Response to MK Partnership 2031 options

MK2031, C/O ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS,

FREEPOST ANG7462,

MILTON KEYNES,

MK9 2BR

23rd August 2006

Dear Sirs,

Re: A Strategy for Growth to 2031. Consultation on Growth of MK to 2026.

This response is in five parts:

A         An introduction which raises many unanswered questions

B          Building on the success of Milton Keynes

C         More issues of vision and principles

D         The south east expansion area

E          The older settlements of Woburn Sands and neighbouring villages.

All number references made in this letter refer to the Strategy for Growth document unless otherwise stated.

A         Introduction: Who, where, why?

It may seem strange to begin a response with a series of questions, but we feel, had you answered some of these more effectively, you may not be facing the opposition to your plans to the same extent as is now the case.

1.         Who are all the new homes designed for?  This question is fundamental as quoted in the Institute for Public Policy and Research, 2005 in their document on lessons to be learnt "From New Towns to Growth Areas".

2.         Where is the evidence that, as far ahead as 2026 or 2031, all these new homes will be needed?  On what basis has the Government set these arbitrary housing figures?  If it's just on a past trend, it could change substantially.

3.         Where is the capital infrastructure money coming from?  A tariff on developers will not suffice to pay the whole bill.  Government apparently imposes housing figures upon us, Government must at the outset put up a very considerable contribution towards the costs.

4.         Why not many more homes in Thames Gateway?  Internationally renowned architect, Sir Terry Farrell, has recently stated that ALL the necessary growth in housing could be accommodated in Thames Gateway and that this would be a far more ambitious legacy of the Olympic Games as well as continued regeneration of this part of London, mostly on brownfield land (instead of using MK's green fields).  He said "building along the M11 corridor, around Milton Keynes and around Ashford would involve billions of pounds in investment in hospitals, roads and schools from a cold start."  He said that the Government "should be planning for millions of new homes packed close to London's existing transport and other facilities along the River Lea, its canals and the banks of the Thames".  He described the ideas for four growth areas as "woolly".  His view is strongly supported by CPRE (and us).

5.         Why the dogmatic adherence to the belief in the demise of the private car when, and if, oil runs out?  It is equally likely that alternatives will be found to allow people to continue to primarily use cars for the foreseeable future. Besides, your documents make it sound as if MK cannot use public transport given its present layout, yet as early as Dec 1968, the Chairman of the MK Development Corporation recognised the "need to encourage people out of their cars for local journeys and onto public transport".  We suggest you go back to the original plans for Milton Keynes and start implementing the ideas put forward there for use of public transport instead of imposing a radical change.  Furthermore, advances in electronic communication make working from home an ever increasing feature of life.

6.         Where is the proper consultation in all of this with elected bodies?  You have not even distributed hard copies of the Growth Strategy to Parish Councils.  You have "informed" parishes by meetings if your intentions and similarly given the public limited information and opportunities to fill in questionnaires designed to get the answer you want.  Your Consultation periods have been over holiday periods and with a very short timescale.  The meeting on 12 June at which key issues raised by stakeholders were supposed to be addressed was a farce and your plans submitted as they stood.  Your own document 14.15 states that for effective implementation, consensus building is essential!  8.15 talks of "securing continuing community and stakeholder support for the growth proposals".  At the date of this letter many residents of Woburn Sands have still not received the pamphlet and questionnaire which you are supposedly circulating to all areas affected buy the proposals.

7.         Who will make the eventual decisions?  There is a mutiplicity of agencies involved in MK Expansion crossing different counties, different local authorities, different Government Regions, yet nowhere do you state who determines what. apparently MK Patnership itself has the final word for some areas, but it is not an accountable body.  What has happened to local democracy?

8.         Why did you not pay more or even any attention to the Peer Group Review which you set up.  They had the courage to list their names and experience in the front of their excellent response.  Where are the names of the MK Partnership Board and their relevant experience for all to see?

