cmk development framework - milton keynes · cmk development framework review draft 2 this document...

CMK Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Urban Design & Landscape Architecture

www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla

February 2013

CMK Development Framework Review Draft

2

This document has been prepared by Milton Keynes Council’s Urban Design and Landscape Architecture Team in collaboration with both internal officers and external stakeholders. For further information please contact:

Neil Sainsbury, Head of Urban Design and Landscape Architecture.

Urban Design and Landscape ArchitecturePlanning, Economy and DevelopmentMilton Keynes CouncilPO Box 113, Civic Offices1 Saxon Gate EastMilton Keynes, MK9 3HN

T +44 (0) 1908 252708F +44 (0) 1908 252329E [email protected]


www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla3

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background pg05

1.2 Role and Scope of the

Development Framework pg06

1.3 Relationship to the emerging CMK

Business Neighbourhood Plan pg06

1.4 Relationship to Existing Policy pg06

1.5 Geographic Area of Review pg07

1.6 Structure of SPD pg07

SECTION 2 VALUES AND KEY PRINCIPLES

2.1 Context pg09

2.2 Values and Principles pg09

Contents

SECTION 3 PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

CITY CENTRE

3.1 Introduction pg11

3.2 Protection of the Key Public Realm

Infrastructure pg11

3.3 Heritage Assets pg14

3.4 Design pg16

3.5 Access, Movement and Parking pg20

3.6 Key Public Spaces pg27

3.7 Land Uses and Character Areas pg29

FIGURES

fig.1 Key Public Realm

Structuring Elements pg15

fig.2 CMK Street Hierarchy & Pedestrian

Movement Network pg21

fig.3 Access, Movement and Parking pg26

fig.4 Landscaping and Key

Public Spaces pg28

fig.6 Broad Character Areas for CMK pg31

APPENDIX

A Lessons Learnt Report pg33

B Extracts from Milton Keynes Local

Plan (December 2005) pg67

SECTION 1Introduction

1.1 Background pg05

1.2 Role and Scope of the

Development Framework pg06

1.3 Relationship to the emerging

CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan pg06

1.4 Relationship to Existing Policy pg06

1.5 Geographic Area of Review pg07

1.6 Structure of SPD pg07



1.1 Background

1.1.1 Central Milton Keynes (CMK) is the main locationinthecityforretail,leisureandofficedevelopment with the largest concentration of jobs and this should continue into the future. The emerging Core Strategy outlines significantoffice,retailandresidentialgrowthin CMK. Milton Keynes Council furthermore has recently acquired the HCA assets, Milton Keynes is within the second wave of City Deals and there is also clear Central Government Guidance in delivering sustainable economic growth and seeking to drive further (private) sector investment. The Council therefore has a corporate responsibility to ensure that an appropriate planning framework is in place to promote and guide this growth.

1.1.2 The 2002 CMK Development Framework SPG was prepared to guide the 2nd generation of development in CMK. A key aim was to build upon the economic success of Milton Keynes over the previous 30 years, whilst recognising the need to change its image, perception and profileandindoingsostimulatedevelopmentandattractsignificantinwardinvestment.

1.1.3 The 2002 Development Framework was intendedasalongtermflexiblestrategy(nota blue print) that could respond to changing circumstances.

1.1.4 It outlined a set of design objectives, including:

• Creating a more secure, friendly, pedestrian, walkable environment

• Improving the relationship between the public realm, buildings and roads

• Increasing the intensity and density of development

• Introducing a greater mix of uses within areas, buildings and development

1.1.5 Togethertheabovewereintendedtobeflexibleenough to accommodate a variety of projects.

1.1.6 In order to deliver these design objectives, a key principle of the 2002 Development Framework was to establish a revised urban form for CMK which meant a change to much of the unique and carefully planned public realm infrastructure within CMK.

1.1.7 In the 10 years since the Development Framework was adopted a limited amount of high density mixed use developments have been completed within CMK that have resulted in changes to the public realm infrastructure. Thesedevelopmentsweremetwithasignificantamount of criticism and this was one of the key reasons why Cabinet resolved that a review of 2002 Framework should be carried out. The overarching question was whether theDevelopmentFrameworkwasstill‘fitfor purpose’. Other reasons for the Review included:

• The national economy was in a very different situation to 2002• The remit of the Homes and Community

Agency (HCA) had changed considerably, from a delivery one to an enabling one•Therewasaviewamongsomethatinsufficient

development had been delivered since 2002 and that this was due to the Development Framework

Helmut Jacoby’s vision of CMK

1.1.8 More recently, the National Planning Policy Framework has been introduced, the Council’s Core Strategy has been subject to an Examination in Public and the Localism Act has come into force.

1.1.9 A Lessons Learnt paper was therefore prepared in 2011 in consultation with key stakeholders and councillors to understand what lessons there were to be learnt since the adoption of the Development Framework in 2002, in terms of completed developments, implementation of key policy/principles, changing policy, governance arrangements as well as the changing economic outlook. The Lessons Learnt paper can be seen at Appendix A.

1.1.10 This Lessons Learnt Paper as well as the following has informed the draft Development Framework Review:• Comparison of policy prepared since 1970 with

key importance attached to that policy which has been consistent through the intervening years•The National Planning Policy Framework• Emerging policy in the Milton Keynes

Core Strategy

The centre:mk, a grade II* listed building

Recent development: VizionEDAW CMK Development Framework SPG, 2002


6

1.2 Role and Scope of Development Framework

1.2.1 The Development Framework replaces guidance previously contained in the 2002 CMK Development Framework (often referred to as the EDAW report) and in other supplementary guidancethatflowedfromthatdocument–namely, the Campbell Park and Sustainable Residential Quarter Supplementary Planning Guidance notes and the Central CMK Supplementary Planning Document. Until the Core Strategy is adopted, the Development Framework expands on and provides up-to-date guidance for the implementation of the poli-cies for CMK in the Milton Keynes Local Plan (MKLP). Whilst this new SPD does not change the policies for CMK in the MKLP, it encourages developers to consider the lessons learnt since 2002andhowthesecouldbereflectedinthedesign of new developments. Upon adoption of the Core Strategy, the Development Framework willberevisedtoreflectthisnewplan.

1.2.2 The Development Framework represents a ‘light touch’ primarily based on and informed by the lessons that have been learnt since the adoption of the 2002 Development Framework as well as a policy review since 1970.

1.2.3 While Section 2 outlines Values and Key Principles that provide direction for the future growth of CMK to aspire to, the Development Framework is not intended to be a visionary document, but rather a more practical document that outlines up-to-date planning and design guidance for the growth and development of CMK.

1.2.4 The Development Framework will provide aflexiblestrategy(ratherthanablueprint)to accommodate changing circumstances and respond to market conditions but that importantly respect:

• Some basic rules/parameters largely focused around the protection of the key structuring elements (or public realm infrastructure) within CMK, and

• Other planning and design guidance relating to the growth and development of CMK.

1.2.5 The above two bullet points together will provide clarity to, as well as guide investors and planning applications about the Council’s overarching expectations for development and growth in CMK. The Development Framework will furthermore play a crucial role in helping deliver the growth agenda and attract inward investmentinCMKasidentifiedinpara1.1.1.

1.2.6 In summary, the aim of the Development Framework is to encourage a wide variety of development but within a strong public realm framework.

1.3 Relationship to the emerging CMK Business Neighbourhood Plan

1.3.1 During 2011 the Government through the localism agenda has promoted and legislated for the use of Neighbourhood Plans to allow Neighbourhood Forums or Parished Areas to prepare plans for their local area. Business Neighbourhood Plans were then also introduced for areas that were predominantly commercial in nature. CMK was chosen as a front-runner for a Business Neighbourhood Plan which, if

1.4.2 NPPF: the NPPF requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan. It gives a strong commitment to the planning system supporting sustainable economic growth and supports the vitality and viability of town centres. Planning policy should not over-burden investment in business; in fact, policies should recognise and address barriers to investment. Running through the NPPF is a golden thread of sustainable development so that the desire for and encouragement of economic growth should be balanced against social and environmental considerations for example, the protection of built heritage and the natural environment.

1.4.3 Milton Keynes Local Plan (MKLP): Adopted in 2005, the MKLP provides the current local planning policy for CMK. Policy S5 in the Strategic Policies chapter of the plan aims to set out a policy framework for achieving a more lively, varied, accessible and inclusive city centre. Policy S5 seeks a broader mix of uses; a higher density of development leading to a greater intensity of activity, supporting and supported by public transport; a reduction in theinfluenceofthecarinthedesignandlayoutof the area; the encouragement of walking, cycling and public transport an the integration of different facilities and quarters.

1.4.4 General policies for CMK, detailed policies for individual quarters and Priority Development Areas are then set out in the Town Centres and Shopping chapter of the MKLP. Relevant policies in the MKLP are reproduced in Appendix B.

successful at a referendum, will be brought into force by the Council as part of the Development Plan for Milton Keynes.

1.3.2 Due to the emergence in 2011 of the Business NeighbourhoodPlansignificantdiscussionhastaken place between Milton Keynes Council and the CMK Alliance steering group around the relationship between the CMK Development Framework and the Business Neighbourhood Plan.

1.3.3 The current proposal is that the Development Framework will be taken forward in parallel with the Neighbourhood Plan providing the latter with the basic rules pertaining to the future of the public realm infrastructure as well as other strategic and guiding principles. The intention is to adopt the Development Framework as an SPD linked to the Milton Keynes Local Plan for the time being.

1.3.4 Once the CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan has been brought into force it will supersede those aspects of the non-strategic,site-specificpoliciesforCMKin the Local Plan and the CMK Development Frameworkwithinwhichitisinconflict.

1.4 Relationship to Existing Policy

1.4.1 Currently, the Development Plan for CMK comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) and the Milton Keynes LocalPlan–specificallyStrategicchapterPolicy S5 and the Town Centres and Shopping chapter policies CC1-19. Outside of the development plan there are also several pieces of supplementary planning guidance for CMK.



1.4.5 Emerging policy: New planning policy for CMK is emerging in the Milton Keynes Core Strategy and in the preparation of the CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Development Plan. On adoption of the Core Strategy, the MKLP strategic policy for CMK, Policy S5, will be superseded by Policy CS7 but the detailed Town Centres and Shopping chapter policies in the MKLP will remain in place until replaced by either the CMK Alliance Business Neighbourhood Plan or the new local plan for Milton Keynes (‘Plan MK’).

1.4.6 The Development Framework replaces the 2002 CMK Development Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance note (SPG) (often referred to as the EDAW report) and the othersupplementaryguidancethatflowedfromthe2002SPG–namely,theCampbellParkand Sustainable Residential Quarter SPGs and the Central CMK Supplementary Planning Document.

Extent of area covered by review Central Milton Keynes, 2012 - illustrating some recent developments as well as the opportunities presented by vacant development sites, in this case Block B4

1.5 Geographic Area of Review

The Development Framework covers the following geographic areas:

1.5.1 Central Milton Keynes between the railway line, Marlborough Street, Portway (H5) and Childs Way (H6).

1.5.2 Campbell Park between Marlborough Street, the Grand Union Canal, Portway (H5) and Childs Way (H6).

1.5.3 The study area boundaries include grid road corridors or the ‘greenframe’ on both sides of Portway and Childs Way, This land has been included because both sides of Portway and Childs Way need to be considered in terms of improved pedestrian connections between CMK/Campbell Park and the adjacent estates.

While the title of the SPD uses ‘CMK’ to include all the above areas, the document does differentiate between CMK (Blocks A-E) and Campbell Park where appropriate.

1.6 Structure of SPD

The SPD is broken down into 3 sections:

Section 1 focuses on the Background to the SPD as well as its purpose, its relationship to existing policy and the area of Study

Section 2 provides the Values and Key Principles for the future development and growth of CMK and helps underpin Section 3

Section 3 forms the main body of the SPD and provides up to date planning and design guidance for the growth and development of the city centre

SECTION 2Values and Key Principles

2.1 Context pg09

2.2 Values and Principles pg09



2.1 Context

2.1.1 The 2002 CMK Development Framework prepared by EDAW included 12 strategic goals and principles which formed the basis of the guidance in the Framework and provided markers to test the success of the Development Framework in meeting the aspirations for the future of the city centre. The 12 strategic goals were based on the original 6 goals in the 1970 “Plan for Milton Keynes”:

• Opportunity and freedom of choice • Easy movement and access, and good

communications• Balance and variety• An attractive city • Public awareness and participation • Efficientandimaginativeuseofresources

2.1.2 As a starting point to the review of the CMK Development Framework, the Values and Principles for the development of CMK have been reassessed, taking account of the lessons that have been learned from the implementation of the 2001 Development Framework.

2.2 Values and Key Principles

Amazing MK - A prosperous and vibrant city centre

1. Maintaining and enhancing the city as a distinctive place

• Retain the geometry of the grid• Maintain the existing character of the

‘greenframe’ around CMK• Safeguard tree-lined Boulevards and Gates• Presumption to protect the existing

public realm infrastructure

2. Being sensitive in our approach to development

• Understand and respect the unique qualities of CMK

• Recognise the value of the twentieth century architecture of CMK

• Where appropriate refurbish and improve existing building stock

• Understand and respond to the different character areas in CMK

3. Managing the growth of CMK to complement and enhance MK as a whole

• Ensurethattheeconomicbenefitscreated bythegrowthofCMKbenefittherestof Milton Keynes

• Complement the distinct role of the older towns and district centres

4. Ensuring ease and choice of access for all

• Improve the pedestrian experience• Improve the quality of pedestrian and cycling

connections into CMK from surrounding areas• Facilitate the delivery of high quality

interchange facilities• Improve public transport as a mode of travel

both into and within CMK• Recognise the role of the car• Take a holistic approach to the management

of city centre parking responding to the needs of different users

5. Embracing diversity

• Reflectandrespondtothemulti-culturaldiversity of MK

• Encourage more varied patronage of CMK• Respond to the needs of all residents

6. Recognising the importance of public and green spaces

• Maintain the integrity of the ‘greenframe’ around CMK

• Promote and improve key civic spaces and focal points

• Make a clear distinction between public and private spaces

• Encourage greater use of public and green spaces

7. Committing to making CMK a social place

• Promote a safe and secure city centre through good design

• Diversify the commercial, residential, retail and leisure offer

• Encourage social interaction through a high quality public realm and places and spaces for community activity

8. Be respected and admired as an important city centre

• Promote CMK as the focal point of an international city

• Promote CMK as the prime location for the headquarters of major companies

• Achieve high-quality architecture and urban designthatisadignifiedadditiontoCMK

9. Fostering creativity, learning and success

• Predominantlyflexibleapproachtothelocation and accommodation of land uses

• Provide opportunities in CMK for life-long learning initiatives including a university

• Focus on the development of the knowledge based economy and creative industries

• Maintain CMK as the city’s primary location for business, retail and leisure

• Make CMK a place for doing business• Place CMK at the leading edge of ICT

infrastructure• Make CMK a model of environmentally

sustainable development

SECTION 3Planning and Design Guidance for the

Growth and Development of the City Centre

3.1 Introduction pg11

3.2 Protection of the Key Public Realm

Infrastructure pg11

3.3 Heritage Assets pg14

3.4 Design pg16

3.5 Access, Movement and Parking pg20

3.6 Key Public Spaces pg27

3.7 Land Uses and Character Areas pg29



3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 This section forms the most important part of the SPD and provides up-to-date planning and design guidance for new development in CMK based largely on lessons that have been learnt since the adoption of the 2002 Development Framework but also a review of other policy relevant to CMK since the 1970 “Plan for Milton Keynes” was produced.

3.1.2 It focuses on 6 areas of guidance:

• Protection of Public Realm Infrastructure• Heritage Assets and Public Art• Design• Access, Movement and Parking• Key Public Spaces• Land Uses and Character Areas

3.1.3 Each section of Guidance will include an introductory pre-amble followed by the Guidance which will be provided in the form of Principles.

3.2 Protection of the Key Public Realm Infrastructure

3.2.1 The distinguishing feature of CMK and what gives it its unique identity is the extent, layout and quality of the public realm. The public realm is the setting within which the more transient buildings and activities will come and go over time. It must be nurtured and maintained at the highest possible standard.

