M40 Junction 4A would be "a win" for Wycombe, says Cllr

M40 Junction 4A would be

M40 Junction 4A would be "a win" for Wycombe, says Cllr

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

CONGESTION at Handy Cross would be reduced and the west of Wycombe opened up for development if a motorway junction was built near Booker, according to a councillor.

As a row rages on over a potential M40 junction 3A near Flackwell Heath, Cllr Alan Hill is calling for junction 4A to the west of Handy Cross, which we said would be "a win" for residents.

The Abbey ward representative told a Wycombe District Council meeting that a junction close to the Booker Air Park would provide benefits for the whole town instead of the mooted 3A to the east.

He said: "This could assist the opening up of the Booker Area, and take a lot of traffic from an already congested area of Daws Hill and Heath End Road the only east/west route to this proposed junction. It would also help to expand the specialised aero employment at Booker Air Park.

"Not to mention that it would also help traffic going to Oxford from Marlow, the H.G.V.’s from Cressex Business Park and help reduce traffic on Handy Cross Junction, which we all know is extremely busy at the best of times.

"Surely this would be a win for our town and residents? It does seem the most obvious choice.

He added: "Handy Cross is chaos and this would take the pressure off. I think we should push them (Highways Agency) to get it done."

The possibility of a new M40 junction near Flackwell Heath was raised during WDC’s consultation on the Local Plan, which aims to find sites to locate new homes and businesses to meet growing demand.

Residents and business have reacted angrily to the idea, with an early study suggesting a link road may be built through Wycombe Marsh to join with the A40 at Gomm Road.

And instead, Cllr Hill believes the solution lies in looking to the West, where more undeveloped land is available.

But Cllr David Johncock, deputy Cabinet member for planning, poured cold water on the idea and claims the area is not suitable for a motorway junction.

He said: "The potential for a Junction 4A was explored when the Air Park was being considered, and at the time the Highways Agency disregarded it.

"First of all because of the proximity to Junction 4 and the difference in ground levels between Clay Lane and the M40.

"A Junction 4a was not considered (for the Local Plan) and is probably not worth further consideration at this time."

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:02pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Cllr Trevor Snaith says...

I agree with Cllr Hill. The option of J4a needs to be evaluated.
Residents tell me WDC is blinkered and seems intent on pushing J3a. The mesage from residents is J3a is madness and will create gridlock in the eastern area of High Wycombe and Flackwell Heath
Full evaluation of J3 and J4a as part of the fall out work from the Local Plan consultation is needed
I agree with Cllr Hill. The option of J4a needs to be evaluated. Residents tell me WDC is blinkered and seems intent on pushing J3a. The mesage from residents is J3a is madness and will create gridlock in the eastern area of High Wycombe and Flackwell Heath Full evaluation of J3 and J4a as part of the fall out work from the Local Plan consultation is needed Cllr Trevor Snaith
  • Score: -14

2:18pm Fri 1 Aug 14

robinh says...

Cllr Trevor Snaith wrote:
I agree with Cllr Hill. The option of J4a needs to be evaluated.
Residents tell me WDC is blinkered and seems intent on pushing J3a. The mesage from residents is J3a is madness and will create gridlock in the eastern area of High Wycombe and Flackwell Heath
Full evaluation of J3 and J4a as part of the fall out work from the Local Plan consultation is needed
How will 3a cause gridlock? It's not going to see a sudden increase in traffic over what the area currently handles surely?

Any traffic that's currently in the area is likely either trying to get into town or up to jct 4, surely giving the traffic an option to get on at 3a AS WELL will lesson the overall traffic flow into town/up Marlwo Hill and therefore reduce congestion?
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Trevor Snaith[/bold] wrote: I agree with Cllr Hill. The option of J4a needs to be evaluated. Residents tell me WDC is blinkered and seems intent on pushing J3a. The mesage from residents is J3a is madness and will create gridlock in the eastern area of High Wycombe and Flackwell Heath Full evaluation of J3 and J4a as part of the fall out work from the Local Plan consultation is needed[/p][/quote]How will 3a cause gridlock? It's not going to see a sudden increase in traffic over what the area currently handles surely? Any traffic that's currently in the area is likely either trying to get into town or up to jct 4, surely giving the traffic an option to get on at 3a AS WELL will lesson the overall traffic flow into town/up Marlwo Hill and therefore reduce congestion? robinh
  • Score: 8

2:25pm Fri 1 Aug 14

manorman says...

Why are they not thinking of putting a northbound slip road over magnet and tescos at loudwater and upgrading the flyover and existing? All of the infrastructure is there and with 2 home bases within 2 miles of each other and a tesco that is too small for purpose im **** well sure that something could be arranged down there instead of chewing up more green belt land. AJ Manor Estates
Why are they not thinking of putting a northbound slip road over magnet and tescos at loudwater and upgrading the flyover and existing? All of the infrastructure is there and with 2 home bases within 2 miles of each other and a tesco that is too small for purpose im **** well sure that something could be arranged down there instead of chewing up more green belt land. AJ Manor Estates manorman
  • Score: 24

2:43pm Fri 1 Aug 14

JanusMan says...