B.         Building on the success of Milton Keynes

9.         We want to build on the most successful new city of the last 50 years, not dramatically change aspects of it on the basis of some arbitrary government figures.  Milton Keynes success lies in three key features: its location midway between our two largest conurbations of London and Birmingham with very convenient transport routes linking these, its grid road system allowing great flexibility of movement in the city, and its green spaces both along the grid roads themselves and in the extensive network of linear parks and open spaces.  These fundamentals MUST remain and be enhanced, not in part destroyed.

10.       The attractiveness of Milton Keynes within the country needs reinforcing (accurate maps of the surrounding road systems would have been a start in this) as well as widening the M1 which in itself brings the real danger that all the new house building especially in the south east corner will produce is a cheap dormitory suburb for commuters to London.

11.       The East-West Rail link to CMK (12.116) is a further feature to enhance the location, but is not even a certainty.  The whole issue of east west movement needs addressing.  How about a complete raised section of the A421 throughout the city for through traffic?

12.       Changing the nature of some major grid roads cannot happen.  All need dualling, as in original plans, and their green verges maintained.  The grid system needs completing.

13.       The attractiveness of the green environment to the residents of Milton Keynes cannot be underestimated and the deliberate protection of communities existing prior, to the building of Milton Keynes, are real successes of the Development Corporation.  These essential characteristics must be retained through any new house building. In fairness your document does mention several times preventing coalescence of existing settlements with new developments (e.g12.15) and " recognising the key design qualities of MK, particularly its grid structure and network of linear parks"(13.81), but in order to meet the imposed housing figures it ignores these essentials in many places.

14.       We must take issue with 7.7 which says that the grid structure "discourages walking and cycling between grid squares...and makes public transport difficult".  There is a superb network of redways with underpasses and footpaths with footbridges over grid roads linking grid squares.  It's their usage which is at fault and some better monitoring could solve many problems.  The system needs extending to all parts of Milton Keynes, including linking Bow Brickhill to Woburn Sands via a redway.  This is a stated aim in 12.137 but not on any plan yet.  No one is more than 0.5km from a grid road and this is an easily walkable distance for the bulk of the people you are attempting to persuade on to the buses.  Speed of journey and reliability of service are the two things most valued by public transport users and these are what is missing from the present bus services meandering through estates very slowly.

C         More issues of visions and principles

15.       One of your principles states that "Growth should make sure Milton Keynes is a one-speed city where improvements to existing areas go hand in hand with outward development".  Yet your phasing table 11.1 front loads development heavily in the south east expansion areas on greenfield sites, with the bulk of the existing area developments waiting until 2021-2031 as well as the south west expansion area.  So your "principle" is contradicted by you "timing" in the questionnaire. The holistic approach advocated in your document is abandoned because of the difficulties in getting through your plans in the existing city as against the relative ease of imposing them in the south east under your own jurisdiction.

16.       The speed of the planned Growth is totally unrealistic.  Milton Keynes is already well behind with its build programme to complete existing grid square development.  How exactly are you going to meet these imposed targets.  Market forces should have a much bigger play in the speed of development and they will follow improvements to the infrastructure already mentioned.  We should not just be building to fulfil a government target.

17.       Milton Keynes is to be an iconic city.  Yet you plan to destroy some of the original principles which made it so successful and there is no evidence of plans to make it a regionally significant city.  Where is the plan for some further sporting venue of national importance...an indoor training facility for the LTA or an international size swimming pool to name but two possibilities?

18        A new university seems to be a key aim, but unless this is a highly respected one associated with an established respected university, it will not attract young people of high calibre to it.  There are two universities already in existence in or close to Milton Keynes, The Open University and Cranfield.  The latter is well respected in the more limited range of courses it offers but could readily be expanded even on its existing site.  Better transport links across the motorway are not impossible.  Alternatively, consider a location close to East-West Rail which traditionally and hopefully in the future links Oxford and Cambridge.  At all events it is likely to access Oxford in the near future and links there would certainly bring the desired prestige to "our" university.  A campus style university as suggested in 11.57 must NOT be located in Campbell Park which is far too small a site for any ambitious plans without removing this vital city centre park.

19.       Much is made of Milton Keynes as a city with green credentials and building a "sustainable" city.  Where is "our" big contribution to this ideal in the Growth Plans.  Your document is full of warm words about care of the environment but lacks any specific proposals for sustainable energy resources or water supplies.

20.       We are particularly concerned about developments planned for two parts of the existing city, namely the V7 corridor and around Willen Lake.

(i)         Part of the house build target depends upon DEMOLITION as identified in Table 12.2 "Urban Potential Sources"  (There is another Table 12.2 entitled Facilities at a local level)  This has been vigorously denied by MKC but 3000 homes are down for demolition along the V7 otherwise an additional 3000 homes will have to be found put elsewhere, presumably.  This must be blighting these areas now.  Significantly, it is highly unlikely that the proposed high density housing along the public transport corridor of the V7 will work and it will not reduce carbon emissions but may well increase them.  All this is very well documented in David Bayliss' work where he challenges the ability of mass public transport to decrease harmful emissions more than private cars and points to the increased emissions from slow moving congested traffic as will result from the high density V7 corridor.  You must rethink the notion of this highly polluted and highly congested corridor and examine David Bayliss work referred to in the Peer Group Review.

(ii)        The plans to intensify development in the environs of Willen Lake are a further cause of concern for all residents of Milton Keynes.  This is an extremely attractive green space with lots of sporting/leisure activities and should not in any way be spoilt by closing it in with more development.  The wooded area to the south contributes to its attractiveness.  It may be possible to convert some underused industrial premises near the lake but the big open space around it should be preserved if you are serious about the environment.

It is apparent to us that the targets set for development within the existing city are unrealistic and will do much harm not only to those areas immediately affected but to the whole ethos of Milton Keynes.

D. The south east expansion area

21.       We now turn to the area which most closely affects this small town and its surrounding villages, all of which predate the development of Milton Keynes.  It is our contention that the 7000-8000 homes target for this location is absolutely unrealistic for the following reasons:

In order to prevent coalescence with the development of Milton Keynes, green belts or strategic gaps need to be established around the existing settlements here.  Mid Beds District Council are submitting proposals to extend their green belt to protect Aspley Guise from the planned expansion, and Milton Keynes Council should be doing likewise for Woburn Sands, Bow Brickhill and parts of Wavendon, notably Lower End.  There is some hint of this being done in the maps as in Fig 12.4 and the one reproduced in the "your city" pamphlet, but nowhere near enough. There is land to the west of Woburn Sands just north of the railway which is in our parish, not Wavendon, which is allocated as potential growth but must be re-designated open space to prevent the coalescence of Woburn Sands with the SR4.

Some of the extensions to linear park and New Country Park to the north and west of Woburn Sands seemingly is on land which is currently a popular, green, and much needed recreational facility for the expanding population, viz a golf course.  Is this to disappear?

No regard seems to have been given to protecting the environment of Lower End, Wavendon, which also needs a green belt established around it.

An open space is also needed to the immediate east of the part of Woburn Sands which lies north east of the railway.

Once all these areas have been protected with green open space of one sort or another, the available space in the south east is very substantially less than the amount required for the 7000-8000 homes. Mid Beds Council are already seeking to cut its allocation of 3200 to 2600 homes and an even larger % cut will be required in the MK section to protect settlements as above.

22        There are major transport issues for this south east expansion area which have not been addressed in the document or show muddled and contradictory statements about it at best.  

In detail:

Arrows on maps imply an extension to the H10 into the south east and this is reinforced in 13.12 by "the south east growth area to be connected to the city grid roads via extension of H10".  Yet Milton Keynes Council are supposedly against this strategy.  Then again reference is made to "...a possible Southern Bypass" (7.16), despite the belief that this notion had been removed from all plans.  Elsewhere in the document (12.33) "consideration should also be given to an HGV route across the city from J13 on the M1 and linking with the A421 to the west".  Are all three of these routes one and the same?  What kind of route is it exactly?  WHERE IS IT GOING ON THE GROUND?  This issue must be clarified as it affects our communities here greatly. There are advantages in terms of relieving through traffic from the old roads in our settlements, but there are disadvantages in terms of land used and cutting through the community as it currently exists.

Methods of preventing yet more traffic using the roads through Woburn Sands, Aspley Guise and Bow Brickhill have not been addressed.  No account of the impact of the Fen Farm development and the Eastern Expansion Area already on the books have indicated a solution to this problem and it is not forthcoming in your current documents either.  Another arrow from Kingston roundabout appears...what is this?

The development of the south east has to be linked with enhancement of East-West Rail, but this useful potential route seems to be ignored as far as detail for development here.  How about a new station near J13?

Yet more land from the south east corner apparently needs to be set aside for a Park and Ride facility from J13, yet details of how this links into the rest of the city are not mentioned.

The canal link between the River Great Ouse and the Grand Union Canal may or may not happen, but surely it is important to reserve a corridor of land across the south east corner of MK for its possible location?

Once again, until the details of these transport issues are solved, the land budget which they will need cannot be estimated, but do not appear to have been taken into account when allocating 7000-8000 homes to the south east expansion area.

23.       The south east expansion area is a key strategic location so close to the motorway and East-West Rail.  It must not be wasted as a cheap housing development for London commuters which the present plans make it.  It should be used to enhance the status of Milton Keynes by one or more of the following:

Location of the frequently mentioned High Tech Science Park...an ideal site given the potential transport links.

Location of the Campus based University, midway between Cranfield and the OU, and in the larger scale between Oxford, Cambridge and London universities (that is if not near Cranfield itself).

A sporting venue of national standard developed in connection with the Olympic bid.

Any of the above which make far more strategic sense again severely limit the house build potential of the south east expansion area to a point that all but a couple of very small developments may be possible and can be linked as far as services are concerned, either to the Eastern Expansion area, or to enhance the role of Woburn Sands as a Neighbourhood centre (see next point!)

E          The future role of Woburn Sands

24        As has already been indicated, the first priority is to surround Woburn Sands with a green belt or strategic gap as in PPG2 in the local development framework.  This involves the field north of the Bow Brickhill Road immediately to our west and extending to incorporate plans previously submitted for a Millennium Country Park and held by MKC. Also the field north of the railway in the north west of our parish, fields to the east of the part of Woburn Sands and its extension into Wavendon which lie north of the railway.  Part of these could perhaps become allotments for the residents of the area as well as the new Nampak/Wimpey site and any small developments in the south east expansion area.  This will link in with green belt extensions being sought by Mid Beds District Council to protect Aspley Guise.  Extensions to the linear park are mentioned in this area in 13.21, but there appears to be some confusion between west and east in the script.

25.       Measures must also be put into place to protect this town and its surrounding villages from any increase in traffic through our old and closely built up streets.  This will involve substantial deterrents to traffic on the A5130 somewhere to our north, and from the roundabout west of Bow Brickhill to prevent access via the Woburn Sands to Bow Brickhill road.  Liaison with Mid Beds D.C.on traffic flows affecting the A5130 from the south need also to be addressed.

26.       13.34 talks about the need to "enhance and benefit existing centres providing more facilities and services for existing communities". Woburn Sands already has most of the facilities which would rank it as a neighbourhood centre according to Table 12.3 in your hierarchy of centres.  It must be remembered that we serve not only the relatively small parish of Woburn Sands itself but also the neighbouring villages of Aspley Guise, Aspley Heath which happen to be across the County Boundary but the settlements are contiguous.  We also serve and have always been closely linked to Bow Brickhill and Wavendon, both in the Danesborough ward of MK, as well as several villages for whom we are the closest "centre", namely Husborne Crawley, Ridgemont, Woburn and Little Brickhill.  This old established larger community has a population well in excess of 5000 and growing with or without MK Expansion.

The facilities we lack and which should now be provided are:

A secondary school to serve much or all of the above community.  There is a long history of children from Fulbrook Middle School which serves most of the above being separated at secondary age to go to a number of schools mostly either in Leighton Buzzard or more recently in Milton Keynes.  Before Comprehensive education, Fulbrook was a Secondary Modern serving the whole area.  We desperately need a new secondary school to serve this divided community and allow the children to progress from primary to secondary education together.  We suggest a possible site for this is the field just north and west of the railway in Woburn Sands, extending behind and to the west of Frosts Garden and Landscape centres.  This site has several advantages including being within the previously mentioned green belt/strategic gap where it will provide playing fields and being next to the railway station which increases its "green" potential catchment area considerably.  It would remove the necessity of a further secondary school in the south east expansion area assuming the number of houses there is dramatically reduced as has been previously established.  It would enable very large numbers of children to walk or cycle to school from Woburn Sands, Aspley Guise, Wavendon and Bow Brickhill (an additional cycle way from the new redway extension between Woburn Sands and Bow Brikhill to the school avoiding the town centre could be easily built) instead of the vehicle transport currently used by all.

improved health and social care facilities including dentist and optometry and Day Care for elderly, disabled and special needs.  A possible site for all of these can be provided in the next phase of the development of the Nampak site by the Station in Woburn Sands.

Woburn Sands even has a facility of the next order up in the hierarchy namely a library which could be extended by better utilisation of the space in the building and removal of the Milton Keynes book storage room and without any actual costly building extension.  Its access could also be doubled by extending the present opening days and hours.  This library serves people across the County Boundary in Aspley Heath and Aspley Guise as well as Milton Keynes council tax payers.

We also possess a Youth Centre, albeit small, with exclusive use, but not currently operating as such.  It could be brought back into use with assistance from MKC.

The playing fields Woburn Sands lacks would be provided by the dual use of the secondary school facilities as above as would a Sports Centre.

The retail centre of Woburn Sands High Street already offers more services than would be expected of a neighbourhood centre.  What it does need, however, is enhanced public transport connections with its hinterland and improved parking facilities which could easily be provided by better utilisation of some areas behind the shops.  Grants to enable this to happen would solve the problem.

The requirement of 13.55 for small scale employment opportunities can easily be provided in the next phase of the Nampak Development where it is already designated in part as employment and this would further enhance our status as a neighbourhood centre.  MKC must make sure this is implemented.

In short, with relatively little extra cost, Woburn Sands could become a proper neighbourhood centre with enhanced facilities and satisfying your aim of regeneration of the older settlements. (13.34) as well as providing a sustainable urban extension.

Conclusion

27.       The simple summary of all the above is that you are proposing too many homes by far.

Half the proposed number, IF market forces demand and over a longer timescale, may produce less opposition.  Any more and you destroy much of what has made Milton Keynes so successful and appreciated by its residents.

28.       This response has been discussed with and is fully supported by our neighbouring parishes.  We hope this response both indicates the strength of our opposition to much of your plans for the Growth of Milton Keynes, but at the same time makes some positive contributions to the discussions.  We have tried not to be nimby-ish and have refrained from saying all development should be anywhere else in and around Milton Keynes but not here!

Yours sincerely

Lynne Stapleton

Town Clerk

c.c.       Mark Lancaster T.D.M.P.

            Nadine Dorries M.P.

            David Hackforth (Head of Transport & Planning Milton Keynes Council)

            Isabel McCall (Leader Milton Keynes Council)

            Rt. Hon. Ruth Kelly MP (Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government.)

            Caroline Spelman M.P. (Shadow Spokesman for Communities & Local Government.)

            Cllr. Fiona Chapman (Mid Beds District Council)

            Cllr. Anthony Duggan (Beds County Council)

            Cllr. David Hopkins (Milton Keynes Council)

            Sir Bob Reid (Chair Milton Keynes Partnership)

            Alan Bassindale (Peer Group Review)