3.2.2 CMKisdefinedbyastrongclearlyidentifiableset of public realm infrastructure. This includes:

• A landscaped hierarchical grid of boulevards, gates and streets

• Unlike boulevards and gates, streets don’t have a uniform approach in terms of layout/orientation and frequency with the result that they divide up blocks in different ways across CMK

• Landscaping was a fundamental structuring principle in the planning of CMK. It was seen asfulfillingthefollowingfunctionsinCMK:a. HelpinggiveCMKitsuniqueidentity–itis

its ‘shopfront’b. Definingspacesc. Helping absorb the proposed buildings

and infrastructured. Helping emphasise its street hierarchy

• FormalavenuesofLondonPlanesdefinetheboulevards, Horse Chestnuts are used along the Gates, and a variety of smaller ornamental trees such as Cherries and Whitebeams are generally planted along streets and supplement other development frontages

• The landscaped hierarchical grid together with the surface level parking provides the setting for all buildings and activities

• Buildings follow consistent building lines behind the surface level parking which allows for direct and legible pedestrian routes particularly along boulevards and gates

• Surface level parking in either 2 rows along boulevards or 4 rows along gates and in North and South Row

• A ‘greenframe’ (i.e. the landscaped corridor around CMK on either side of the H5, H6 and V8) which acts as the gateway into CMK and provides a green setting for CMK as a whole

• Wide daylit underpasses with gentle gradients that line up directly with the footpaths alongside the boulevards

• Portes-cochere that identify the safest pedestrian crossing points

• Granite retaining walls marking the entry point into CMK off Portway

• A carefully selected suite of modern street furniture; silver grey granite kerbs and stone facings with silver grey uniform paving and rolled silver grey stones in Boulevard road surfaces


12

‘Greenframe’ acts as a green setting for CMK

Wide daylit underpasses provide ease of pedestrian movement

CMK’s landscaped hierarchical road network

Consistent building lines along boulevards and gates

Granite retaining walls mark gateways into CMK

High quality public realm materials

Surface level parking including ‘slow streets’

Portes-Cochere identify safest pedestrian routes



3.2.10 Retention of all underpasses

3.2.11 Presumption is to retain boulevards and gatesonexistinglevels–retainingallexistingtreesunlessclearpublicbenefitscanbedemonstrated will be delivered by lowering them and doing so will not affect the movement of traffic/pedestrians/cyclistsandthatthehighwaycapacity of any roads involved (including ‘slow streets’)willnotbesignificantlyaffected.

3.2.12 Existing portes-cochere should be retained wherever possible especially those along the boulevards.

3.2.13 CMK provides a district centre function for the residents within the neighbouring estates. For this reason the overbridges and underpasses which pass through the greenframe connecting the surrounding estates to CMK need to be safe and attractive. Development within the greenframe around CMK will be encouraged if:

• It can be clearly demonstrated that it has a publicbenefitintermsofimprovingthequalityand safety (as well as perception of safety) of pedestrians and cyclists using overbridges and underpasses

• It does not harm the capacity of the city road corridors to accommodate the transport needs of future generations, including public transport

• The overall character of the greenframe is still one of a green setting punctuated by high quality developments at ‘points of connection’

• It can occur on both sides of the overbridge or underpass.

• It will help to demarcate the city centre and assistwithvehicularwayfinding

should be dealt with in accordance with nationally recognised good practice

• Future landscaping must take cognisance of the guidance contained within the CMK Handbook regarding landscaping principles and species within the streetscape of CMK (currently being prepared)

• A landscape and public realm management and maintenance strategy must be prepared that has a viable and ongoing funding regime.

3.2.8 In line with Local Plan policy, development will be permitted on existing surface level parking so long as alternative parking is provided. The Lessons Learnt report however has indicated that for a variety of reasons the council prefers and encourages development that preserves public surface level parking.

3.2.9 The implications of the above are that while development will be permitted to come forward from existing building lines (into existing surface level parking) the Lessons Learnt Report has indicated however again that for a variety of reasons the council prefer and encourages development that preserves the existing building lines.

* An adequately connected movement network is defined as one that does not negatively affect highway capacity elsewhere

** Public benefits imply at least one or more of the following: major improvements to the public realm, improved access for pedestrians, cyclists, public and private transport, enhanced public transport, additional parking in appropriate locations . Public benefits do not imply just economic benefits but equally social and environmental benefits.

Principles (see fig. 1)

3.2.4 Retain and reinforce the rectilinear geometry of the CMK grid in terms of the tree-lined boulevards and gates as the key structuring element in CMK.

3.2.5 Retain the connectivity of the CMK grid network in terms of boulevards and gates unless the following can be clearly demonstrated:• An adequately connected* movement network

remains, and • Widerandsignificantpublicbenefits**

will result

3.2.6 Streets however can be removed or relocated where this will assist in creating a viable commercial development as well as deliver significantpublicbenefitsthatincludesnotcompromising on pedestrian permeability as well as their removal not negatively affecting highway capacity elsewhere.

3.2.7 Future landscaping should reinforce the existing landscape structure. The presumption is that the dominant London Planes and Chestnuts along the Boulevards and Gates will be retained unless they are diseased and needtoberemoved,orsignificantpublicandeconomicbenefitsresultfromtheirremoval.Where appropriate, lost trees should be replaced with like-for-like species.

• All development should adhere to the Council’s Technical Guidance: Street Trees in CMK: Guidance on the Development Process which outlines how existing and proposed street trees that are impacted on by development

3.2.3 The importance of the surface level parking areas cannot be underestimated as they:

• Provide through-routes to North and South Row as well as access to individual development blocks

• The through-routes between the parking adjacent to the boulevards in particular, (known as ‘slow streets’ in the Milton Keynes Plan 1970) provide the opportunity for slow moving traffic,parkingandpedestrianstosafelymixand complement the freedom of car movement offered by the boulevards and gates. The intention of this is that it would help deliver the key principle for CMK of “combining the vitality of traditional city centres with the unhindered accessibility of an out of town centre”

• It has however been acknowledged that there arewayfindingandpedestriansafetyandcomfort concerns, particularly with walking to and from parking in North and South Row

• They provide service delivery access• They contain portes-cochere• They accommodate corridors for common

trenches and ducts for utility services thereby avoidingdisruptiontoCMKtrafficrouteswithinconvenient roadworks to access utilities


14

3.3 Heritage Assets

3.3.1 Many buildings in CMK follow a common design philosophy and epitomise the architectural thinking in Milton Keynes at the time, particularly during the 1970s and 80s. They follow a modernistandminimalistapproachreflectedthroughfeaturessuchas,significantamountsof mirrored glazing and sleek/clean building lines with very simple building forms. The minimalist approach is complemented well by its landscaped setting. The mirrored glass in particularreflectsthegreeneryoftheLondonPlane trees and the surrounding context.

3.3.2 The centre:mk, a grade 2 listed building and Norfolk and Ashton Houses are such examples within CMK.

3.3.3 There are also pieces of public art that played an important role in the early development of CMK and have helped create a distinct identity for CMK. Ashton House, CMK

‘Black Horse’(Elisabeth Frink), Lloyds Court

Principles

3.3.4 A Local List of heritage assets including public art should be prepared and adopted by the council and kept under review. This local list should include considering the setting of the building or piece of public art.

3.3.5 Being on a local list will be a material consideration in assessing planning applications.

The centre:mk, a grade 2 listed building


www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla15fig.1 - Key Structuring Elements: Protection of Public Realm Infrastructure (to be read in conjunction with fig.2 - CMK Street Hierarchy and Pedestrian Movement Network Plan)


16

3.4 Design

Introduction

3.4.1 This section provides guidance on the layout of new developments, the relationship between buildings and public spaces as well as buildings themselves.

3.4.2 The principles are also applicable to the refurbishment/expansion of existing buildings.

Block Structure

3.4.3 The positioning of development blocks on the ground and the way they interact with the public realm has a fundamental impact on the quality of an area. Block structure can haveafundamentalinfluenceonthequalityofpedestrian routes and the distinction between public and private space

3.4.4 The arrangement of blocks at the Hub and the Theatre District has in places created a poor relationship of development to the public space. In older development blocks, the dimensions of buildings such as Acorn House, Midsummer House and Silbury Court have resulted in the buildings’ backs facing City Gardens which goes against best practice. The fact that private backs face City Gardens means the latter is not as accessible to people as if it was faced by building fronts.

Building Frontages

3.4.8 It is crucial that building frontages are well-designed,particularlyatgroundfloorlevel,asthey face the public realm and play a major role in enlivening and animating public spaces. Busy public spaces are safer public spaces.

3.4.9 The most important pedestrian routes require the greatest attention to detail in terms of adjacent building frontages.

Principles

3.4.10 All perimeters of development blocks that face the public realm, so far as possible, should provide surveillance and animation of the public realm, by the placing of entrance doors, windows and display cases within the frontages.

3.4.11 Buildings fronting the 3 most important pedestrian routes in CMK , Midsummer, Avebury and Silbury Boulevards must be designedsuchthatanactivegroundfloorfrontage can be included.

3.4.12 Buildings that occupy a location on the corner of a boulevard (with a gate or street) must have their entrance/s on the boulevard while the frontage onto the gate or street must be designed to accommodate an animated frontage.

3.4.13 Wherever possible, for all other building frontages facing the public realm, buildings should be designed such that an active or animatedgroundfloorfrontagecanbeincluded.It needs to be recognised however that site

Principles

3.4.5 Development blocks must be positioned to make a clear distinction between public and private space.

3.4.6 Most developments have a front and back, and it is important for fronts to face public space while backs face private space.

3.4.7 New development is to be designed as either:

a. A perimeter block format with a clear public front and secure private back for servicing, parking and private communal space.

b. Linear and pavilion* blocks. These can be included when at least one side faces private space as it allows a conventional back of development to face the private space. Where all sides of linear and pavilion blocks face the public realm they will generally only be permitted where active** and / or animated***groundfloorfrontagesaredesigned into all sides facing the public realm.

*Pavilion blocks are defined as buildings such as the Council’s Civic Offices and Saxon Court which constitute a single building sometimes with an internal atrium

** Active Frontages imply primary entrance doors (not service doors) being included within the elevation along with windows that allows the activity in the building to be viewed from the outside

*** Animated Frontages do not require primary entrance doors but do require windows that allows the activity in the building to be viewed from the outside and display cases that help enliven the facade

constraints might mean that not all sides of a building can achieve active and/or animated frontages. Servicing requirements for example might not be able to be viably delivered internally to the development. In this case, the length of street frontage that servicing (or any other inactive frontage) takes up should be kept to a minimum and be included onthesidethatisleastsignificantintermsofimpact on the public realm.

3.4.14 Conditions will be imposed to prevent the blocking up, obscuring or painting over of windows and display cases.

3.4.15 Main entrances to buildings will address portes-cochere where these occur.



3.4.23 The location of waste storage can undermine the quality of public realm and depending on locationcanreducetheflexibilityofcollectionvehicles. In the Theatre District for example bins are stored outside restaurants etc in prominent positions due to lack of adequate storage space inside. This detracts from the image of the area. The bins are also more prone to vandalism and arson when they are so visible.

Principles

3.4.24 Servicing access should be limited wherever possible to streets only, not boulevards or gates

3.4.25 If residential uses are located along the streets, alternate locations need to be sought, starting with the location that has the least impact on pedestrian routes and the public realm

Pedestrian Weather Protection Features

3.4.16 An original principle for the development of Milton Keynes was the inclusion of colonnades along Boulevards and Gates.

3.4.17 Some colonnades have however been poorly utilised because of the need for access steps to use them and their design has prevented visibilityofgroundfloorbusinesses.

Principles

3.4.18 Buildings facing onto Gates and Boulevards should include within these frontages a weather protected covered walkway with a depth of at least 2m.

3.4.19 They can be in the form of lightweight canopy structures that allow good visibility of ground floorbusinesses.

3.4.20 Weather protected walkways must not need to be accessed by means of steps.

3.4.21 The weather protected walkway must in all locations be accessible to the public (they should not for example be blocked up with seating for restaurants).

Servicing Access and Waste Collection

3.4.22 Servicing access is important for retail and commercial developments but if poorly located can impact on the quality of the public realm and in particular pedestrian routes and could be incompatible with certain land uses e.g residential The Pinnacle -

includes the ability to have active frontages

The Hub:MK interior- an example of active frontages

The Hub:MK, Carnegie House - an example of a linear block that does not adequately address Witan Gate

Eaton Mews - example of perimeter block with clear public front and secure private back

MKC Saxon Court - example of a pavilion block

Acorn and Midsummer House - examples of a linear block that does not adequately address public realm on all sides


18

area, land ownership and low rise buildings whichtogetherhaveresultedinlargefloorplateuses and lack of variety in building typology. This can undermine the vitality of CMK.

3.4.29 Care does however need to be taken with a finergrainofdevelopmentasindicatedintheTheatreDistrictwherebythefinegrainwithsignificantpermeabilityofpublicpedestrianroutes has resulted in long dark alleys.

Principles

3.4.30 Future developments will be encouraged that offer smaller development plots leading to a finergrainofdevelopment.Afinergrainprovidesflexibilitytosubdivideindividualblockstohousea number of different uses and land ownerships. Alternatively blocks can be combined to allow forlargerfloorplateusessuchasleisureandretail uses.

3.4.31 Wherefinergraindevelopmentsdeliveradditional public pedestrian routes, care needs to be taken that they are adequately overlooked by active frontages and do not become inhospitable and unsafe alleyways.

3.4.32 There should be more variety in building typologieswithopportunitiesforaflexiblerangeof building types that can respond to changing demands and uses overtime and for small scale independent uses that are currently excluded. Inparticularwherelargefloorplateretailunitsare included every attempt should be made on those sides that face the public realm to include small units to retain a lively and active frontage with diversity in uses.

3.4.39 Elsewhere in CMK, buildings will generally be 3-4 storeys in height.

3.4.40 A building or structure taller than these limits may be allowed and will be dealt with on a site by site basis.

3.4.41 The council will consider applications for taller buildings if they meet the following criteria:• They are generally located within the

Central Business District between Avebury Boulevard and Silbury Boulevard and between Midsummer House (midway along Block C) and the Railway Station

• Help enhance the skyline of CMK• Have a positive relationship with the surroundingpublicrealmatgroundfloor

• Help create a landmark to assist with wayfindingandlegibility

• Helpdefineandcelebratekeyareasofpublicrealm

• Avoid a negative impact on micro-climate

3.4.42 Taller buildings will not generally be encouraged in other areas of CMK and particularly not within the setting of the centre:mk which is a listed building.

3.4.43 For taller buildings to be acceptable in CMK they will need to be of exceptional architectural quality,beadignifiedadditiontoCMKandmeetstringent sustainable construction criteria.

3.4.44 Illuminated advertisements and other forms of corporate signage will not be permitted on tall buildings as the skyline of CMK is regarded as public space. The signature of the occupier will the architecture.

3.4.33 Afinergrainofdevelopmentwithagreatervariety of building typologies is especially important along the most important pedestrian routes which are Midsummer, Avebury and Silbury Boulevards.

Development Density/Intensity and Building Heights

3.4.34 The density of a development and buildings heightsisanimportantfactorininfluencingthevitality of an area, varying character across a place and improving legibility.

3.4.35 Taller buildings, if located and designed appropriately can further enhance the quality of a place and help demonstrate its economic success.

3.4.36 Until recently, buildings in CMK were all of a very similar density and building height. While this has contributed to the uniqueness of CMK it has also contributed to the dispersal of land uses and coarse urban grain, and has led to a rather homogenous nature to CMK that has contributed to a lack of vitality and animation within the public realm.

Principles

3.4.37 Development densities will generally decrease toward the periphery (H5 and H6) to complement building heights of existing residential properties.

3.4.38 Buildings up to 8 storeys in height will generally be encouraged along the Boulevards and Gates

3.4.26 All premises, both commercial and domestic, should have waste/bin storage areas which are:

• discreet and not visible from the most heavily utilised parts of the public realm (e.g. Boulevards and Gates)

• easily accessible by collectors, avoiding the need for manouevring bins up/down steps, across areas where they may get stuck, or taken long distances

• easily accessible by users e.g. through an internal door

• l ockable on days when collections are not expected

• adequately-sized to allow separation of wastes for recycling

• accessible by collection vehicles. There is one area in CMK where collection vehicles are expected to go into an underground area. This restricts the sort of vehicle that can be used - vehicles which lift bins over the top of the vehicle cannot be used since there is insufficientheadroom

Grain of Development and Variety in Building Typology

3.4.27 The grain of development within an area indicates how close buildings are physically located together, how frequently building entrances are located, how large or small buildings are in width/depth and the extent to which individual buildings are or can be sub-divided into individual units particularly at groundfloor.

3.4.28 CMK currently has a fairly coarse grain of development which is a result of a variety of factors including the sheer size of its geographic



Architectural Quality and Sustainable Construction

3.4.50 The design of new buildings, both in terms of visual appearance and sustainability performance,hasamajorinfluenceontheperception of a place, its image and character.

3.4.51 Many buildings in CMK are very mediocre architecturally and don’t help portray the image of Milton Keynes as a new, forward thinking, unique and innovative town.