I actually agree with Cllr Johncock 4a is a no go for the reasons he stated and in addition to reduce the urban crawl of High Wycombe. Invest in better road infrastructure in and around Junction 3 and the proposed 3a and it will reduce the dependency of vehicles having to come off at J4 and go through High Wycombe due to a lack of an exit southbound on the M40. However any reduction in car traffic will be offset by the ridiculous plan to use High Heavens as a waste transfer station without improving the road infrastructure around j4 to deal with the huge number of HGVs trying to get down local roads.... I think it will be safe to say what ever happens BCC and the Highway Agency will mess it up....
I actually agree with Cllr Johncock 4a is a no go for the reasons he stated and in addition to reduce the urban crawl of High Wycombe. Invest in better road infrastructure in and around Junction 3 and the proposed 3a and it will reduce the dependency of vehicles having to come off at J4 and go through High Wycombe due to a lack of an exit southbound on the M40. However any reduction in car traffic will be offset by the ridiculous plan to use High Heavens as a waste transfer station without improving the road infrastructure around j4 to deal with the huge number of HGVs trying to get down local roads.... I think it will be safe to say what ever happens BCC and the Highway Agency will mess it up.... JanusMan
  • Score: 6

5:10pm Fri 1 Aug 14

jayeatman says...

It seems to me that when the M40 was built it was designed specifically not to act as a local bypass for High Wycombe, i.e. no J4A & a restricted J3. This always struck me as a bit bonkers. Surely if a proper J3 or J3A and a J4A with links to the A40 were built, this would take traffic off local roads onto the motorway, thus reducing congestion in the town. Whether the M40 could take the extra traffic and if it is actually possible is the question.
It seems to me that when the M40 was built it was designed specifically not to act as a local bypass for High Wycombe, i.e. no J4A & a restricted J3. This always struck me as a bit bonkers. Surely if a proper J3 or J3A and a J4A with links to the A40 were built, this would take traffic off local roads onto the motorway, thus reducing congestion in the town. Whether the M40 could take the extra traffic and if it is actually possible is the question. jayeatman
  • Score: 3

5:32pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Darren Hayday says...

The idea of having another junction just after Handy Cross was kicked out by the HA when they were trying to bring in the daft Stadium project. I don’t like the sound of a 'major development in the West of Wycombe' thank you very much Cllr Mr Hill - I think that we have enough industrial/commercia
l & residential areas already.

When is WDC going to start acting like a local authority as it should be, rather than trying to be a commercial organisation with a view of making money? Save us our tax - stop keep spending it or insisting that we build on top of everything without the full infrastructure. Simples..
The idea of having another junction just after Handy Cross was kicked out by the HA when they were trying to bring in the daft Stadium project. I don’t like the sound of a 'major development in the West of Wycombe' thank you very much Cllr Mr Hill - I think that we have enough industrial/commercia l & residential areas already. When is WDC going to start acting like a local authority as it should be, rather than trying to be a commercial organisation with a view of making money? Save us our tax - stop keep spending it or insisting that we build on top of everything without the full infrastructure. Simples.. Darren Hayday
  • Score: -5

2:23am Sat 2 Aug 14

ginganinga says...

If they want to reduce traffic in the town. OPEN UP THE SECOND LANE ON TJE FLY OVER AND STOP LYING TO PEOPLE THAT ITS FOR STRICTUAL WORKS!!!
If they want to reduce traffic in the town. OPEN UP THE SECOND LANE ON TJE FLY OVER AND STOP LYING TO PEOPLE THAT ITS FOR STRICTUAL WORKS!!! ginganinga
  • Score: 9

9:59am Sun 3 Aug 14

ProtectCountryside says...

The leadership of our Council needs to come out and say whether they back these plans or not. Richard Scott seems to have disappeared. Does he back these plans or not? He is also silent on their agenda to build on Gomm Valley. Does he care for anywhere other than Marlow?
The leadership of our Council needs to come out and say whether they back these plans or not. Richard Scott seems to have disappeared. Does he back these plans or not? He is also silent on their agenda to build on Gomm Valley. Does he care for anywhere other than Marlow? ProtectCountryside
  • Score: -1

1:25pm Sun 3 Aug 14

DaintyGoLightly says...

Well said, Darren Hayday. We don't need any more disruption to the west of Wycombe. There are already extremely large lorries going through Lane End/Stokenchurch on the B482 so that they can avoid using Handy Cross to join the motorway and use the Stokenchurch junction instead.
Well said, Darren Hayday. We don't need any more disruption to the west of Wycombe. There are already extremely large lorries going through Lane End/Stokenchurch on the B482 so that they can avoid using Handy Cross to join the motorway and use the Stokenchurch junction instead. DaintyGoLightly
  • Score: -4

1:43pm Sun 3 Aug 14

jayeatman says...

