road infrastructure HAS to happen. Daws Hill Lane is simply not wide enough, nor Spring Lane or Kingsmead Road.

You simply cannot have one without the other. Otherwise permanent gridlock
will be the result.
Northbound access/egress to/from the M40, via a proposed J3A, has benefits for Flackwell Heath residents. However, the big caveat has to be, that massive investment in the associated road infrastructure HAS to happen. Daws Hill Lane is simply not wide enough, nor Spring Lane or Kingsmead Road. You simply cannot have one without the other. Otherwise permanent gridlock will be the result. Heathen
  • Score: -1

11:21pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Thamed says...

shaky2 wrote:
Dave2013 wrote:
I can't see this junction being built. The access to it will be hopeless. It would just worsen the congestion on Daws Hill Lane or the London Road. Now if they levelled the Amersham Wycombe College site and put an industrial estate in its place you'd have a great place to site all the new businesses eager to come to High Wycombe with great access to the M40. With the industrial estate they could also build a site for travellers, a BMX/Skateboard park and a 100,000 sq ft Waitrose. Everybody would be a winner. Alternatively the Council could stop spending their time considering pie in the sky fantasy schemes.
You forgot to mention another new Tesco store will be needed
And Sainsbury's!!! But seriously, the travellers do need a proper site on which to reside!
[quote][p][bold]shaky2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave2013[/bold] wrote: I can't see this junction being built. The access to it will be hopeless. It would just worsen the congestion on Daws Hill Lane or the London Road. Now if they levelled the Amersham Wycombe College site and put an industrial estate in its place you'd have a great place to site all the new businesses eager to come to High Wycombe with great access to the M40. With the industrial estate they could also build a site for travellers, a BMX/Skateboard park and a 100,000 sq ft Waitrose. Everybody would be a winner. Alternatively the Council could stop spending their time considering pie in the sky fantasy schemes.[/p][/quote]You forgot to mention another new Tesco store will be needed[/p][/quote]And Sainsbury's!!! But seriously, the travellers do need a proper site on which to reside! Thamed
  • Score: 1

2:41pm Tue 15 Apr 14

jayeatman says...

no1buzz wrote:
when they built the motorway, they built some sort of entrance / slip road opposite Spring Lane, I always thought it would be in anticipation of a motorway service area, obviously this isn't the case. Has this been a project in waiting all these years?
If those old slips indicate the position of the new junction 3A then a new section of road would have to be built joining Heath End Road with Abbey Barn Lane. The whole London Road/Abbey Barn Lane/Rd/ Micklefield Rd/**** Lane/ Gomm Road area would need some serious work as it is already a terrible bottleneck. At least Spring Lane would be unaffected!
[quote][p][bold]no1buzz[/bold] wrote: when they built the motorway, they built some sort of entrance / slip road opposite Spring Lane, I always thought it would be in anticipation of a motorway service area, obviously this isn't the case. Has this been a project in waiting all these years?[/p][/quote]If those old slips indicate the position of the new junction 3A then a new section of road would have to be built joining Heath End Road with Abbey Barn Lane. The whole London Road/Abbey Barn Lane/Rd/ Micklefield Rd/**** Lane/ Gomm Road area would need some serious work as it is already a terrible bottleneck. At least Spring Lane would be unaffected! jayeatman
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree