M40 junction 3a 'would add to bedlam' angry residents say

Junction 'would add to bedlam' angry residents say

Junction 'would add to bedlam' angry residents say

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

ANGER over a proposed new motorway junction in a small Bucks village grew this week, as hundreds of residents grilled councillors and planning officers about plans which they fear could create more ‘bedlam’ on the roads.

Villagers and club members had their say on the controversial proposal which could see a M40 junction 3a built in Flackwell Heath.

The idea was originally put forward to residents as part of Wycombe District Council’s Local Plan for potential developments over the next 17 years, and new figures suggest it could cost between £15 million and £30 million.

However, with three proposals all having a major affect on housing and social groups around Flackwell Heath, Loudwater and High Wycombe, residents were given a chance to voice their dismay during the public meeting on Wednesday, August 20.

Amongst the residents who questioned the plans was Chris Oxley from Loudwater.

He said: “If this is mostly to help introduce new business areas for companies, how can we ensure businesses actually want to come to Wycombe.

“My main concern is traffic, what is actually being done about the A40? At 5pm the London Road is a nightmare, it can take absolutely ages to get from A to B. It is just bedlam.

“The way I see it, this motorway is like a tap for Wycombe, at junction 3, motorists just pour on and the same at junction 4, and how do we know junction 3a won’t be exactly the same.”

Representatives of campaign groups No Way Junction 3a and Save Cobbles Farm (based on Spring Lane where two plans suggest the slip road could go) attended the evening and asked questions.

One of the controversial plans would see the new junction link up to the Gomm Valley via Spring Lane.

This proposal has massively concerned Kingsmead Road residents with a member of the Kingsmead Netball Centre saying she has grave concerns.

Caroline Davis said: “If this plan was chosen, what would happen to the netball courts and all the other houses and recreation areas which have been built up over so many years.

“We have a lot of members at the netball club and they are all very concerned about what will happen if this junction is built.” The chairman of the Flackwell Heath Residents Association Planning and Environment, Carolyn Leonard, also questioned the Wycombe District Council and Bucks County Council planning members.

She said have you taken into consideration the views of residents, as these plans would totally destroy the whole area.

Despite a huge amount of concern conveyed on the night, councillors were quick to allay fears of the 220 people who registered to attend the meeting, with BCC Senior Manager for Place, Stephen Walford, saying there are still many hurdles to go through.

He said: “At the moment traffic is a problem and we are looking at every option available to see what we can do so new business areas are introduced and infrastructure is sustainable.

“As has been said, this is very much just a proposal and we are welcoming feedback because we need to look at our options.

“What I can say is a new junction 3a is still very far off from actually happening, there are still many hurdles we need to go over before we can consider doing this.

“The Highways Agency will be the ones to have the final say, they are the final arbiter and by their opinion we would be likely to need to prove that this is the only option we have.”

Flackwell Heath and WDC Cllr David Johncock chaired the meeting and afterwards he said: “I think the meeting went well it was a good opportunity to explain to people who maybe didn’t know exactly what the situation was and the truth is, as we keep saying, we are at a very early stage.

“Obviously there are some people with concerns and we have hopefully eased some of those. “The problem we have is we have to do the right thing for the whole district which is not always easy.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:00am Sun 24 Aug 14

JOHNHEALY says...

Junction 3A is a done deal sadly and people need to become much more community orientated sooner to stop these things from happening. It is no good protesting at the last minute. I do not agree with this project as it is a waste of money and will only make things worse for High Wycombe which is already a disaster compared to what it was. Think again planners and turn High Wycombe back into something great rather than building further unnecessary out of town sprawl.
Junction 3A is a done deal sadly and people need to become much more community orientated sooner to stop these things from happening. It is no good protesting at the last minute. I do not agree with this project as it is a waste of money and will only make things worse for High Wycombe which is already a disaster compared to what it was. Think again planners and turn High Wycombe back into something great rather than building further unnecessary out of town sprawl. JOHNHEALY
  • Score: 7

10:17am Sun 24 Aug 14

faircuppa says...

I do not think it is a done deal as there are some ludicrous flaws in the argument for it. Also some of the basic assumptions are incorrect and we have not seen some of the 'evidence' cited.
On the subject of Bedlam, this was a horrific and barbaric London madhouse. The lunatics were jeered at as a public spectacle. It could be suggested that Junction 3a would cause the destruction of East Wycombe as we know it. A ludicrous idea that must be argued off the agenda. It is not featured in any Highways Agency forward programmes.
I do not think it is a done deal as there are some ludicrous flaws in the argument for it. Also some of the basic assumptions are incorrect and we have not seen some of the 'evidence' cited. On the subject of Bedlam, this was a horrific and barbaric London madhouse. The lunatics were jeered at as a public spectacle. It could be suggested that Junction 3a would cause the destruction of East Wycombe as we know it. A ludicrous idea that must be argued off the agenda. It is not featured in any Highways Agency forward programmes. faircuppa
  • Score: -5

10:34am Sun 24 Aug 14

MunsterX says...

No matter the scale of road development, traffic will outgrow capacity.
Perhaps one day we shall see an elected authority making changes for the greater good: banning private motor vehicles from London Road 0600-2200 daily, tagging cycles and offering council tax discounts for their use, free park and ride facilities near major hubs on the road network.
An observant man will recognise that our town has a surplus of office space and hotel rooms, together with many failing retail destinations. And so the current development at Handy Cross beggars plausibility, eking both the surpluses and failings of our town. That location is a prime site for a park and ride, lost in the mindless search for tax receipts by our local authorities.
Bold decisons are needed.
No matter the scale of road development, traffic will outgrow capacity. Perhaps one day we shall see an elected authority making changes for the greater good: banning private motor vehicles from London Road 0600-2200 daily, tagging cycles and offering council tax discounts for their use, free park and ride facilities near major hubs on the road network. An observant man will recognise that our town has a surplus of office space and hotel rooms, together with many failing retail destinations. And so the current development at Handy Cross beggars plausibility, eking both the surpluses and failings of our town. That location is a prime site for a park and ride, lost in the mindless search for tax receipts by our local authorities. Bold decisons are needed. MunsterX
  • Score: 8

6:18pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy.
Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?
If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy. Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that? Monty Cristo
  • Score: 4

12:34pm Mon 25 Aug 14

s6blr says...

Instead of just getting your knickers in a wad and running around screaming to the press, why are you not in the press presenting better alternatives? You would serve the whole of the community better if you would contribute ideas instead of whinging poor us!

Oh that's right, this is the BFP, the paper that doesn't look forward.
Instead of just getting your knickers in a wad and running around screaming to the press, why are you not in the press presenting better alternatives? You would serve the whole of the community better if you would contribute ideas instead of whinging poor us! Oh that's right, this is the BFP, the paper that doesn't look forward. s6blr
  • Score: -3

2:16pm Mon 25 Aug 14

JOHNHEALY says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy.
Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?
Monte Cristo your mention of the Gomm Valley which should have an "e" on the end of Gomm makes me think if there is not one already that we need a Gomme Foundation to preserve the town's heritage before there isn't any, protect what remains in High Wycombe that is good, develop the area sensitively in accordance with residents wishes as the latter pay the council taxes and keep these awful planners and developers at bay. Look at what the town has lost and is losing. How long might it be before say Hughenden Manor estate is covered is housing?
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy. Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?[/p][/quote]Monte Cristo your mention of the Gomm Valley which should have an "e" on the end of Gomm makes me think if there is not one already that we need a Gomme Foundation to preserve the town's heritage before there isn't any, protect what remains in High Wycombe that is good, develop the area sensitively in accordance with residents wishes as the latter pay the council taxes and keep these awful planners and developers at bay. Look at what the town has lost and is losing. How long might it be before say Hughenden Manor estate is covered is housing? JOHNHEALY
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Mon 25 Aug 14

valleyviewboy says...

Forgetting the pros and cons of this scheme for a moment, I've got to point out some blatantly poor journalism here. Flackwell Heath is not a small village, it's a population of 6,000 - making it in actual fact a rather large village - and is in many ways an extended suburb of High Wycombe. I'm not saying that means the area needs a new junction, I haven't read up on the matter well enough to make a reasoned decision, but the BFP presenting Flackwell Heath as some tiny backwater is utter rubbish.
Forgetting the pros and cons of this scheme for a moment, I've got to point out some blatantly poor journalism here. Flackwell Heath is not a small village, it's a population of 6,000 - making it in actual fact a rather large village - and is in many ways an extended suburb of High Wycombe. I'm not saying that means the area needs a new junction, I haven't read up on the matter well enough to make a reasoned decision, but the BFP presenting Flackwell Heath as some tiny backwater is utter rubbish. valleyviewboy
  • Score: 4

8:46pm Mon 25 Aug 14

Monty Cristo says...

JOHNHEALY wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy.
Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?
Monte Cristo your mention of the Gomm Valley which should have an "e" on the end of Gomm makes me think if there is not one already that we need a Gomme Foundation to preserve the town's heritage before there isn't any, protect what remains in High Wycombe that is good, develop the area sensitively in accordance with residents wishes as the latter pay the council taxes and keep these awful planners and developers at bay. Look at what the town has lost and is losing. How long might it be before say Hughenden Manor estate is covered is housing?
Sorry John, every document I have read refers to Gomm , without an e. This includes all of the Council's documentation, eg as mentioned in their local plan page:
http://www.wycombe.g
ov.uk/council-servic
es/planning-and-buil
dings/planning-polic
y/new-local-plan.asp
x

The Wycombe Society exists in part to try and preserve the town's heritage and prevent it being ruined by planning decisions - see: http://www.highwycom
besociety.org.uk/

Additional Hughenden Manor estate land was purchased a relatively short time ago by the National Trust; if WDC ever decides that National Trust land is fair game, then all land is at risk.
[quote][p][bold]JOHNHEALY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy. Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?[/p][/quote]Monte Cristo your mention of the Gomm Valley which should have an "e" on the end of Gomm makes me think if there is not one already that we need a Gomme Foundation to preserve the town's heritage before there isn't any, protect what remains in High Wycombe that is good, develop the area sensitively in accordance with residents wishes as the latter pay the council taxes and keep these awful planners and developers at bay. Look at what the town has lost and is losing. How long might it be before say Hughenden Manor estate is covered is housing?[/p][/quote]Sorry John, every document I have read refers to Gomm , without an e. This includes all of the Council's documentation, eg as mentioned in their local plan page: http://www.wycombe.g ov.uk/council-servic es/planning-and-buil dings/planning-polic y/new-local-plan.asp x The Wycombe Society exists in part to try and preserve the town's heritage and prevent it being ruined by planning decisions - see: http://www.highwycom besociety.org.uk/ Additional Hughenden Manor estate land was purchased a relatively short time ago by the National Trust; if WDC ever decides that National Trust land is fair game, then all land is at risk. Monty Cristo
  • Score: 1

9:27am Tue 26 Aug 14

chillout112 says...

I can see the pros and cons of the scheme.

I live in the Flackwell Heath and travel up North quite a lot and a new junction at 3a would be very beneficial for me (considering it cuts out the horrendous Handy Cross), I assume this will apply to quite a few people in the village. On the other hand I understand the concern of people in regards to the traffic problems. Flackwell Heath/Loudwater areas will certainly see an increase in traffic.

I do think that if it is decided that new housing will be built in East Wycombe (Abbey Barn etc.) then there will be a high probability a new junction will be built.
I can see the pros and cons of the scheme. I live in the Flackwell Heath and travel up North quite a lot and a new junction at 3a would be very beneficial for me (considering it cuts out the horrendous Handy Cross), I assume this will apply to quite a few people in the village. On the other hand I understand the concern of people in regards to the traffic problems. Flackwell Heath/Loudwater areas will certainly see an increase in traffic. I do think that if it is decided that new housing will be built in East Wycombe (Abbey Barn etc.) then there will be a high probability a new junction will be built. chillout112
  • Score: 2

10:32pm Tue 26 Aug 14

JOHNHEALY says...

Monty Cristo wrote:
JOHNHEALY wrote:
Monty Cristo wrote:
If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy.
Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?
Monte Cristo your mention of the Gomm Valley which should have an "e" on the end of Gomm makes me think if there is not one already that we need a Gomme Foundation to preserve the town's heritage before there isn't any, protect what remains in High Wycombe that is good, develop the area sensitively in accordance with residents wishes as the latter pay the council taxes and keep these awful planners and developers at bay. Look at what the town has lost and is losing. How long might it be before say Hughenden Manor estate is covered is housing?
Sorry John, every document I have read refers to Gomm , without an e. This includes all of the Council's documentation, eg as mentioned in their local plan page:
http://www.wycombe.g

ov.uk/council-servic

es/planning-and-buil

dings/planning-polic

y/new-local-plan.asp

x

The Wycombe Society exists in part to try and preserve the town's heritage and prevent it being ruined by planning decisions - see: http://www.highwycom

besociety.org.uk/

Additional Hughenden Manor estate land was purchased a relatively short time ago by the National Trust; if WDC ever decides that National Trust land is fair game, then all land is at risk.
Some of High Wycombe's Gomm's were without an 'e' but the most well know one i.e. Ebeneezer Gomme of G Plan fame has the "e" and therefore it should be Gomme Valley not Gomm Valley to celebrate this famous man and his company. Mind you what can one expect from a town that is hell bent on destroying itself with ill conceived shopping centres, a nonsensical road system, a hospital that is being allowed to be rundown, unnecessary extra housing and junction 3A. We need some people power, a different WDC and above all a change of government.
[quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JOHNHEALY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty Cristo[/bold] wrote: If it is anything like the "consultation" regarding the release of areas like the Gomm Valley etc, it is a complete waste of time the Council asking your view, It will be a fait accompli. I completely agree with JOHN HEALY; that local residents need to join forces at an early stage to combat things we do not want, otherwise it will simply be done irrespective. Urban sprawl is inevitable as our representatives simply cave in to the demands of central government, despite that same government trumpeting that locals have control over things in their area - a complete and utter fallacy. Spending millions on projects like this when there is no proven need and when existing roads are still falling apart ( there are still numerous potholes as we edge ever closer to the next frosty spell to break them up even more) is complete and utter madness. It is your money that they are wasting. Are you happy about that?[/p][/quote]Monte Cristo your mention of the Gomm Valley which should have an "e" on the end of Gomm makes me think if there is not one already that we need a Gomme Foundation to preserve the town's heritage before there isn't any, protect what remains in High Wycombe that is good, develop the area sensitively in accordance with residents wishes as the latter pay the council taxes and keep these awful planners and developers at bay. Look at what the town has lost and is losing. How long might it be before say Hughenden Manor estate is covered is housing?[/p][/quote]Sorry John, every document I have read refers to Gomm , without an e. This includes all of the Council's documentation, eg as mentioned in their local plan page: http://www.wycombe.g ov.uk/council-servic es/planning-and-buil dings/planning-polic y/new-local-plan.asp x The Wycombe Society exists in part to try and preserve the town's heritage and prevent it being ruined by planning decisions - see: http://www.highwycom besociety.org.uk/ Additional Hughenden Manor estate land was purchased a relatively short time ago by the National Trust; if WDC ever decides that National Trust land is fair game, then all land is at risk.[/p][/quote]Some of High Wycombe's Gomm's were without an 'e' but the most well know one i.e. Ebeneezer Gomme of G Plan fame has the "e" and therefore it should be Gomme Valley not Gomm Valley to celebrate this famous man and his company. Mind you what can one expect from a town that is hell bent on destroying itself with ill conceived shopping centres, a nonsensical road system, a hospital that is being allowed to be rundown, unnecessary extra housing and junction 3A. We need some people power, a different WDC and above all a change of government. JOHNHEALY
  • Score: -2

9:25pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Chris Tolmie says...

How about moving it East where it might take up less land. The main issue is to get traffic near Loudwater moving between the A40 and the M40 for traffic to/from Oxford direction (or Birmingham if you prefer!). It does not need to be West of the existing junction 3, it could be near Holtspur (sorry Holtspur). The M40 and A40 are close here and the height differences are small compared with the M40 further West. A possible layout is drafted here: https://mapsengine.g
oogle.com/map/edit?m
id=zTbUiGKy9kLU.kcKv
ulO5t_9s
How about moving it East where it might take up less land. The main issue is to get traffic near Loudwater moving between the A40 and the M40 for traffic to/from Oxford direction (or Birmingham if you prefer!). It does not need to be West of the existing junction 3, it could be near Holtspur (sorry Holtspur). The M40 and A40 are close here and the height differences are small compared with the M40 further West. A possible layout is drafted here: https://mapsengine.g oogle.com/map/edit?m id=zTbUiGKy9kLU.kcKv ulO5t_9s Chris Tolmie
  • Score: 2

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