Principles

3.4.52 New buildings are to be of exceptional design quality.

3.4.53 The council will therefore welcome developers with distinguished architects.

CMK LightingHigh quality street materials detailed in CMK Handbook The Pinnacle - an example of sustainable architecture achieving a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ rating

Mixed use building with residential above office uses

Detailing of Public Realm

3.4.45 Asidentifiedinsection3.2,thepublicrealmmaterials that were installed during the early development of CMK were carefully considered and have contributed to its simple yet distinct identity.

3.4.46 The public realm is seen by people all the time and is therefore an important element in what shapes their perception of a place. It must therefore be carefully considered when new developments and/or public realm projects come forward.

3.4.54 Whereasignificantamountofglazingisincorporated(eg.floortoceiling)intoresidentialapartment blocks (eg. the Hub) and household goods are therefore clearly visible from the surrounding public realm. consideration should be given to using coloured panels and/or obscure glazing to help protect the integrity of the facade.

3.4.55 Materials are to be durable and of high quality.

3.4.56 All buildings must meet the council’s policy requirements for sustainable construction.

3.4.57 Developments should connect to existing CHP network where feasible or contribute to its expansion.

3.4.58 Design should address future climate change

adaptation e.g. passive cooling, reducing Urban Heat Island effect, green roofs etc.

Principles

3.4.47 Careful attention must be given in terms of lighting, signing, paving, street furniture and ensure its provision is co-ordinated and complementary to existing provision elsewhere in CMK in accordance with the CMK Handbook.

3.4.48 When included as part of a development, the detailing of the public realm must complement the character of the building with the design of both elements considered together.

3.4.49 The design of private realm can include a greater variety of detailing so long as it complements the public realm when located adjacent or in close proximity to it.


20

3.5 Access, Movement and Parking

Introduction

3.5.1 The Council’s Transport Vision and Strategy for Milton Keynes sets out 7 transport objectives:• Provide real and attractive transport choices to

encourage more sustainable travel behaviour as Milton Keynes grows.

• Support the economic growth of the borough throughthefast,efficientandreliablemovement of people and goods.

• Reduce transport-based carbon emissions to help tackle climate change.

• Provide access for all to key services and amenities in Milton Keynes, including employment, education, health, retail, and leisure.

• Improve safety, security and health.• Contribute to quality of life for all Milton Keynes

residents, strengthening linkages between communities.

• Establish a development framework that embraces technological change, in which Milton Keynes can continue to pioneer and develop.

3.5.2 The CMK access, movement and parking strategyisfurtherinfluencedbythree key challenges:1. A long-term need to establish a more

sustainable modal split between the private car, public transport and cycling and walking. The projected growth of CMK, cannot be accommodated sustainably at current levels of mode share and parking provision without such changes

2. The requirement to retain CMK’s attractiveness for car users in terms of ease of access and parking.

3. The encouragement of walking and cycling within CMK and the introduction of high qualitysigningandWayfindingtoimprovethepedestrian and cyclist experience, including car drivers and passengers once they have left vehicles and become pedestrians

Street Network (see fig.2)

3.5.3 CMK is bounded by Portway H5 to the north and Childs Way H6 to the south. To make the mostefficientuseoftheroadsystemtomanagetraffic,theroadsysteminCMKisbasedonahierarchy comprising 3 levels.

3.5.4 Gates - which run north-south from H5 and H6 are the main entry points to CMK and provide direct access to the development blocks. These include Elder, Witan, Secklow, Skeldon and Enmore Gates as well as Overgate. Parts of Grafton Street V6 and Saxon Street V7 act as ‘gates’ where they penetrate CMK and become Grafton Gate and Saxon Gate.

3.5.5 Boulevards-fromthegatestrafficflowsontoeast-west secondary roads, which then provide access to development acting as internal distributors. They take the urban form of ‘dual carriageway tree lined boulevards’, except through Campbell Park where the two outer boulevards continue as wide gently curving tree lined single carriageways.

3.5.6 Streets and Rows - which comprise minor access roads with parking that divide the ‘blocks’ formed by the gates and boulevards into blocklets for development. In addition, minor block-paved routes run through and connect the parking areas, and form continuous routes through the parking areas around the buildings and vacant development blocklets.

Primary Gates - entry points into CMK Boulevards - East/West traffic distributors for CMK Streets - access roads with parking alongside them Block paved routes with surface level parking areas

3.5.7 The Local Plan sets out the road hierarchy of the Borough in greater detail explaining the ‘gates’ correspond to District Distributors and the same requirements apply, the ‘boulevards’ are equivalent to Local Distributors and the ‘streets’ and ‘rows’ equivalent to Access Roads.

Principles

3.5.8 Whilstadditionalstreetsmaybebeneficialforaspecificdevelopmentandwillbeassessedon a site by site basis, there is no requirement to add streets to the existing overall CMK grid structure.


www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla21fig.2 - CMK Street Hierarchy & Pedestrian Movement Network


22

3.5.18 Include a coordinated approach toward the information provision for all forms of transport: vehicles, buses and cycles.

Pedestrian Movement

3.5.19 The original design for CMK was for pedestrian routes to generally follow roads, with additional routes and covered porte-cochere boulevard crossings at the mid point of each blocklet. This was closely linked with providing access to public amenity open space within each development block. However, these mid-blocklet pedestrian routes, although being direct, have not always been successful because of the lack of surveillance afforded to them and the fact that they can compromise the security of the block as well as a clear public-private distinction of the route (and the space through which it passes). These dual locations along streets and through blocks for pedestrian routes has contributed to the extensivenetworkinCMKasevidencedinfig2.

3.5.20 Towards the periphery of CMK, however, pedestrian routes lead directly to grade separated crossings on the grid roads rather than following the gates which are the entry routes for vehicles.

3.5.21 These grade separated crossings don’t however line up with the streets on the north-south axis so pedestrian and cycle access into CMK is compromised in terms of directness and legibility. One area of poor pedestrian permeability is the lack of 24hour north-south routes through the centre:mk.

Principles

3.5.13 Implement a city-wide coordinated pedestrian signage improvement programme (The emerging Central Milton Keynes (CMK) WayfindingandSigningstrategywillachievethis by examining how, through better public information and signage, an improved pedestrian experience can be achieved for the city centre. It also looks at how people might be encouraged to walk more frequently).

3.5.14 Establishing a hierarchy of signage focused initially on Midsummer Boulevard primarily targeting the unfamiliar visitor.

3.5.15 Include signage from parking areas in North and South Row as well any future multi storey car parks.

3.5.16 Include the principles of increasing distinctiveness and providing the right information at the critical ‘point of need’ as key elementsofthewayfindingstrategy.

3.5.17 Central to these strategies is the naming of distinct areas of use (destinations) and the inclusion of these names on all relevant signs.

Wayfinding

3.5.9 Walking and cycling is increasingly important to Central Milton Keynes. Pedestrians using the public realm of CMK have historically been poorly catered for and despite the grid system, wayfindingisoftenconfusingwhichdoesn’tpositively encourage walking or cycling as options for moving around the city centre.

3.5.10 The implementation of improved information for pedestrians and cyclists in the city centre willhaveanumberofbeneficialimpactsinthiscontext.

3.5.11 Creating the right impression is increasingly important for all cities and especially a city still establishing itself. Making the city centre more ‘legible’ has been shown to bring economic and culturalbenefits.

3.5.12 Making CMK easier to understand from a pedestrian perspective will furthermore make it more pleasurable to visit.



3.5.27 Existing Public Priority Pedestrian Routes

• Midsummer Boulevard from the Station to Campbell Park

• The full length of Avebury and Silbury Boulevard

• All pedestrian underpasses and overbridges into CMK

• The footpath connecting Campbell Park and the Theatre District

3.5.28 Pedestrian Desire Lines

• Across Midsummer Boulevard East (better integrating all parts of the Core Shopping Area)

• The area between the Xscape and Theatre District across Avebury Boulevard

• Any future routes/desire lines that are generatedbysignificantnewdevelopment‘magnets’

3.5.29 In all cases above, these routes will be enhanced by one or more of active frontages, improved legibility, lighting, surface materials, necessary repairs of steps and paving, street furniture and public art or pedestrian priority measuresdependingonthespecificroute

Block D1.3 - footpaths follow around edge of block

These three images show mid-blocklet pedestrian routes that are not overlooked, lack clear public/private distinction and compromise the security of the development block

Principles

3.5.22 The Development Framework aims to achieve a safe, convenient and comprehensive network of pedestrian routes.

3.5.23 New public pedestrian routes as part of new developments should:a. Be as direct as possible b. Generally follow around the edges of

blocks following streets where they are clearly in the

public domain and can be afforded greater surveillance from both active frontages as well as passing cars.

3.5.24 All pedestrian routes should link with:• Existing porte-cochere crossings • Underpasses below gates and boulevards• Overbridges and underpasses into

neighbouring grid squares• Key open spaces• Bus stops and taxi ranks• Car parks

3.5.25 Consideration to a 24hr north - south pedestrian route through the centre:mk should be given.

3.5.26 Priority pedestrian routes and key pedestrian desire lines require the greatest attention to detail in terms of enhancing them as pedestrian routes and pedestrian experience. These include:

3.5.30 New pedestrian routes should only be segregated from streets where it is desirable. This means where they directly connect up portes-cochere on boulevards and rows, follow a pedestrian desire line and/or are included as part of a large scale development to enhance permeability. In all cases this will only be acceptable so long as best practice urban design principles are achieved (including pedestrian routes being clearly in the public domain and being overlooked by active frontages, or at least animated frontages).

3.5.31 All new pedestrian routes need to be compliant with the Equality Act 2010 (many currently aren’t) which requires consideration of crossing locations and types, tactile paving, street furniture and planters, kerb upstands, etc.

3.5.32 Develop and implement a system of signing and WayfindingforCMK.


24

space as close as possible to one’s destination, thereby maximising the use of all public non-residential car parking in CMK.

Improve the quality of interchanges and stops in CMK, including waiting and associated facilities;

3.5.47 The Development Framework recognises the important role of Station Square as the principal multi-modal public transport hub for rail, city-wide and regional bus services, taxis, drop off and commuter parking.

3.5.48 There are further proposals for improvements to existing bus stops along Midsummer Boulevard in the form of enhanced public transport hubs. They will have the objective of improving the status of public transport by providing a quality waiting environment that will prove attractive to existing and potential users, whilst becoming an integrated and important element of the public realm.

3.5.49 Provide better real-time and other passenger information; Part of this will be delivered through the implementation of enhanced public transport hubs.

Principles Improve Public Transport access to and

around CMK;

3.5.43 One of the key ways of improving public transport into CMK is via the MK Star. This is a high frequency network of bus routes operating along arterial corridors and other corridors of high demand, providing excellent network coverage across the city with all routes passing into and through CMK.

3.5.44 The network in CMK, particularly at Midsummer/Saxon intersection, Saxon/Avebury and Avebury/Lower 9th (but not exclusively) needs to support and maintain appropriate access for pedestrians and cyclists and support reliable journey times for public transport. This may require future junction improvements.

3.5.45 The Bus Hopper Service is one possible short term intervention outlined in LTP3 that is being explored to improve public transport within CMK. Currently, available CMK parking is relatively inefficientlyusedespeciallyduringweekendswhenmanyparkingspacessurroundingofficesin the western part of CMK lie empty whilst shoppers complain about a lack of parking close to shops.

3.5.46 The feasibility of a hopper service that runs every few minutes, potentially on Avebury and Silbury Boulevards from the station to Marlborough Gate and potentially into Campbell Park, is therefore being explored. This service would also provide a link between the dispersed parking areas, particularly those major areas to the periphery of CMK, and destinations so that it would no longer be necessary to seek a parking

Public Transport

3.5.41 Theunprecedentedpaceandintensificationofgrowth planned for CMK, set out in the Core Strategy as Milton Keynes aspires to continue its development as a major regional centre for the 21st century, can only be achieved by the transformation of its public transport system. This has been recognised in the Core Strategy with the requirement of “transforming the public transport system to provide attractive, fast, frequent,convenientandefficientmovementinthe city.”

3.5.42 A prime objective of the Council’s Transport Strategy and Vision (LTP3) is to maintain a high level of accessibility to CMK whilst offering real choice of travel mode. ‘MK Star’ is the centrepiece of LTP3 with the aim of achieving a fast, direct, high frequency cross city public transport corridor network, linking destinations.

A North-South redway now crosses CMK running alongside Saxon Street

Cycling

3.5.33 For cyclists, the cross-city redway system forms a ‘box’ of routes surrounding CMK associated with grid roads V8, V6, H5 and H6. Access to CMK from these routes is via the segregated underpasses and overbridges.

3.5.34 A north-south redway now crosses CMK running alongside Saxon Street.

Principles

3.5.35 Provision of high quality, safe, segregated cycle routes at all entry points to CMK;

3.5.36 Improvement of cycle movement within CMK on new and improved north-south and east-west routes;

3.5.37 Provision of safe, secure and covered cycle parking around CMK, incorporating associated facilities such as showers, cycle repair and information;

3.5.38 ProvisionofimprovedWayfindingforcyclistsandbetter route information.

3.5.39 The introduction of a cycle-hire scheme in CMK

Powered Two-Wheelers

3.5.40 All developments should make appropriate provision (e.g. covered) in strategic locations for powered two wheelers.



Car Parking

3.5.50 Car parking provision in CMK must serve to maintain the economic vitality of Central Milton Keynes as a place to shop, work and visit, whilst recognising parking management as a tool that can and will be utilised to promote a shift to more sustainable modes.

3.5.51 Current policy restricts the amount of parking provided on-site as part of a development to 30%, but due to the lack of areas within CMK to build new surface level parking this is not viewed as a practical way forward in terms of the provision of a new development’s car parking.

3.5.52 A recent parking study for CMK looked at changes in the amounts and locations of car parking in CMK between 2012 and 2026. A range of scenarios was assessed, taking into account current and future usage, supply and demand. Results indicated that continued dispersal of arrival points and dispersed parking provision, broadly in line with current parking standards, can be accommodated by the highway network and can physically be accommodated within CMK.

3.5.53 The study furthermore demonstrated that despite new development taking place in CMK since 2008 as well as there being a recession, existing car occupancy has remained relatively constant.

High-quality bus shelters at Station Square interchange

Principles

3.5.54 All new development in CMK will provide car parking in accordance with the Council’s Parking Standards.

3.5.55 Public parking spaces lost as a result of new development will be replaced on a 1:1 basis.

3.5.56 A development’s parking requirements will normally be provided within the development site or, where this is not possible, it will be provided elsewhere in an agreed location at the developer’s expense.

3.5.57Thefinancialcontributionforunprovidedbutrequired parking spaces should be increased from the current £2500 per parking space.

3.5.58 Where possible, new parking should be provided either in basements or in decked car parks within new developments.

3.5.59 The location of off-street car parking (surface level, integral garages and multi-storey car parks) requires careful consideration so that it does not undermine the street scene and public realm.

3.5.60 All publicly accessible multi-storey or underground parking should be located on pedestrian desire lines (they can in fact create desire lines in their own right) and be linked to key destinations (including public transport services) by high-quality and safe pedestrian routes.

3.5.61 Enhanced VMS (Vehicle Management Systems)andWayfindingsystemswillassistdriverstoanappropriate parking location and to their ultimate destination. VMS will be located on grid road approaches and at other stragic locations.

3.5.62 A range of parking options will be utilised to encourage a mix of short-stay and long-stay parking as well as parking for disabled users, electric vehicles and other more sustainable alternatives.

3.5.63 “Demand management aims to reduce car use by encouraging behavioural change in households’ travel choices. It involves the application of solutions such as ‘Smarter Choices’ including travel planning (personalised, school and workplace), car sharing, homeworking, parking pricing and restraints and the provision of services in a way that reduces the demand for travel.”

An example of a well utilised multi-storey car park partly due to it being integrated with Midsummer Place


26 fig.3 - Access, Movement & Parking



3.6.2 Many public spaces are also currently significantlyunderutilised(e.g.themediansofthe boulevards).

Principles (see fig.4)

3.6.3 All public spaces should function as part of an overall network of pedestrian routes and provide for the needs of all users including the elderly and disabled.

3.6.4 Establish a hierarchy of interconnected public realm spaces based around a network of streets and squares linking existing and proposed public open spaces, including new city squares and neighbourhood parks.

3.6.5 A new civic square should be included south of Midsummer Boulevard within a portion of the existing temporary car park with at least 1 side facing Midsummer Boulevard. This square would be the focus for day and evening activities, a place for public events, a place for the market and areas to sit out and meet people.

3.6.6 Midsummer Boulevard East, being in the heart of the Core Shopping Area, should be seen as a key public space in terms of the pedestrian experience. It does not need to be pedestrianised but should be improved through decluttering; high quality maintenance and potential use of the median for a range of objects and activities such as specialist markets, artwork sales and boules competitions.