As a fellow Lane Ender, you are right DaintyGoLightly, but wouldn't a J4A allow those lorries to join the motorway and not go through Lane End? Handy Cross has to handle too much traffic from too many directions. Some relief from that might prevent so much 'rat-running'.
This is all theoretical though. As far as I understand it, when looking into the stadium plans, J4A was considered impossible.
As a fellow Lane Ender, you are right DaintyGoLightly, but wouldn't a J4A allow those lorries to join the motorway and not go through Lane End? Handy Cross has to handle too much traffic from too many directions. Some relief from that might prevent so much 'rat-running'. This is all theoretical though. As far as I understand it, when looking into the stadium plans, J4A was considered impossible. jayeatman
  • Score: 3

8:24pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

I haven't seen any actual figures, by which I mean a properly produced cost/benefit analysis for any of these plans. It's all very well to say "It would make life easier" but at what cost, and for how many people?
Until proper data is available, who can possibly say whether any action is warranted? NONE of our money should be spent on improving infrastructure until we understand the facts. Enough of it is wasted on unnecessary "improvements" ( one example is the proliferation of traffic lights replacing roundabouts in recent years, costing goodness knows how much - and guess what: current thinking by "experts" is that roundabouts are better! You could not make it up - and it is OUR money that they are wasting.
I haven't seen any actual figures, by which I mean a properly produced cost/benefit analysis for any of these plans. It's all very well to say "It would make life easier" but at what cost, and for how many people? Until proper data is available, who can possibly say whether any action is warranted? NONE of our money should be spent on improving infrastructure until we understand the facts. Enough of it is wasted on unnecessary "improvements" ( one example is the proliferation of traffic lights replacing roundabouts in recent years, costing goodness knows how much - and guess what: current thinking by "experts" is that roundabouts are better! You could not make it up - and it is OUR money that they are wasting. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 2

5:14pm Tue 5 Aug 14

s6blr says...

I'd be happiest that we have both direction on the east side of Wycombe PROVIDED the A40 through Wycombe has 2 more lanes. It is nigh on impossible to get through the town, and adding 4a would solve that by generating a road into the centre of town.
I'd be happiest that we have both direction on the east side of Wycombe PROVIDED the A40 through Wycombe has 2 more lanes. It is nigh on impossible to get through the town, and adding 4a would solve that by generating a road into the centre of town. s6blr
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Wed 6 Aug 14

I know who I am says...

ginganinga wrote:
If they want to reduce traffic in the town. OPEN UP THE SECOND LANE ON TJE FLY OVER AND STOP LYING TO PEOPLE THAT ITS FOR STRICTUAL WORKS!!!
That's never been closed for structural works or investigations that's been closed to see how it affects the town prior to them taking the road off Marlow hill and round by the old gas works out into Desborough road round the back streets to join up with the A40. After all has anyone ever seen a surveyor doing anything on the flyover since it was reduced to one lane. I certainly haven't
[quote][p][bold]ginganinga[/bold] wrote: If they want to reduce traffic in the town. OPEN UP THE SECOND LANE ON TJE FLY OVER AND STOP LYING TO PEOPLE THAT ITS FOR STRICTUAL WORKS!!![/p][/quote]That's never been closed for structural works or investigations that's been closed to see how it affects the town prior to them taking the road off Marlow hill and round by the old gas works out into Desborough road round the back streets to join up with the A40. After all has anyone ever seen a surveyor doing anything on the flyover since it was reduced to one lane. I certainly haven't I know who I am
  • Score: 2

3:22pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Darren Hayday says...

I know who I am wrote:
ginganinga wrote:
If they want to reduce traffic in the town. OPEN UP THE SECOND LANE ON TJE FLY OVER AND STOP LYING TO PEOPLE THAT ITS FOR STRICTUAL WORKS!!!
That's never been closed for structural works or investigations that's been closed to see how it affects the town prior to them taking the road off Marlow hill and round by the old gas works out into Desborough road round the back streets to join up with the A40. After all has anyone ever seen a surveyor doing anything on the flyover since it was reduced to one lane. I certainly haven't
Sorry...I have to disagree with you. The structure has been found to be rusting away. They will not anything because a) no money in the pot and b) why should they when there are plans to change the road layouts in the master plan?
It’s too much of a risk to allow Lorries etc to go near to the edge of the road as a result.
[quote][p][bold]I know who I am[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ginganinga[/bold] wrote: If they want to reduce traffic in the town. OPEN UP THE SECOND LANE ON TJE FLY OVER AND STOP LYING TO PEOPLE THAT ITS FOR STRICTUAL WORKS!!![/p][/quote]That's never been closed for structural works or investigations that's been closed to see how it affects the town prior to them taking the road off Marlow hill and round by the old gas works out into Desborough road round the back streets to join up with the A40. After all has anyone ever seen a surveyor doing anything on the flyover since it was reduced to one lane. I certainly haven't[/p][/quote]Sorry...I have to disagree with you. The structure has been found to be rusting away. They will not anything because a) no money in the pot and b) why should they when there are plans to change the road layouts in the master plan? It’s too much of a risk to allow Lorries etc to go near to the edge of the road as a result. Darren Hayday
  • Score: 0

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