3.6.7 All boulevard central medians are public spaces and more creative use of them should be considered.

3.6.8 Improve existing underused and/or isolated spaces by improving the quality of access to them and / or their relationship with surrounding development. This includes Campbell Park, City Gardens, Saxon Mound, Grafton Park and Bouverie Square, City Square, Station Square and Exchange Square (the square at the corner of Saxon Street and Midsummer Boulevard adjacent to the CBX) and the space outside Midsummer Place adjacent to McDonalds).

3.6.9 Improve visual and physical connections to Campbell Park through a more inviting and pedestrian-friendly connection.

3.6.10 In light of a future waterway link between the Grand Union Canal and Willen Lake as part of the proposed MK to Bedford waterway, have a more direct and improved pedestrian route from the top of Midsummer Boulevard through Campbell Park to the canal.

3.6.11 Further consideration should be given to improving the public nature of the greenframe through for example the inclusion of a circular pedestrian trail.

3.6.12 Review of all street signs, parking signs and other objects within the public realm so as to reduce visual clutter.

3.6.13 Improvedwayfinding/signagetoallkeypublicspaces.

3.6.14 At the same time, the growth of CMK should include ‘secret spaces’ that offer surprise and are not signposted.

Midsummer Boulevard East should be a key public space

Improve pedestrian connections into Campbell Park

City gardens - improve access to key public spaces

3.6 Key Public Spaces

Introduction3.6.1 The dispersed nature of buildings within CMK

meansthatCMKhasasignificantamountofpublicspace–withmuchofthegreenspacebeing of good quality. Much of the public space ishoweverpoorlylocatedwithanill-definedrelationship to the surrounding buildings and functions with little reason to use them. This, combined with dispersed land uses and activities and the privatisation of Middleton Hall, Queens Court and the Winter Garden, means thatthereisnodefinablepublicspacewhichacts as the ‘heart’ to the city centre for public assembly.

3.6.15 There needs to be proper maintenance of all underpasses.


28 fig.4 - Landscaping & Key Public Spaces



3.7 Land Uses and Character Areas

Introduction

3.7.1 Although land uses are currently broadly mixed throughout CMK, there are 6 existing principal character areas some of which overlap and each has a predominant land use that serves todefineitscharacter.Thegridcomprisingboulevards and gates has further facilitated the delineation of these character areas. Thesecharacterareasasidentifiedinthe1992Planning Manual for Milton Keynes include:

• The Shopping Area

• The Entertainment Area

• The Business Area

• The Civic Area

• The Transport Area

• Campbell Park

3.7.6 The Character Areas Plan will show the predominant land use for each character area which illustrates at the CMK wide level the proposed mixing of uses. Within each character area complementary land uses that support the predominant land use are also encouraged.

3.7.7 CMK is large and it is not expected that every street and area of public realm will be fronted by a mix of uses. It is however essential that the priority pedestrian routes i.e. footpaths along the boulevards (and to a lesser extent gates), have amixofusesalongsidethematgroundfloorlevel as this will help enhance the quality of the public realm.

3.7.8 At a more localised scale (within a character area), care needs to be given around the vertical and horizontal mixing of uses:a. Vertical mixed use development, particularly comprisingresidentialabovelargefloorplateofficesuses.

b. Horizontal mixed use development: residentialdevelopmentadjacenttooffices

c. Similarly careful consideration needs to be given to mixing of night time economy uses and residential uses

3.7.9 Where residential use occurs in close proximity to other land uses, layout and design must ensure protection of residential amenity.

3.7.10 Management structures for new developments will be required that encourage early engagement,reduceconflictsbetweendifferentneighbours and ensure that the public face is well looked after.

Housing

3.7.11 Family housing is not to be encouraged in CMK.

3.7.12 The western half of CMK up to Marlborough Street is generally more suitable for young professionals while Campbell Park is generally better suited for ‘empty nesters’ and people downsizing.

3.7.13 There must be a recognition that density requirements need to meet the need of housing requirements for CMK and MK as set out in current development plan policy. Densities will generally be lower in Campbell Park than the rest of CMK.

3.7.2 Mixedusecanbedefinedin2ways:

1. dividing development blocks into different but discrete buildings having different uses, for exampletheCivicOffices,theLibrary,flatsandcommunity centre and Lloyds Court;

2. dividing a building into different uses, such as Lloyds Court having banks, shops and restaurantsonthegroundfloor,aswellasthemainuseofofficesonthegroundandfirstfloors.

3.7.3 Housing within CMK not only adds to the overall mix of uses on offer in CMK as well as the housing offer in MK as a whole but also makes a positive contribution to the liveliness and vitality of the city centre as well as adding to the variety of built form.

Principles (see fig.5)

Mixed Use

3.7.4 A wide variety of development is encouraged across CMK. This will help improve the vitality of the city centre by knitting the existing city centre together, especially along the priority pedestrian routes.

3.7.5 Theprovisionofofficesorhomesonupperstoreys of development is welcomed, subject to detailed design and management considerations.


30

Character Areas

3.7.14 The reinforcement of character areas is beneficialasitfirstlyprovidesadegreeoforder,structure and clarity to the ongoing growth and development of CMK and secondly, provides investors with certainty of what sites would suit them best in terms of having appropriate and complimentary adjacent uses.

3.7.15 Theaimisfirstly,tobuildontheabovecharacterareas within an overall approach to a mixing of land uses throughout CMK, but secondly, followingtheLessonsLearntReporttorefinethemtoreflectthefollowing6characterareaswhich are expected to overlap:

• Central Business District

• Civic Core

• Primary Shopping Area

• Leisure and Entertainment Area

• Campbell Park (north and south)

• Campbell Park

3.7.16 The nature of the remaining blocks in CMK (not covered by these character areas) is such that they are either undeveloped and hence have no character (Block B4 for example) or don’t have a predominant character, and in order to allow flexibilitytorespondtomarketconditionsitisbelieved that they should remain as sites for a variety of unique and special developments that will be actively sought for and assessed on a case-by-case basis.

3.7.17 Within each character area while there will be a predominant land use, a mix of usesarerequiredatgroundflooralongthepriority pedestrian routes which currently are Midsummer, Avebury and Silbury Boulevard.

3.7.18 The purpose of this mix of uses is to ensure a high level of pedestrian activity, interest and animation along priority pedestrian routes in particular.

3.7.19 The following represent the predominant landusethatwillbepermissibleinthedefinedcharacter area:

(1) Central Business District3.7.20 Thisareaisdefinedbytheareabetween

Saxon and Grafton Gate, Avebury Boulevard and North Row. Although most of this area is already developed, there are opportunities for the redevelopment of some of the existing buildings. This area should be the focus of business activity within CMK providing high quality developments capable of attracting new and relocating businesses. Predominant Land Use-B1Officedevelopment.

(2) Civic Core3.7.21 This area includes Block C1 and D1.2.

and D1.3. Predominant Land Use - Civic uses including existingcivicoffices,library,policestation,YMCA, law courts.

(3) Primary Shopping Area3.7.22 ThisareaisdefinedbySilburyandAvebury

Boulevard as well as Saxon and Marlborough Gate (excluding the Theatre District).

Predominant Land Use - Retail.

(4) Leisure and Entertainment Area3.7.23 This area comprises blocks E4. Predominant Land Use - Mixed use leisure

and entertainment.

(5) Campbell Park (north and south)3.7.24 This is the least developed part of CMK. Predominant Land Use -

• Residential uses• Block F1 should however be kept in reserve

for a major investor• Standalone mixed use scheme around marina

(6) Campbell Park3.7.25 Thisisdefinedasthegreenspacebetween

Silbury and Avebury Boulevard and the V8 (Marlborough Street) and Canal.

3.7.26 Campbell Park is not only CMK’s premier open space but is indeed for the whole of Milton Keynes. It serves a variety of leisure and ecological functions and as CMK grows and develops further, a key aim is to increase its offer so as to attract further visitors.

Predominant Land Use -

• Campbell Park is to be retained and protected as a park.

• If any buildings are built in the park they are to be sensitive to the landscape setting of the park and must serve to enhance its quality and its status as a local and regional visitor attraction

Other Blocks: Suitable for a variety of Proposals

3.7.27 The area associated with the train station is an area of transition and already has a wide range of uses including transport, retail, leisure and officeandthesignificantunderdevelopedsitesthat the area possesses could further enhance thisrangeofuses.Itisadynamicareareflectingthe importance of the station and therefore theDevelopmentFrameworkisasflexibleas possible in this area to allow a variety of opportunities to be considered.

3.7.28 Where new development occurs adjacent to existing residential development, care needs to be taken through layout and design that the amenity of existing is not undermined.

3.7.29 Block B4 is currently undeveloped and represents a crown jewel to CMK. It should be retained until an exceptional development opportunity has been secured. Likely predominantusesincludeoffices(e.g.amajorHQ) or university related uses. A University willhavethebenefitofpotentialsynergywith associated developments in research, knowledge exchange, as well as related culture, leisure and business developments.

3.7.30 Blocks C4, D4 and E1 are largely developed but without an existing predominant character. Thereshouldbeflexibilitytoattractavarietyofdevelopment opportunities, provided they meet the principles contained within this SPD.


www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/udla31fig.5 - Broad Character Areas for CMK: Representing Predominant Land Use

SECTION 4Appendix

A Lessons Learnt Report pg33

B Extracts from Milton Keynes Local

Plan (December 2005) pg67




SPD Consultation Statement



September 2012

1

Central Milton Keynes Development Framework Review Draft Supplementary Planning Document, August 2012 Consultation Statement Prepared in accordance with Regulation 12 (a) of The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (Planning) Regulations 2012 There has been an ongoing process of engagement with the businesses, land owning interests and local community interests in Central Milton Keynes in the preparation of the Draft Development Framework Review. This consultation statement sets out the community engagement that has informed the preparation of the draft SPD. It also details the formal consultation process that is to be undertaken on the draft SPD. Preparation of the Draft Supplementary Planning Document The Development Framework Review has been prepared by Milton Keynes Council, in consultation with other stakeholders and the main landowner interests. They have provided technical and supporting information to provide the basis for the Development Framework. During preparation of the Development Framework SPD, internal consultation has been undertaken with key Council departments, especially Highways and Development Management. As this is very much a review of the existing CMK Development Framework (2002), an important part of the preparation process has been a review of the lessons that have been learned over the intervening years since that original Development Framework was adopted. During 2011 interviews were carried out with members of the development industry active in CMK and representatives of the business community. Discussions followed with elected members and key stakeholders around the quality and impact of completed developments, the implementation of key policy/principles, changing policy, governance arrangements as well as the changing economic outlook. (Lessons Learnt note attached at Appendix 1). In order to understand the future residential requirements for CMK and what sort of homes should be built in the future the council undertook a survey of CMK residents in September‐October 2011. The survey asked for their views and experiences of living in CMK and whether the housing meets all of their needs (survey results at Appendix 2) . This issue was developed further in a meeting with developers and key stakeholders to discuss the future of the residential market in CMK, which was held in January 2012 (notes from the meeting at Appendix 3) A Stakeholder Workshop was then held in March 2012 with representatives of Council departments, developers, the Town Council and other interested parties to


34

2

discuss the issues and options arising from the preliminary work on the Development Framework Review (notes of workshop attached as Appendix 4). Informal Consultation During March through May 2012, the Council undertook Informal Consultation on the emerging issues and options for the CMK Development Framework review as part of the online ‘wiki’ consultation on the emerging CMK business neighbourhood development plan process. The Informal Consultation was an opportunity for local residents, local Ward Councillors, local Parish/Town Councils, service providers and other interested stakeholders to find out about the direction of travel of the review and to add their own comments to the document. The comments made are reflected in the draft SPD. Strategic Environmental Assessment An SEA Screening Report was produced to assess the requirement for a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the draft SPD. This was sent to the statutory bodies. One response was received, from the Environment Agency, which confirmed the council’s opinion that an SEA is not required. Regulation 12 Consultation on the Draft SPD The draft SPD will be subject to the following consultation arrangements: a) The Draft SPD and supporting documents (SEA Screening Statement, Consultation Statement) are available for inspection:

at Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes, MK9 3EJ at all of the borough libraries. Library locations and opening hours are

available from: http://www.milton‐keynes.gov.uk/library_services/displayarticle.asp?ID=67529

on the council’s website: www.milton‐keynes.gov.uk/udla

b) A covering letter or e‐mail has been sent to consultees, notifying them of the publication of the draft SPD. c) To ensure all stakeholders have an opportunity to comment a period of 8 weeks consultation has been allowed for the supplementary planning document. The consultation will run from Monday 17 September to Monday 12 November 2012. All comments must be received no later than 5pm on Monday 12 November 2012. Next Steps Following consultation, all comments will be reported to the Council for consideration and the SPD will be amended where necessary prior to adoption. This consultation statement will be updated with a summary of responses.

3

Appendix 1 CMK Development Framework Review Lessons Learnt Since Development Framework was adopted in 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report has been prepared to understand the Lessons Learnt since the CMK Development Framework (DF) was adopted in 2002 and will be used to inform and underpin new policy for CMK as part of the reviewed DF.

National and Local Context

1. The national context in terms of government policy on the development of cities, EP/HCA’s remit nationally and locally as well as the national economy, were together very different in 2001 than today

Process

2. The DF identified itself a strategic and visionary document, not a delivery or implementation plan, yet despite it recognising and identifying the need for further studies and briefs to assist with implementation, it was seen in 2002 as ready to deliver development. In some areas it clearly wasn’t ready to deliver development and it is worth considering whether clearer policy or the completion of the additional studies and briefs identified would provide greater clarity and certainty to developers and increase investor confidence.

Policy that has underpinned development and associated infrastructure in CMK and impacted on Viability

3. There have been a significant amount of new high density apartments built in CMK with outline approval for many more. The critical question now is, “What is the residential market for CMK and what sort of residential mix would be most appropriate and deliverable for CMK over the next 20 years?”

4. Linked to the above is the current policy requirement for a minimum of 100du/ha. Does this act as a constraint in terms of the types of housing that might be desirable in the future in CMK

5. The revised affordable housing mix with 25% social rent has been shown to affect the viability of schemes

6. Evidence suggests it is not practical to ‘pepperpot’ affordable flatted housing with market housing within the same floor. It needs to be done per floor/core or per block.



4

7. Mixed Use Development. Horizontal mixed use development (residential above offices) is not supported or feasible. Care also needs to be taken to not vertically mix office and residential uses in very close proximity.

8. The identified quarters are perhaps over‐complicated and don’t make commercial sense. They probably encouraged too much dispersal of mixed use development and offices in particular which has the effect of reducing land values.

9. The parking aspects of the CMK Planning Obligations SPG need revisiting, in particular the fact that 70% of development provision goes off site as public parking yet no financial contribution is required

10. The amount the council receive for a displaced parking space is approximately only 1/6th the value of a new parking space in a MSCP

11. Multi‐storey car parks have not been delivered for a variety of reasons no least because of the current payment received for displaced surface level parking

12. Overall quantum of surface level parking should not be reduced until such time as a credible parking strategy for getting people into CMK is found

13. While evidence suggests very few businesses have left CMK because of parking, some new businesses have not come into CMK because of the parking regime.

14. Businesses have indicated that they would be more content with the current parking regime if the longer term vision for parking and public transport was made clearer

15. Bringing building lines forward to boulevards and gates has been difficult and / or impractical to achieve for a variety of reasons

16. The principle of bringing building lines forward in existing areas of development is believed to have had an impact on confidence of existing investors and potential new investors

17. If building lines are too come forward, new footpath widths need to be increased from what was envisaged

18. If a fine grained CMK is desirable (as per the DF) with numerous pedestrian routes, it needs to be questioned currently whether routes should go around blocks or through blocks (or a combination of both as currently occurs).

Developments Completed in last 10 years

19. The Hub: While a mixed use development was achieved, the layout did

not accord with the DF as the development did not follow the perimeter block concept with active frontages facing outward onto the public realm and a defined private interior.

20. C4.1 (Sainsbury’s / Vizion): This development demonstrated more closely than the Hub what can result from adhering to the perimeter block layout with a clear public and private interface and active frontages to most areas of public realm. An internal pedestrian route does however to an extent undermine this and is one slightly less successful feature of the scheme

5

21. There is divided opinion as to the quality of environment and benefits that have been delivered by closing in of the Witan / Avebury underpass and bringing forward of building lines between the Hub and Vizion.

22. Block E3 (Theatre District Phase 2) and the Pinnacle both demonstrated the benefits of adhering to the DF principles of perimeter block development with a clear public side and private back.

23. Network National Rail Centre: this development demonstrated firstly the flexibility in the DF and secondly, the reluctance to bring building lines forward

Proposals

24. the centre:mk: this demonstrated that firstly the project was perhaps too ambitious and secondly that the viability was an issue because of the extensive modifications and improvements that were required to public infrastructure but which were an inherent part of the planning application to adhere the urban design objectives for CMK

25. Xscape: the current proposal, as with the Hub, demonstrates the difficulty of having linear blocks with dual fronted buildings that have high quality public realm on both sides of the block

26. Lloyds Court: consultation on a brief for this site has indicated the lack of support for firstly potentially bringing building lines forward at all, and secondly for potentially building in the ‘greenframe’.

27. The Lloyds Court Brief has also highlighted that the original layout of highway infrastructure was designed to allow heavy duty vehicles to move around development blocks and if building lines are brought forward and / or development is included within the outer row of North or South Row, this would require modifications to existing infrastructure to enable these movements to still easily occur

28. Campbell Park Canal Side Development: The isolated position of this site, together with the downturn in the market and the significant infrastructure requirements needed as part of the development all led to the returned tenders been deemed unacceptable to proceed.

Delivery and Governance

29. Lack of clarity – while the CMK Team had a defined co‐ordination role, various other agencies including the council still had responsibility for delivery of certain aspects of the DF and these were not always consistent with the DF.

30. No single point of contact – the CMK Team could not play this role, many programmes and strategies which related to or impacted on the DF were the responsibilities of other organisations


36

6

31. Mixed Messages – the above 2 points led to mixed messages being delivered investors/developers which led to delays and hence incurring of extra costs

32. Lack of a champion for CMK 33. Changing governance arrangements with the establishment of

MKP/MKPC which added further confusion and bureaucracy 34. The impact of undelivered developments meant non‐delivery of the

‘softer’ outputs of non‐development projects identified in the DF(from eg s106 funding)

35. Projects were too complex and over‐ambitious particularly because of the modifications to public realm infrastructure that was intrinsically linked to the development. If developments got abandoned infrastructure changes would also fall away. Consideration needs to be given to decouple public realm proposals and infrastructure changes that are doubtful from development opportunities

36. The economic climate was very strong in 2000 and development values were good which together with EP’s remit to support growth and their landholdings in CMK led to very ambitious proposals. The economic climate is now different and the HCA resources are very different. Less ambitious and more ‘focussed’ proposals and policy should therefore be considered.

7

1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Aims of Report 1.1.1 The purpose of this report is to highlight and understand the lessons learnt

since the DF was adopted in 2002 and how this impacted on and influenced the delivery of development in terms of :

Context – national and local Process Policy that has underpinned development and associated infrastructure in

CMK and impacted on Viability Developments completed in last 10 years Proposals Governance and Delivery

1.1.2 This will consequently guide and inform the preparation of the new policy as well as issues around governance and delivery to be prepared as part of the drafting of the Reviewed CMK DF.

1.1.3 The aim of the report is to present Lessons Learnt that are as factual as possible rather than on subjective views and anecdotal evidence.

1.1.4 Numerous comments were made about CMK in general. While these may have a bearing on the creation of new policy and principles for CMK, where they are not directly attributable to the DF (and hence lessons learnt from it), they have been omitted.

1.1.5 As part of the consultation on Lessons Learnt, there were numerous comments made about business growth. While these comments are not directly attributable to the DF, they are felt as useful in the context of understanding future business growth in CMK and have therefore been included as Appendix A. The Council’s Environmental Health Team also made comments on the Lessons Learnt report regarding issues of noise and taxis concerning licencing and mixed use developments. These again are not directly attributable to the DF but have been included for interest as Appendix C

1.1.6 It is important to note that the role of this document is not to identify solutions, these will emerge as part of subsequent stages of the review of the CMK Development Framework.

1.1.7. It is recognised that these Lessons Learnt don’t necessarily represent an exhaustive list – additional Lessons Learnt may emerge as the review of CMK Development Framework progresses.

1.2 Context

National 1.2.1 The Central Milton Keynes Development Framework was commissioned in

Autumn 2000 at a time when the recently completed government



8

commissioned Richard Rogers Urban Task Force : Towards an Urban Renaissance (1999) was promoting more compact and walkable cities. The Governments Sustainable Communities Plan (2003) was also being prepared which reinforced much of what the Task Force Report was recommending.

1.2.2 Milton Keynes was identified in the Sustainable Communities Plan as one of the Growth Areas. As part of this English Partnerships (EP) were given a new role to support development and regeneration across the growth areas, reflecting the priority that the Government attached to accelerating their development.

1.2.3 In 2000, the national economy was also very strong. This together with the Government drive for sustainable growth allowed the Development Framework to be very ambitious in its proposals

Local

1.2.4 The Development Framework (DF) was commissioned in Autumn 2000 to shape the growth of CMK to rise to the challenge of growth and further development as the original 1970s masterplan of Milton Keynes Development Corporation (MKDC) was nearing its completion. Only one city block (B4) and much of Campbell Park, plus a range of smaller infill sites, remained untouched. Forecasts were that that these sites would be developed out by 2006 if the MKDC plan was completed – giving rise to a need for a new framework for future growth and delivery in the city centre.

1.2.5 The DF established a revised urban form but also responded to the economic, cultural and community needs facing the new city of almost 250,000 citizens, planned to grow further in the coming 30 years with up to 70,000 additional homes. To prepare for this second generation of development, the Framework sought to optimise the potential of the land and development assets in a maturing city centre but also sought to respond to the changing needs of the increasingly diverse population and to strengthen and grow the economy. It is focussed on the needs of existing residents and employers, but also on future inward investors, new residents attracted to Milton Keynes and to visitors.

1.2.6 The proposed masterplan would also alter the established ways of managing and delivering projects.

1.2.7 EP also had considerable land assets in CMK, which together with its remit of supporting growth and development was seen as a key vehicle for helping deliver a more walkable, compact CMK through the changing of its structure. This again allowed Development Framework to be very ambitious in its proposals.

1.2.8 It is worth noting that the CMK DF did not occur in a policy vacuum and was informed by various pieces of work prior to its commencement. A timeline of other projects that led to the preparation of the DF is included as an Appendix B.

2. Lessons : ‘Process’

9

2.1 Conflict between Vision identified in DF and Perception 2.1.1 On one hand the DF identified itself as a visionary and flexible strategy, not

an implementation / delivery plan. Furthermore because the preparation of the DF took several years and coincided with the preparation of the Local Plan, it created a policy vacuum leading to a hiatus in development. In recognition of this and because of the pressure to get on with projects in CMK, the DF was not as detailed as initially intended. This in part led to the DF identifying various further stages of work that were needed. These included:

Development Briefs for individual sites and quarters. This was seen as important because the DF established strategic principles and objectives for the whole of CMK which it said would need to be interpreted within the opportunities and constraints of specific sites/quarters.

To inform the preparation of the Briefs, a number of studies were required:

The impact of changing building lines on the boulevards Maintenance and management of existing and future public realm Financing of Public Realm Density and scale study to set parameters Wider transport study of MK A landscape strategy

2.1.2 On the other hand, and despite these above further studies identified as

needed, the perception in 2002 was that the Development Framework was ready to deliver development, yet no work had occurred on how it is to be delivered (for example the 3 dimensional aspects pertaining to level changes, the impact on existing utilities, or the issue of bringing building lines forward in places of existing development).

2.1.3 Much of what is identified in 2.1.1 above has not been prepared. In recognition of the above, in 2008, the CMK ‘Guidance for Delivery project was set up by the CMK Team (on behalf of the joint arrangement between MKC and EP) with workstreams covering Block Parameter Plans, Tall Buildings Strategy, Greenframe Strategy, car parking etc. At the time the Guidance project was getting underway, the changes to the CMK governance were taking shape which led to the shift in responsibility from the CMK Team to an MKC lead. While the Tall Buildings Strategy SPD was taken to the stage of formal consultation, no further work on these workstreams has occurred.

2.1.4 The Council have however recently started preparing development briefs for sites where a developer interest has been shown with the intended benefit of providing more certainty to a developer about the principles applicable for that specific site.

2.1.5 Based on the above it needs to be questioned whether around certain issues (such as building lines, car parking, greenframe) there needs to be clearer policy or acknowledgement that further studies are needed and agreement


38

10

that they are undertaken. This would have the benefit of providing greater clarity and certainty to developers and increase investor confidence.

3. Lessons : Policy that has Underpinned Development and Associated

Infrastructure in CMK and impacted on Viability 3.1 Residential Mix 3.1.1 One of the most important steps forward in CMK as identified in the

Development Framework (DF) has been the introduction of significant elements of urban residential living in CMK. This has created a new market, moving on from the generally lower‐grade and low density residential to be found in CMK. This has balanced sale with key worker and affordable housing; buy‐to‐let and corporate‐lets; first time homes with luxury apartments. Each of these markets was ill catered for in CMK prior to the Development Framework.

3.1.2 CBX3 Phase 1 and C4.1 have delivered over 920 residential units. The developer dictated the mix particularly in the Hub where at the time Buy‐to‐Let was very popular and 1 and 2 bed apartments were the dwelling type that buy‐to‐let investors knew would sell. In C4.1 for example, ‘blocks’ are being run as serviced apartments

3.1.3 While there has been considerable growth in MK over the past 20 years and the fact that almost anything built can be sold and occupied,(developers will build what the market can sell) doesn't however prove there was specifically a greater demand for small apartments than for many other kinds of dwelling that could have been built in CMK (or MK).

3.1.4 The critical question now is, “What is the residential market for CMK and what sort of residential mix would be most appropriate and deliverable for CMK over the next 20 years?”

3.1.5 Too many small apartments attract the ‘buy to let’ market but do not create settled communities

3.1.6 The introduction of a greater proportion and range of family accommodation could positively contribute to neighbourhood development but does the additional cost of delivering larger units in an urban setting mean that they are not necessarily good value for money when compared to ‘suburban’ Milton Keynes where there are abundant opportunities for family housing in a perhaps more appropriate suburban setting? There is for example a considerable amount of (albeit lower cost) family housing within the estates immediately around CMK.

3.1.7 The current plans in terms of the 2 key sites in CMK for residential development (ie West End and Campbell Park) are similar in terms of residential density and mix which doesn’t acknowledge that there is potentially two very different markets. It is suggested that further investigation / discussions is needed to decide what is desirable and required regarding residential uses for these 2 key sites. It might be that a different ‘USP’ is created for each of these areas would broaden the market appeal.

11

3.1.8 Understanding what is appropriate and deliverable in CMK regarding residential mix is also important in terms of potential pupil yields and school planning.

3.1.9 It is important to understand who homes are being built for in CMK. Evidence from the Centre for Cities indicates that at the higher end of the labour market, advanced producer services, such as accountancy, advertising, finance and law are increasingly concentrating in high cost city centre locations. This is even more the case for CMK where there is an increasing focus on the growth of knowledge based jobs/industries (1 of the 6 priorities of the MKC Economic Development Strategy). At the same time lower skilled jobs have been slowly dispersing out of city centres. Does this help in establishing a certain market in terms of future housing in CMK?

3.1.10 As a separate but related issue, the Centre for Cities report say that in cities, worklessness, is often concentrated in inner city locations partly driven by the housing offer – leading to a spatial mismatch between where workless city residents live and where the lower skilled, entry level jobs are located.

3.2 Residential Densities 3.2.1 The DF and Local Plan require a minimum of 100du/ha for residential

development in CMK and Campbell Park. While there is not a clear direct relationship between density and urban form, this minimum density does require a higher degree of apartments.

3.2.2 Developers struggled with sales and viability on Campbell Park Phase 1 which is why the site has stalled pending redesign of the remaining section, which is for more townhouses and fewer apartments to reduce the amount of basement parking and reduce construction costs. This demonstrated that a mix of just 23% townhouses and 77% flats (1,2&3 bed) only just manages to meet the minimum local plan density requirement (100du/ha) by achieving a density of 106 du/ha. There is no evidence to suggest that the replan is driven by an increased demand for family housing rather than a fall in demand for flats and very expensive construction methods.

3.2.3 If there is therefore an increased demand for family type accommodation this will reduce the density such that it will be difficult to comply with the above mentioned policy on density requirements. This therefore may require a relaxation of local plan policy.

3.3 Affordable Housing 3.3.1 The Affordable Housing requirements under the Outline permissions for both

the SRQ and Campbell Park are under the Affordable Housing SPG – 25% Intermediate and 5% Social Rent – so the Social Rented housing does not have much impact on the overall housing. Council housing records show that there are approx 45‐50 Social Rent units in C4.1 & CBX3 and none in Campbell Park. B4.4 (West End) site has been tendered in accordance with the current planning approval and s106 agreement including a 25%



12

Intermediate/5% Social Rent affordable housing mix, however developers are required to submit an alternative bid based on the revised affordable housing mix which will show any impact on scheme viability.

3.3.2 The argument against changing the Affordable Housing mix in remaining phases of these 2 key sites to address current Affordable policy and need, has been that it adversely affects viability.

3.3.3 The Government and the HCA expects Affordable Rent (where the tenant is charged up to 80% of Market Rent) to replace Social Rent on new developments – Affordable Rent is expected to house the same client group as Social Rent, but it doesn’t.

3.3.4 Evidence from the Vizion has shown that it is not practical to ‘pepperpot’ affordable flatted housing with market housing within the same floor. It has been stated that it need to be done per floor/core or per block.

3.4 Mixed Use Development (office/residential and retail/evening economy and

residential) 3.4.1 The reluctance of institutional investors to ‘buy into’ horizontal mixed use

(residential/office) development has reduced the attractiveness of commercial sites and could have a negative impact on the aspiration to improve the office market offer

3.4.2 The implementation of new office developments has been constrained by the proximity of the sites to new/proposed residential development. Elsewhere in CMK mixed use office/residential development sites have not proved attractive to the market, and investors have expressed concerns through IMK that anything more that discreet amounts of residential development in a primarily business environment (ie the Central Business District) can seriously deter occupiers from the area. This has been confirmed by DTZ Consulting who has previously advised that horizontal mixed use office/residential development is unattractive to institutional investors.

3.4.3 While vertical mixed use development (eg residential adjacent to offices) does contribute to the vitality of a city centre, it needs to be carefully considered (especially where extensive glazing and / or balconies are incorporated) when in close proximity to office accommodation. Businesses within Metropolitan House at the Hub have for example, expressed concerns about the close proximity to the residential units within Staten House, where there is only a very narrow gap between the 2 buildings. While not necessarily a lesson for the DF, Appendix C highlights some comments from the Council’s Environmental Health Team regarding evening economy mixed use development.

3.5 Quarters 3.5.1 The DF identified an extensive series city centre quarters as well as quarters

within quarters. The description of each quarter was not intended to be land‐use zoning exercise but rather provide a an outline of the nature, location and aspirations and principles of development that will give each

13

part of CMK a distinct character and Key Projects that will define the character of different parts of CMK.

3.5.2 This delineation of Quarters is not unusual – the 1992 Planning Manual did something similar with a Principal Zones for Central Milton Keynes Plan which outlined some quarters of similar character to that identified in the DF.

3.5.3 It could however be argued that these quarters need to be revisited for the following reasons:

3.5.4 The quarters plan is too complicated with too many quarters outlined that don’t appear to have a clear rationale and hence don’t help clarify and assist in investment decisions.

3.5.5 It is not clear in practice, or in any operation of the local commercial market, that there is any relevance to the identified quarters. There appears to be no sense that the City Spine, City Core, Business Hub, Central Business District and Enterprise and Knowledge Quarter can be distinguished.

3.5.6 The quarters appear to currently allow a liberal spreading of mixed use development throughout CMK, whereas it might be that a more zonal allocation is sought which is thought to better suit commercial realities and the needs of the business community. For example, by being more prescriptive on the predominant location for office uses, this would then restrict the sites available in CMK for offices (ie take capacity out – there are seen to be too may potential office sites currently available which has the effect of bringing land values down and rental values down) and in turn increase land values and rentals

3.5.7 The Sustainable Residential Quarter is in particular, questioned. Further work as part of the CMK Development Framework should identify an appropriate character for it.

3.5.8 The Enterprise and Knowledge Quarter has also not delivered any new development and the following should be questioned:

� Sustainability of currently proposed land uses is questioned. � Doubts at being able to anchor the Knowledge and Enterprise

Quarter to an educational establishment. � No real driver to attract research and knowledge industries to this

quarter. � UCMK ‐ requirements and accommodations can be catered for in other

parts of CMK? 3.6 Car Parking 3.6.1 The DF identified the reordering of parking provision and management of

parking as central to the release of land to meet urban design, movement and development aspirations.

3.6.2 The principles of parking provision as outlined in the DF were to increase provision in line with new development coming forward (at reduced ratios) and progressively replace surface level parking with decked solutions.


40

14

3.6.3 Parking management in CMK through the increase of parking charges was highlighted in the Framework as important to encourage the use of public transport in the city.

3.6.4 Importantly, the Council does now have a proper assessment of public parking use and availability which can guide future changes and respond to demand as well as when development comes forward and displaces existing provision. This assessment was not available at the time of preparing the Framework and will be an important tool in managing future change.

3.6.5 The Council is also using this data of parking usage to change parking charges in certain areas.

3.6.6 It has shown that since the recession started, the amount of available parking within CMK has in fact increased.

3.6.7 The SPG for Planning Obligations in CMK has had a key impact on the delivery of car parking (for commercial development) in CMK and Campbell Park and this has had a knock on effect for other users of CMK . Under the SPG a maximum of 30% of the permitted car parking can be accommodated on site, the remaining 70% is expected to be provided off site and publicly available, assumed to be in MSCPs. While the rationale for a maximum of 30% made sense from the point of view of preventing developments from being surrounded by huge swathes of surface car parking which could undermine the pedestrian experience among other problems, the SPG does not however require a contribution from developers for the remaining 70% off site parking (however, this was usually captured in the HCA land deal). The level of contribution was initially set at ‘nil’ in the SPG (but with the expectation that the SPG would be updated as investor/developer confidence in the CMK market grew and values increased. To bridge the gap furthermore, EP provided temporary car parks on their land to meet the additional parking requirements, so there hasn’t been a shortfall in parking.

3.6.8 Notwithstanding the above, the implication is that new offices provide insufficient on plot parking with the result in parking overflow, which particularly considering there is no more areas in CMK to build temporary car parks means there is a reduced amount of parking spaces available to CMK's other user groups.

3.6.9 Developers are required to pay £2500 for replacement parking if they can’t reprovide displaced parking on site which is only about 1/6th of the cost of a space in a MSCP. Furthermore if the Council does not reprovide these spaces within a certain time period, then the £2500 per lost parking space has to be repaid to the developer.

3.6.10 With respect to Campbell Park, neither the CMK DF nor Illustrative Framework Plan for Campbell Park acknowledge that, unlike CMK, a large pool of public parking is not available. In consequence, while the SPG like in CMK requires a maximum of 30% parking on plot, the absence of public parking means that the car parking requirements have to be met within each site boundary, which has a significant impact in terms of financial viability and land take. In addition the delivery of 100% parking on plot is contrary to the SPG for planning obligations; MKC have agreed to be flexible on this policy providing 70% of the spaces are publicly available, however,

15

management of the public/private split and potential secure by design issues have not been resolved (see further comment below).

3.6.11 Delivery of the new interceptor peripheral multi‐storey car parks has not been possible to date for a number of reasons, but primarily due to:

o Financial viability; low parking charges v high delivery costs. Currently for a fairly low specification car park operating on 80‐90% of capacity between 7am and 6pm), an operative would need to charge 50p/hour to make the MSCP viable to operate. Currently employees in CMK can purchase scratch cards for 15p/hour which is less than a third of what is required to make the MSCP viable. Put differently, if employees are to use MSCPs the latter would need to undercut the current £1.20 per day for parking.

o The Council have slowly been increasing parking charges for surface level car parks (for example very little free parking now exists) but there is still some way to go (as illustrated above) before MSCPs become viable to an operative.

o Location; there is still significant resistance from the business sector to the principle of parking at arrival point rather than destination.

o The Theatre District Car Park which is considered fairly peripheral (but less so than ones located in the Greenframe) was only 10% occupied (except at Christmas) when charging just 20p/hour

o With the Theatre District Car Park currently being one of the few places to park for free in CMK, it is now full, but clearly this is not viable for the operating of a new peripheral MSCP.

o Political Support; MSCPs are essentially needed to replace lost parking if building lines come forward and this principle is far from supported by local stakeholders.

o ‘Hearts and Minds’; workers and visitors to CMK have got used to parking in very close proximity to the ‘front door’ – the principle of walking from a MSCP is not yet accepted

o Land availability; the Development Framework sites the MSCP in the Transport Corridor (Green Frame) around CMK. The Green Frame is leased to the Parks Trust who has stated that they will not release land for development on an ad hoc basis and without the benefit of a comprehensive Green Frame Strategy. The Green Frame Strategy has been identified on the LDS to come forward as SPD but is currently awaiting resources and a decision about peripheral MSCPs.

o Integration into the urban fabric? MSCPs are notoriously difficult to design well

3.6.12 With peripheral MSCPs not coming forward, consideration has been given to increasing the amount of parking provided on site. From an urban design point of view, if this is provided in basement or integrated MSCPs this would not generally detract from a high quality public realm. The Pinnacle for example provides 40% of its parking on site in basement parking. Further consideration perhaps needs to be given to the current parking standards to allow a greater proportion of on plot parking for offices (and their customers) particularly if there is nowhere else to build temporary surface car parks.



16

3.6.13 The other related issue that hasn’t been resolved is if there is 100% provision on site with 70% publicly accessible then concerns regarding security are raised. It is more difficult to secure a MSCP if it is part private and part public. This is the main reason why Network Rail National Centre is providing 2 separate MSCPs (1 public and 1 private).

3.6.14 The basement parking provided at Sainsbury’s in the Vizion is 100% public (3hr free parking) and is well utilized. One problem has however been around the opening times. It was written into the S106 agreement that it be open 24/7, but because of security concerns raised by the Police it now shuts when Sainsbury’s closes at 11pm. This has had a knock on effect for parking at the Hub where customers regularly require parking later than midnight.

3.6.15 The Council did trial a free bus service circulating through CMK from the bus station at Christmas 2010, but it had a very low uptake. It would appear shoppers would prefer to drive around looking and waiting for an available space, although limited marketing also contributed to the low usage.

3.6.16 Similarly, Park and Ride schemes have not proved popular, with shoppers preferring to drive around and waiting for a surface level space to become available. It would appear that until an incentive exists to use the Park and Ride it will not be an attractive option.

3.7 Impact of Parking Regime on Businesses in CMK 3.7.1 Public car parking is principally poor for staff who have to go out and return

within the working day – finding parking on return has been said to be difficult

3.7.2 It is suggested that visitors will generally pay up to 3 hours for ‘red’ parking which is acceptable for visitors coming in for a meeting, but there should be the right number of red bays to match this need.

3.7.3 Evidence suggests very few businesses have left CMK because of the increase in parking charges (businesses that leave also leave for other reasons). There are other factors that businesses consider in leaving a city centre location and key ones are about staff retention – many staff like city centre locations because of the amenities on offer in a city centre location.

3.7.4 Evidence does however suggest that the increase in parking charges have put off new businesses coming into CMK. These businesses prefer business parks outside of CMK where there is not just more and cheaper parking but rents are cheaper. There is evidence of recent businesses coming into CMK in CBX because of the benefit of existing parking spaces within the linked MSCP that can be rented.

3.7.5 Research by MKCCM of businesses in CMK has indicated 100% of businesses were satisfied with CMK as a business location. When asked what the worst thing about CMK was in terms of operating a business, 39% said parking availability, cost and charging regime. When asked specific questions on parking the highest percentile of respondents agreed with the ‘quite satisfied’ category.

3.7.6 Businesses have indicated that it is frustrating with the current surface arrangement of surface level parking, to direct clients (when visiting their

17

offices) to available parking. Clients end up driving around looking for parking instead of simply being directed to a specific identifiable MSCP. Wayfinding of available parking is a key concern.

3.7.7 Businesses have indicated that while the feature of being able to park close to the front door is still an expectation, what has become more important is simply knowing where to park.

3.7.8 One reason why Ashton and Norfolk Houses may be vacant is that there is no allocated parking spaces for tenants.

3.7.9 It would appear that there should be an investigation into the distribution of the types of parking. Businesses in major office buildings have difficulty finding available parking in the middle of the day because there is no short‐stay parking for businesses. Premium rate is theoretically short‐stay (due to the cost of staying all day) but these are often full for several hours.

3.8 Public Transport and Parking 3.8.1 Businesses have indicated that they would be more content with the current

parking regime if the longer term vision for parking and public transport was made clearer. Currently all they see is parking charges going up, with no future alternative offered.

3.8.2 There does not yet appear to be an overall credible public transport strategy for getting the hoped‐for numbers of people into CMK ‐ shoppers, shop staff, office staff, leisure visitors, residents, commuters, transport hub users, hotel staff and guests, etc to suggest that the overall quantum of surface level parking can be reduced.

3.8.3 It would appear critical that public transport improves within and into CMK before an argument can be made to reduce surface level car parking.

3.9 Bringing Building Lines Forward 3.9.1 A key principle of the DF was to bring lines forward along Boulevards and

Gates, where appropriate, to achieve a more human scaled and pedestrian friendly city centre.

3.9.2 The DF did however acknowledge the difficulty in bringing building lines forward in areas where there is existing development, not only because of potential blight issues, but the ad‐hoc bringing forward of building lines would not only be a visual intrusion, but would also break the geometry of the grid and interrupt pedestrian desire lines and legibility.

3.9.3 The principle of bringing building lines forward in areas of existing development did have an impact on existing investor/owner confidence because they were concerned additional development could suddenly be allowed in front of their building which would take their frontage away. This policy also had a negative impact on possible future investors because of the problems perceived if they invested in a single building coming forward from the established building line.


42

18

3.9.4 This policy been difficult and / or impractical to achieve for the following reasons:

It requires the relocation of certain utilities and particularly in the vicinity of

junctions : street lighting, telecommunications and traffic signals Does not allow retention of portes‐cochere which are a key element of the

public realm, image and infrastructure of CMK The level changes (sometimes as much 1.5m difference) between the

boulevard and gates and surrounding surface level parking would create an awkward relationship between cars (at a raised level) and pedestrians walking along footpaths at a lower level adjacent to the embankments. The DF only really addressed the 2‐dimensional aspects and did not for example sufficiently understand the implications of the level change differences across CMK, in particular between the boulevards and gates and surrounding surface level car parking.

A solution to this as has been done for the Hub and Vizion developments is to raise the surface level car parks to be flush with the existing carriageway, but importantly means the existing street trees can’t be retained. Trees can be replaced but there have been strong objections to the removal of existing trees.

The displaced parking has to be reprovided (assumed to be in the peripheral MSCP’s which is not only not currently viable but contentious in its own right).

3.9.5 The above all affects the viability and deliverability of bringing building lines

forward. 3.10 Footpath widths (if building lines are brought forward) 3.10.1 In order to accommodate additional utilities and provide sufficient space for

trees (root clearance zone and canopy spread) it has been demonstrated that new footpath widths should be increased along boulevards from 8.3m to 9.5m and along Gates from 6.3m to 9.5m

3.10.2 The new footpath width along Witan Gate (adjacent to the Hub and

Sainsbury’s) is 6.3m wide; a combination of footpath width and inclusion of service lay‐bys has resulted in a non‐continuous tree line. Further studies carried out have indicated that at 9.5m wide a new footpath could accommodate a line of trees adjacent to lay‐bys together with other street furniture located at a sufficient distance from the building to allow for a substantial tree canopy.

3.11 Parking Bays along Gates and Boulevards (when building lines come forward) 3.11.1 At the Hub along Witan Gate in particular, notwithstanding the fact that on

street parking bays have been included, cars have parked on the footpath. This has had the effect of damaging, spoiling and making unsafe the public realm.

19

3.11.2 Although speculative, this could well be a response to the removal of the supply of existing parking in close proximity to front doors which people have become very accustomed to.

3.11.3 The other side‐effect of losing the parking areas around buildings is that the servicing, which currently takes place from these areas, has been displaced to the Gates and Boulevards

3.12 Wayfinding

3.12.1 This was a subject that did not receive a lot of attention in the DF yet, has

through the MKCCM CMK Business Satisfaction Surveys has shown to be a key area, businesses would like to see an improvement in.

3.12.2 On one hand, CMK is very easy to find your way around in because of the strong grid structure, so a car driver driving along the boulevards and gates wayfinding is not particularly problematic (although concerns have been expressed by the centre:mk, Xscape and the Hub about lack of advertising for the shops within these developments).

3.12.3 The issue is more for pedestrians where wayfinding is poor, particularly the first portion of Midsummer Boulevard from Station Square to Grafton Gate and importantly for visitors and business clients when both looking for available parking and then finding their destination from those surface level parking areas.

3.12.3 It is important for the DF Review to address wayfinding or to undertake an additional study to outline a wayfinding strategy. Consideration needs to be given as to whether this should include a study of advertising and sponsorship.

3.13 Fine Grained CMK: Pedestrian Permeability 3.13.1 The existing block structure of CMK has allowed a considerable amount of

pedestrian permeability, both along streets and on segregated pedestrian routes through blocks (see para 5.3.3 on Lloyds Court). The latter while often being direct do not always feel safe and clearly public.

3.13.2 In some ways CMK therefore already exhibits considerable pedestrian permeability. A key principle of the DF is to create a perimeter block structure whereby pedestrians walk around along streets that circulate around the ‘outside’ of outward facing development and the block interiors are kept private. This is contrary to much of CMK whereby pedestrians can currently walk through blocks because the principle of perimeter block development with a clear public and private side has not been achieved. New developments such as Theatre District Phase 2, the Pinnacle and to a slightly lesser extent the Vizion have focussed pedestrian movement around the outside of the block, while the Hub has concentrated pedestrian flows through the block.

3.13.3 A key question to ask is whether as both part of new developments and interventions to improve existing pedestrian routes whether the focus should be on pedestrian routes around blocks or through blocks (or combination of



20

both). Clarity is thus required on what a fine grained development means and how it can be delivered.

4. Lessons : Developments completed in last 10 years 4.1 The Hub 4.1.1 A key principle of the Development Framework was to bring forward

schemes which apply strong perimeter block principles – to deliver schemes which have public fronts (front doors and high quality architectural treatments) and more private rears (with servicing, refuse facilities, parking, private amenity space and less expensive materials), creating a strong block structure.

4.1.2 Opting for a development solution of a linear block design with retail uses at ground floor surrounding an enclosed public square, rather than enclosed blocks with a private interior, has created a development where the retail uses have limited ‘dual aspect’ and a successful and a successful public/private condition has not been achieved.

4.1.3 This issue is perhaps a key drawback of the Hub development where the commercially preferred focus of the activity is internalised to the block and not obvious or open to the lengthy Witan Gate frontage. Whilst dual aspect frontages were promised by the developer with activity onto Witan Gate, this has not been delivered and could not be controlled through planning.

4.1.4 The result is that there is very limited activity along Witan Gate, where almost hidden residential front doors are set adjacent to the service entrances of restaurants. In addition, despite a strict estate management regime being a major consideration at the time, a resulting weak estate management has failed to manage tenants use of the refuse and servicing arrangements. This together had a negative impact on the appearance of the Hub.

4.1.5 By locating the public square within the interior of the block, its prominence to passers‐by particularly in vehicles is low. While an early concept did include 1 side of the public square opening onto Witan Gate which would have improved visibility, this would not have met good principles of enclosure.

4.1.6 The quality of the residential entrance cores was also subject to a value engineering exercise post planning approval. While the original intention was to highlight the entrances with a full height atrium and clear light filled foyer through the entire depth of the building, these were both omitted when being built and the resulting residential entrances are not obvious and this has detracted for the quality of the end product. These changes were however granted planning approval.

4.1.7 While the Hub is a different residential offer to the Vizion, the lack of a concierge at the Hub has been seen as a downfall (although this has allowed for a reduced service charge which may be beneficial for certain people)

21

4.2. C4.1 (Sainsbury’s / Vizion) and Development in the Greenframe 4.2.1 This development followed a competitive tendering process based upon a

detailed Design Brief and design standards requirements. The selected developer was required to adhere to the principles of the Brief in the preparation of the planning application.

4.2.2 This scheme has been more successful that the Hub in terms of creating an outward looking development and servicing and parking being located internal to the block.

4.2.3 It still does not however fully comply with the DF principles because an internal public route is still included which does not feel particularly public as it is not overlooked by active frontages and indeed is at times gated off. Active frontages are proposed onto it but when the shops are full it is unclear whether dual aspect frontages will be delivered (as was the problem with the Hub)

4.2.4 The level changes between the boulevard and gates and surrounding surface level parking facilitated the inclusion of basement parking.

4.2.5 Following lessons learnt from implementation of the development at the Hub, a Planning Condition was included restricting the amount of development of non‐active frontage permitted on any public elevation.

4.2.6 The scheme has also adhered to the principle of using development to overlook and make feel safer the pedestrian routes into adjacent estates by including residential development within the ‘green frame’ around CMK to overlook the redway underpass into Oldbrook. This has generally been seen as positive, although would be further improved if a similar incursion of development could occur on the Oldbrook side of the H6.

4.2.7 Whilst there’s very limited experience of development in the greenframe, the overall market judgement appears positive. For this particular application there did not seem to be significant regret over the ‘loss’ of landscaping and in the commercial market prospective developers, funders and tenants rather seem to like the idea of CMK being opened up to an arterial road.

4.2.8 It would be worthwhile for policy to identify what factors and / or conditions should be considered in determining where development in the Greenframe (if at all) is acceptable

4.3 Filling in of Avebury Boulevard / Witan Gate Underpass 4.3.1 The relocation of underground services cost circa £700k ‐ £800k. 4.3.2 While not required to close the underpass, a sewer was also relocated. The

reason the sewer was diverted was because it ran north to south, straight through the Hub and C4.1. HCA decided to take this on because they wanted a straight run down Witan Gate, not two separate diversions, which would probably have cost more and not been such a good final sewer operation. The cost of moving the sewer (which ended up close to £1.3m) isn’t ‘standard’ as this particular run was part of the strategic ‘trunk’ network and


44

22

was very deep. In other locations it shouldn’t be so costly to move surface/foul drainage.

4.3.3 Notwithstanding the above costs, the tradeoff needs to understood between the benefits that would be realised by closing the underpass and the issue of undermining of the unique identity of CMK that the closure would bring. Any identified benefits would be better realised by a comprehensive development of all 4 sides of an underpass which is unlikely to come forward.

4.3.4 The extra pedestrian signal has at peak times resulted in some delays for cars but indications are that drivers have got used to this

4.4 The Public Realm Created by Bringing Building Lines Forward Between the

Vizion and the Hub along Avebury Boulevard 4.4.1 This controversial proposal has as predicted divided views with some groups

saying it is simply replicating other parts of large UK cities, undermining what makes CMK unique and special and creating wind tunnels, while others have supported it citing that it makes CMK feel more like a city centre, enhanced safety and ease of crossing of Avebury Boulevard.

4.4.2 From an urban design perspective it has led to the following: • The contextual relationship between the space and the buildings creates a

safer environment with better natural surveillance of the street from surrounding buildings

• It also creates a more strongly defined junction with buildings reinforcing the edges, providing a sense of scale and aiding city wide legibility. In doing so the junction enables the new form of Avebury Boulevard to be effectively delivered.

• The choice of materials is robust and is largely in keeping with the MK pallete inclusive of black paint finish and stainless steel, and of a simple aesthetic.

4.4.3 It has however meant more mature plane trees have had to be replaced with much younger species along Avebury Boulevard. With respect to Witan Gate, at the time is was seen as an opportunity to introduce a different landscape character (much the same as the Chestnut trees adds distinction to Saxon Gate)

4.5 Block E3 Theatre District Phase 2 4.5.1 Other than the viable delivery of a mixed use development, this development

has demonstrated the benefit of adhering to the DF principle of buildings being placed around the outer edge of the development plot forming a continuous public façade with private areas (servicing and parking) enclosed within the block. Two sides of the building at ground floor are clearly public with active ground floor frontages and thus enhanced public realm while the other 2 sides are private.

4.6 The Pinnacle

23

4.6.1 Unlike many earlier office developments, the Pinnacle development has demonstrated the benefit of adhering to the DF principle of development layouts achieving a clear public / private interface. Unlike layouts of many earlier office developments, the development form and configuration clearly defines between public and private space with two interlocking L‐shaped buildings defining a private central courtyard. An annex linear block is located to the south which defines what appears to be a semi‐private parking area shared between both developments.

4.7 Network Rail National Centre 4.7.1 This development was a complete variation to the sport uses proposed

within the Development Framework (and Local Plan). It demonstrated the flexibility of the Development Framework and Local Plan.

4.7.2 Building lines were not brought forward as proposed as a principle in the Development Framework. Despite suggestions to explore this to reduce the severance effect of Grafton Gate, there was no appetite from Network Rail to do so, in part because the site they bought was big enough for their needs, in part because it would have involved another party (the council) and associated stopping up orders of public highway and in part because of the negative reaction associated with recent developments such as the Hub where building lines did come forward.

5. Lessons : Proposals 5.1 the centre:mk 5.1.1 Proposals for ‘thecentre:mk’ were approved for outline planning but not

progressed and permission has now lapsed. 5.1.2 The project covered expansion of the existing shopping building out to the

boulevard edge of both Midsummer Boulevard and Avebury Boulevard, development of two large multistorey/ decked car parks, residential units as well as a transport interchange. The built elements of the project were accompanied by significant investment in transforming the public realm of Midsummer Boulevard and other areas surrounding the centre. One issue emerging from this was that it was not clear how level changes and associated footpaths and existing street trees would be addressed through the scheme.

5.1.3 As stated above, a significant part of the centre:mk proposals was relating to improved / amended highway infrastructure, public transport and public realm improvements. Any review of the CMK Development Framework needs to take into account and provide a realistic balance between achieving the delivery of development and associated infrastructure and public realm costs.

5.1.4 The DF together with the principles contained in the Central CMK Framework SPD (2006) for Opportunity Areas 3b‐c, 4 and 5 envisaged Midsummer Boulevard East to be a ‘high street’ which would help integrate this key part



24

of the City Core creating a pedestrian friendly and scaled public realm in the heart of the city.

5.1.5 Together the proposals were very ambitious and the lessons may be that more modest and deliverable proposals may achieve many of the outcomes that the grand project sought to deliver.

5.1.6 Agreement on the location and scope/design of a ‘transport interchange’ (if required) in this location along Midsummer Boulevard is essential if a holistic vision for this area is to be achieved. This is beyond the control of an applicant.

5.1.7 Tradeoffs around changes to highway infrastructure need to be understood. The part removal of Secklow Gate was seen as important to eliminate pedestrian severance in the heart of the city centre and to open up full development potential of sites to the south. It is becoming clear that key stakeholders no longer see that the removal of Secklow Gate as a priority for CMK. Before this is abandoned as a project the impact that this grade separated junction has on the quality of environment in the city centre and what is foregone if it is not adapted or removed should be considered

5.2. Xscape Outline Planning Application

5.2.1 This development includes linear blocks within the surface level parking adjacent to Avebury Boulevard. As with Hub, while the intention maybe to have dual front units (facing Avebury Boulevard and the Xscape), the Hub has shown how difficult it is to have active frontages and associated high quality public realm on both sides of a dual front building.

5.3 Lloyds Court 5.3.1 The Council are currently in conjunction with local stakeholders preparing a

Development Brief and Parameters Plan for the potential redevelopment of Lloyds Court.

5.3.2 The design principles are suggesting that for 3 reasons it is inappropriate to bring forward building lines toward Silbury Boulevard:

Unless other parts of the established building line along Block D1 were brought forward (which can’t be guaranteed), the bringing forward of the building line in line with the CMK DF would create an uneven building line that would disrupt pedestrian movement, reduce legibility and undermine the unique grid structure of CMK

A portion of the frontage of Lloyds Court sits adjacent to the raised flyover. It would be impractical to therefore bring building lines forward as pedestrians would not in any event be able to cross Silbury Boulevard because of its elevated status

A valuable piece of Public Art sits to the front of Lloyds Court and bringing forward the building line would undermine its setting

5.3.3 There has been a lot of discussion as to whether the existing public route through the building that links the ports‐cocheres should be retained whether as part of a refurbishment or a new development. This raises the

25

interesting and important question as to whether pedestrian activity should occur through blocks (like in Lloyds Court) or around blocks following streets.

5.3.4 Local stakeholders as well as parish councils and members have also expressed a clear desire to firstly, retain any future development within the existing development plot, and secondly, to not allow any development within the ‘greenframe’ around CMK.

5.3.5 The Lloyds Court Brief has also highlighted that the original layout of highway infrastructure was designed to allow heavy duty vehicles to move around development blocks and if building lines are brought forward and / or development is included within the outer row of North or South Row, this would require modifications to existing infrastructure to enable these movements to still easily occur

5.4 Campbell Park Canal Side Development

5.4.1 The DF and Local Plan identified this area as a new destination for leisure and

recreation that will mix with homes, offices and live‐work space. This principle was incorporated in the outline planning approval and formed the basis of the briefing material.

5.4.2 This site, like all vacant land adjacent to Campbell Park was owned by the HCA and as was common with the developments on EP/HCA and, it went onto the market with a range of Briefing material to including the adopted SPG for Campbell Park, Design Codes as well as a Development and Design Brief, all to help raise design standards.

5.4.3 As part of the development, the successful tender was expected to also provide the following public realm and related infrastructure : A marina accommodating in the region of 100 berths / moorings Accommodation for British Waterways’ new regional headquarters Public realm Provision for a future footbridge across the canal Parking (on site and off site) to meeting a high density of development

(min 100du/ha) An extension to the Park Improvements to Overgate (north of the site)

5.4.4 Following assessment of the tenders, a developer was not selected for this

scheme. They were unsuccessful for the following reasons: 5.4.5 This Lessons Learnt paper has already identified the issue that because there

is no publicly available parking in Campbell Park (via MSCPs) that all parking needs to be met on site. The density of development requires this to be largely established in basement or MSCPs on site. This together with the above mentioned public realm and associated infrastructure required as part of the development had an impact on the viability of the scheme.

5.4.6 This was not helped by the market starting to change in 2006 which added significance given the long timeframe for implementation

5.4.7 The following were some of the points made as part of the Management Committee Report reporting on the tender results:


46

26

The market at the far end of Campbell Park was untested and is making developers risk aware. This was reflected in the disappointing interest from developers in this prestigious and unique waterside location at the Stage II of tendering.

There are indications that the size and scale of the marina development is premature in the life of Campbell Park. It is apparent that if this site is re‐programmed towards the later stages of the development phases for Campbell Park this site will receive a much more significant level of interest from the Development industry.

5.4.7 The report included the following recommendations:

A comprehensive review of Campbell Park in terms of phasing and utility provision should be undertaken.

Campbell Park is a unique product, the marketing of this needs to be addressed giving it a strong identity through branding and repositioning it’s perception within the market.

A clear release of phases needs to be agreed and possible releases of parcels of land need to be given careful thought and channelled thorough a Campbell Park project team. This will give developers’ the confidence in terms of future vision for this unique destination.

5. Delivery and Governance 5.1 To ensure that the full vision could be realised over a 30 year period, the CMK

Development Framework highlighted the need for a strong delivery team, clear decision making and leadership if the implementation of the framework was to be successful.

5.2 The emphasis on co‐ordinated delivery was particularly required for two

main reasons, outlined below: 5.2.1 Working Toward a Common Agenda

First, the nature of development in CMK would be significantly different to that of the first generation of development up to 2000. This required a very different approach to delivery and engagement. Promotion and Championing CMK: The change in approach to the future development of CMK would require promotion and continual reinforcement if the inter‐relationships were to work and those investors from outside MK were to be engaged in the new opportunities. Additionally, within the new city it was clear through consultation that CMK was not seen as the ‘heart’ of their city by many residents and some were unaware or excluded from the facilities and services based in the centre. The Championing role was to look both ways: outwardly to attract new investment and growth; and in the city to build civic pride and local identity.

27

Building momentum internally: existing officers responsible for delivery (predominantly in MKC and MKP/EP), the public and local interest groups would require careful support and ‘grow capacity’ as the framework was delivered. This would require additional skills and continual effort in managing and leading the process of delivery and ensuring everyone was working to the same Development Framework delivery agenda. Building relationships with delivery partners: different nature and mechanisms of delivery would require a step change in relationships, cross‐working and pro‐active intervention between the public sector agencies and private sector developers and investors. With CMK identified as the economic heart of MK, these relationships are fundamental to capture energy and investment, provide direction and make decisions.

5.2.2. Delivery of Major, Complex Public Realm, Facilities and Infrastructure Projects

The DF is predicated by delivery of the structuring elements, the ‘softer’ outputs of cultural and community facilities as well as important public realm improvements and transport measures and not simply the building/development projects on defined plots. Previous development in CMK was strictly set within the MKDC masterplan for the city centre and there was a clear distinction between infrastructure (delivered by the public sector) and building projects (delivered by developers or sponsored by the public sector)

Financial modelling required development projects to cross‐fund the above infrastructure, service and public realm improvements and for funding to be drawn from a variety of structures and sources. These included contributions from the increase in value of undeveloped land, developer contributions (via s106 and s278 agreements), through the CMK joint venture, funding from MKC and EP/MKP, a business improvement district, car park revenues, SEEDA and the local transport plan. The Joint Venture would forecast development receipts and then EP would forward fund infrastructure in advance of development value coming into the Joint Venture.

5.3 The Delivery Structure for CMK 5.3.1 In order to help deliver this, this co‐ordinated approach to delivery, the

following occurred: 5.3.2 In 2003, EP and MKC agreed to co‐operate in realising the CMK Development

Framework and signed a Joint Agreement to provide an operating framework for the long‐term development programme. The agreement established a framework of co‐operation between MKC and EP on matters such as individual site development; finance; creation of public space and facilities;



28

land acquisitions; and introduction of public transport and new car parking schemes.

5.3.3 The CMK Board was established in 2003 comprising MKC, EP/MKP and other

stakeholders, fulfilling an ‘agency’ role to ensure that all the components necessary to bring forward the new development plans for the city centre were brought together. These included setting policy and strategies and approving the CMK Business Plan

5.3.4 Within EP/MKP, a multi‐discipline CMK Team was established with a role co‐

ordination and managing individual projects and working in partnership with colleagues from MKC and other agencies. In many ways the team’s role has been to co‐ordinate the disparate departments, individuals and agencies; as well as to provide a first point for contact for developers, design teams and objectors.

5.3.5 MKC established a ‘Streetcare’ team to improve maintenance of the public

realm and EP/MKP strengthened Invest Milton Keynes. Other service delivery elements were by way of joint committees or working groups (such as social and cultural infrastructure, promotion of animation and transport).

5.3.6 The Champion for CMK was a role identified for the Chair of CMK Board to be

appointed by MKC and EP/MKP. 5.4 Lessons learnt from delivery mechanisms 5.4.1 Lack of Clarity and Single Point of Contact

Beyond the CMK team’s co‐ordination role, much of the delivery and development of solutions/strategies to deliver the framework goals has not been the responsibility of the CMK Team, but rather of MKC departments and agencies at arm’s length. A number of issues have arisen through this officer team structure: • Although the CMK Team had a defined co‐ordination role there was no authority or direct management responsibility placed in the team for the officers from other teams or agencies. MKC officers and those from arms‐length agencies were therefore still responsible to their host‐organisation for some of whom either delivery of CMK was not a priority or there were policies/agendas in those organisations not wholly compatible with and supportive of the aims and goals of the Development Framework. • It appeared that while decisions were made at Board level, these were not fed back down clearly to council officers responsible for implementation (a case in point was the closing of Witan/Avebury underpass). • The CMK Team could not be the one‐stop shop for all aspects of the delivery of the DF. In some cases programmes and strategies which related to or impacted on CMK were developed in MKC and other agencies cutting across the Development Framework objectives or recommendations – for

29

example public transport, management of public realm or street lighting. Implementation of the Development Framework adapted to incorporate these initiatives but this slowed implementation and diverted funding. • Developers and potential investors also suffered from the split of responsibilities and approaches. Whilst initial contact would be handled through the CMK Team, there was a lack of clarity as detailed discussion progressed. Different and often conflicting messages from design, planning, transport and between the CMK Team and MKC officers often over‐complicated design‐development.

Much of the above sits uncomfortably with the fact that it was difficult for the CMK Team to play the role of advocate or Champion as they are nationally‐appointed rather than locally‐elected and are responsible to a Government agency.

There was thus not a clear single point of contact for investors, developers and their design teams. Mixed messages and delays to decision‐making processes adds time and cost to the design process which weakens confidence in the City and its leadership. The public furthermore were not receiving clear and consistent messages about the future of the City Centre.

5.4.2 Lack of a Champion for CMK

While the CMK Board provided an invaluable point where the key stakeholders could debate and decide on development projects or strategy development, it had less autonomy and focus than required to proactively progress the Development Framework. Referral back to MKC and EP for ultimate decisions and funding appeared to slow down implementation.

While the appointed Chair played a central role in bringing and keeping key stakeholders at the table it was not his defined role to be a vocal public advocate or ‘champion’ for CMK or the Development Framework.

5.4.3 Changing Governance Arrangements – further confusion and bureaucracy

The establishment of the Milton Partnership Committee (MKPC) in 2004 led to the role of the Board and Chair of MKPC became confused and decision‐making responsibilities overlapped.

Because of the various groups (MKC/MKP/MKPC/CMK Board) with overlapping functions, there was also confusion in delivery as well as external facing to investors and developers. This resulted in October 2007, the CMK Board agreeing to disband itself and fully integrate its workload and working arrangements for CMK with those established by MKPC.

In 2008, EP/MKP furthermore had a changed remit toward growth rather a specific focus on CMK.


48

30

5.4.4 Impact of Undelivered Projects on Delivery of non‐development projects

The two notable examples are expansion of the centre:mk and the substantive delivery of the Residential Quarter (Block B4), both of which were in the planning/design process for over five years and were planned to be substantially complete by 2011.

The important lessons with respect to this are:

These major schemes carried many of the ‘softer’ outputs of cultural and

community facilities as well as important public realm improvements and transport measures which were to be funded from s106 contributions and land proceeds deriving from development projects . Consequently, the loss is not simply of the development outputs but of the wider ‘softer’ outputs that the Framework sought to deliver. There is clear evidence of this in CMK today

This illustrates the risks of running with large developer‐led projects and relying on the project to deliver community and cultural infrastructure – which is still required even if the developer does not progress with the scheme.

With respect to developments such as the centre:mk proposals which required extensive remodelling of major infrastructure a review of the approach to delivery might consider extracting such elements from developer‐led projects

There is also a valid challenge that the packaging of the projects was too complex and overly ambitious for the size, skill base and remit of delivery team from MKC and MKP – resulting in compromised delivery in important areas of the city centre. Alternatively, the challenge is that implementing the Framework requires such a change in the underlying structure of CMK that project delivery would always be protracted. The balanced view is probably a mix of both positions. Each of these points highlights the issues facing future delivery with more limited public sector resources and skills available for delivery in CMK – as to whether the Framework projects can be delivered as currently envisaged.

31

APPENDIX A Vacant floorspace and Refurbishment

The Development Framework did not provide much guidance on the issue of refurbishment of existing office floor space. Yet from the below table there is a significant amount of vacant office floorspace in CMK (as well as outside) much of which is 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation and is of poor quality.

The fact there is a considerable amount of vacant office space outside of CMK that will have cheaper rents and more / cheaper parking means that start up businesses will often seek these locations before CMK.

CMK Vacant Floorspace Table 7 Commercial Stock, Built & Vacant Space, MK & CMK, February 2011

TOTAL OFFICE

SQF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL

SQF CMK OFFICE

SQF OTHER OFFICE

SQF BUILT SPACE 6,584,639 34,230,592 3,599,806 2,984,833 VACANT SPACE 1,230,161 3,542,641 427,971 802,190 % 18.60% 10.30% 11.80% 26.80%

Source: MKC/HCA Over half of all floorspace (3,599,806 sqf) in MK is in CMK, however there is considerable floorspace (2,984,833 sqf) provided outside of CMK. There was more vacant floorspace outside the CMK area than within the CMK area (427,971 sqf compared to 802,190 sqf in February 2011.

The reasons a landlord would refurbish a building are to:

To maintain or improve headline rents

To reduce the time it takes to fill voids and get new tenants in and hence reduce the empty rates liability

The costs of refurbishment are high – often between £40‐£75ft/2 and in the current market with depressed levels of rent, the cost of refurbishing the accommodation can quite easily exceed the marginal improvement in rent that would result. If for example you assume a landlord’s refurbishment works have say a 10 year life span the Landlord would require a £3.00 ‐ £4.00 ft/2 per annum return on his investment. These returns are not being seen in today's market. In these cases therefore landlord would get better returns by having cheaper rents if this means not spending anything on refurbishment. Alternatively it would be more viable to redevelop the site than refurbish it.

Landlords face considerable costs with having large parts of their building empty. The landlord will be incurring maintenance costs, will have an empty rates liability



32

and there will also be a service charge void which the landlord will have to contribute to. Market conditions in Milton Keynes have obviously deteriorated over the last 18 months to 2 years in line with the general downturn in economic activity. However due to some large lettings to Countrywide, Network Rail, Job Centre Plus and BSI the take up of office space is being maintained, however effective rental levels not unsurprisingly have fallen away. Due to diminishing demand and increasing stock (particularly relatively poor second hand stock) landlords and tenants of vacant units have become increasingly competitive in their attempt to clear voids and this has already had a noticeable effect of driving down headline rentals and or increasing incentives. Many of the existing vacant office buildings in CMK have a poor sense of arrival with poor quality reception areas and this undermines their attractiveness to new tenants.

Changes in policy to allow commercial buildings to be converted to residential uses may have an impact on the refurbishment of existing vacant buildings.

‘Fine Grained CMK’ and Growth of Small Businesses

While the DF largely focused on the creation of a fine grain in terms of maximizing pedestrian accessibility and freedom of movement, the inclusion of small businesses facing the boulevards and gates at ground floor would also help to deliver a ‘fine grain’ city centre. The Council’s Economic Development Strategy furthermore has as one its action plans the ensurance of suitable premises for businesses.

The mixed use developments recently built in CMK contain ground floor shell units, often double height, which are simply too large and expensive for a small business, even if a prospective covenant has a profitable track record/covenant. By its very nature the introduction of new build bespoke small business space as part of a larger new block does not represent a good return on investment. Office buildings are not designed to provide a very high number of small suites suitable for small start‐ups. The gross / net loss in floor area as a consequence of corridors , fire requirements, and added service costs ( reception, management costs etc) all impinge on the viability of multi let offices targeting businesses in the 500 ‐ 2,000 sq ft bracket.

Smaller start‐ups tend to fit the serviced office providers better albeit total occupation costs for serviced offices can be circa 3 times that of a traditional lease. Benefit to the small start‐ups are flexible lease terms, existing telecoms / data coms connections, and central services. It may be useful to check occupancy rates for serviced office providers in CMK? With the abundant amount of vacant office floor space, it is worth asking why if there are so many small businesses in CMK and the council want to promote the

33

growth of small business, why there isn’t a greater take‐up of this vacant space. The following reasons can be given:

Rents are often still cheaper outside CMK in one of the business parks – Less available parking than business parks. Some premises eg Norfolk and

Ashton House have no parking Poor quality space – while this is not always the case, the poorer quality

space in CMK tends to be more expensive than the poorer space in out of CMK business parks

Rental areas on offer are often larger than a small business want – This is true of both CMK and out of CMK Business Parks. Many small business work from home or serviced office space ( both in CMK and outside) where the terms of occupation are more flexible.

The above needs to be balanced against the amenities offered by locating in CMK

APPENDIX B CMK: Timeline

Date City / borough‐wide policy

CMK ‐ policy CMK ‐ events

1970 The Plan for Milton Keynes

aka The Master Plan

June 1974 Original 6(1) submission for CMK approved by Secretary of State

1979 Shopping Building opens

Jan 1980 Amended 6(1) submission for CMK approved – deletes proposed section of Avebury Boulevard to allow for a stadium development

1982 MKDC Retail Strategy

1987 Review of MKDC Retail Strategy


50

34



Jan 1989 7(1) submission approved to reinstate missing section of Avebury Boulevard

Sept 1990 Local Plan –1st Draft approved for consultation

Nov 1991 Local Plan – revised Draft published for consultation

Local Plan – revised Draft published for consultation

CMK policies in the Local Plan reflected close working with MKDC on capturing the key design principles for CMK – e.g. covered arcades along buildings with frontages on to Boulevards and Gates

April 1992 MKDC replaced by CNT

Sept – Dec 1992

Local Plan – public inquiry

Sept 1993 Local Plan – Inspector’s Report

Feb 1994 MKBC initiates a review of CMK with BCC and CNT

3 reasons given for a review:

1. CNT about to be wound up and need to review their interests in CMK “to secure by development agreement the completion of the city centre”

2. Still scope to influence the future development of the city centre as there is much land still undeveloped

3. 18 years of experience of development in CMK allows

35



informed judgements to be made about the consequences of continuing to develop the city centre as originally planned

As well as MBC, BCC and CNT, the Steering Group included reps from the MK Economic Partnership, MK Forum, MK Parks Trust, MK Community Trust, MK Shopping Centre Association, MK Christian Council and DTZ/Hermes (Shopping Building owners / advisors)

Several consultants were appointed producing reports between Feb 1994 and April 1995 (See list at end of timeline)

1995 Shopping Building extended (new M&S)

Jan 1995 Local Plan – Adopted

Sept 1995 CMK – CMK Review: Report of the Steering Group

Report identifies that

the city centre has been commercially successful

the city centre lacks a ‘heart’ and needs more life and diversity

it requires a new approach to movement into / within the centre to avoid future congestion and to create better conditions for



36



pedestrians etc

April 1997 MKC becomes a unitary authority

Takes on powers from BCC including transport, education and social services

March 1998

CNT assets pass to EP

March 1998

Local Plan – Town Centres Issues Paper

Local Plan – Town Centres Issues Paper

Includes summary of key issues identified in the CMK Review

Sept 1998 Milton Keynes City Centre Review: Update

1999 MK Theatre opens

Jan 1999 Local Plan – Directions Paper

2000 Midsummer Place opens

Summer 2000

CMK DF – project team set up, led by EDAW

Sept 2000 Local Plan – 1st Deposit Version

Nov 2000 CMK DF – stakeholder workshops

2001 Xscape opens

April 2001 CMK DF – community planning event

37



Oct 2001 CMK DF – finalised

Jan 2002 CMK DF – adopted as SPD

See list of Technical Appendices to the DF (including a report on consultation) at end of timeline

Oct 2002 Local Plan – 2nd Deposit Version

Local Plan – 2nd Deposit Version published

Incorporates new policies that reflect the CMK DF, including the “Quarters” policies

July 2003 – June 2004

Local Plan – Public Inquiry

Local Plan – Public Inquiry

Objections to CMK policies considered

Sept 2003 CMK – Campbell Park SPD adopted

CMK ‐ Sustainable Residential Quarter SPD adopted

May / Nov 2004

Local Plan – Inspector’s Report

Local Plan – Inspector’s Report

Supports the overall approach to CMK and the new policies (with only minor changes), and the value of the CMK DF in informing these policies

May 2005 Local Plan – Proposed Mods

June 2005 Major extensions approved to Shopping Building

Dec 2005 Local Plan –


52

38



Adopted

April 2006 Draft Central CMK SPD consultation

Sept 2006 CMK – Central CMK SPD adopted

CMK – CMK Handbook for the Public Realm adopted (as technical guidance, not SPD)

Dec 2006 Core Strategy – Issues & Options

April 2007 CMK Board releases an Interim Position Statement prior to completion of the Implementation Strategy for the CMK Development Framework on the principles of development promoted by the CMK Development Framework providing clarity regarding principles including Building Lines, Building Heights and Density, Landscape Structure and the CMK Handbook

July 2007 The Hub completed

Sept 2007 Core Strategy – Preferred Options

Core Strategy – Preferred Options

Promotes CMK as main location for office, retail, cultural facilities

Dec 2008 City Core Vision agreed for consultation

2009 Consultation on City Core Vision

Summer 2009

The Pinnacle completed

39



Feb 2010 Core Strategy – Pre Submission Version

July 2010 Shopping Building listed

Sept 2010 Core Strategy – revised Pre Submission Version



40

CMK Review (1994‐1995): Studies and Consultants’ Reports CNT (in‐house) Proposals for D & E Blocks

CNT (in‐house) Constraints in CMK

DTZ Mixed Use Development in CMK

MKBC (in‐house) CMK Land Use / Density Scenarios

Stirling Maynard Transport CMK Transportation Study

URBED CMK: Social and Cultural Dimension

Hartley, Mosscrop & Seed CMK: Urban Design Review

MKBC CMK: Residents’ Study

Atkins Wootton Jefferies Transport Study – Detailed Assessment

Healey & Baker Commercial Impact Study

CMK Development Framework (2000‐2001): Technical Appendices Mott MacDonald Movement & Transport Options

Shared Intelligence Planning for Prosperity

ECD Energy & Environmental Energy & Environmental Considerations

Comedia Planning Today for a Culturally Vibrant Tomorrow

Thomas Heatherwick Studio Public Art in CMK

EDAW Consultation Report

CB Hillier Parker Implementing the new Development Framework: Property Issues

41

APPENDIX C Noise and Mix of Uses The Council’s Environmental Health Team has received numerous complaints regarding noise in the Hub and the Theatre District. There are 2 different kinds of complaints: a) Ordinary Living Noise This is the major issue because it can’t easily be actioned/enforced. It refers to the transfer of noise from one property to another which although might be termed as ‘ordinary living noise’ is not expected to be heard by occupants which can be an annoyance and not necessarily acceptable, but not necessarily a ‘statutory’ nuisance that can be acted upon.

The Council get lots of complaints of what conceivably can be termed ‘ordinary living noise’ from purpose built flats, these are noises which people do not expect to hear in modern buildings. Complaints are routinely received from people occupying flats regarding disturbance from people walking about in the flat above, children playing, using the toilet, laughing and talking all of which can be deemed ‘ordinary living noises’ and are by and large not actionable under the EPA. There has always got to be a bit of ‘give and take’ with occupants of high density housing and we do have to manage their expectations as to what is reasonable and what isn’t, nonetheless, this creates a notable stream of complaints.

Non‐absorbent, non‐cushioned hard floor coverings (i.e. laminate flooring) do not help in reducing sound transfer between floors in apartment blocks.

While the above is not an issue for the DF, it could be investigated whether building regulations could require floor coverings that off better protection against sound transfer

b) Noise from Bars / Restaurants At the outset it is recognised that there will always be noise in this situation and there must be some ‘give and take’. When domestic properties are situated in close proximity to premises designed to be licensed entertainment venues we are more likely than not to receive noise complaints relating to either loud amplified music, noise from patrons coming and going, or form people outside smoking / talking / shouting / fighting and stock deliveries. Retrospectively there is legislation that the Council can use to prevent statutory noise nuisance (EPA) if it occurs due to poor management of the premises and can control noise with licence conditions at the licence application stage and by reviewing the licence once it is in place. To some degree, people living in the vicinity of licensed premises can expect to hear activities, but they do not have to be subjected to a statutory noise nuisance.


54

42

There have been issues regarding noise from Ground floor “bar” units, such as Park Lane at The Hub and V‐Lounge at the Theatre district. These units were designed as restaurants/bars, however the occupiers have used DJ’s playing amplified music resulting in complaints about noise from residents. In these cases legislation allows the council to intervene and take action against the uses of the premises. Conditions can furthermore be added to a premise licence to ensure they are compliant with uses and associated noise levels. Enhanced construction standards to incorporate triple glazing of all premises constructed in such areas can help mitigate noise for residents living above bars and restaurants.

While the above is not an issue for the DF, it could be investigated whether building regulations could require floor coverings that offer better protection against sound transfer.

Environmental Health has also received numerous complaints about delivery and maintenance noise to commercial properties, mainly from The Hub. Taxis Taxi’s have been a major issue at the Hub. There are two hotels and a number of restaurants / bars that tend to close at the same time. The taxi rank provided was small and not placed appropriately. This has led to high numbers of taxis arriving and causing congestion outside the hotels and drinking venues. Midsummer Boulevard has taxis queuing on it and vehicle accidents are common. Emergency vehicles have little chance of reacting to an emergency in this area at this time, due to the level of queuing and parked vehicles.

43

Appendix 2 Results of survey of CMK Residents, October 2011

Central Milton Keynes (CMK)

RESIDENTS SURVEY

RESULTS

There were 95 respondents to the below questionnaire

Background Milton Keynes Council are currently reviewing the Central Milton Keynes Development Framework, a document intended to set out what the city centre should be like over the next 20 years and how to achieve it. The City Centre covers the area from the railway line in the west to the canal at the eastern end of Campbell Park and from the H5 to the H6. We are particularly interested in understanding the future residential requirements for CMK and what sort of homes we should be building, both for sale and rent. With this in mind we believe it is important to ask you as residents of CMK for your views and experiences of living in your homes and whether the housing meets all your needs. Your time in completing this short survey would be appreciated and extremely beneficial to us in developing this understanding and using it to build the right city centre homes in the future. Name (you may remain anonymous) Address Please mark the relevant box Q1. Are you a: a. Homeowner

b. Tenant c. Other (please specify)

Q2. What is the makeup of your household? a. Single Occupant b. Couple c. Couple with child(ren)/family d. Single parent family

49%

40%

3%

42%

35%

13%

5%



44

e. House share f. Other (please specify) Q3. Do you live in a: a. Townhouse b. Apartment Q4. Why did you choose to live in CMK?

Comment

Q5. Why did you choose to live in this type of home?

Comment

Q6. Does your accommodation meet all your / your family needs?

a. Yes b. No

Q6a. If ‘Yes’ to above ‐ has it always?

Comment

3%

2%

40%%

59%

76%

24%

Had no Choice it was all that was offered to me or all that I could afford ‐ 10% It was affordable / good value for money ‐ 10% It was spacious / rooms are big ‐ 3% To downsize – 3%

Needs more storage space ‐ 2% Parking is limited ‐ 1% Water leakage problem ‐ 1% Noise pollution ‐ 1% Would like a shower ‐ 1%

45

Q6b. If ‘No’ ‐ why not? Comment

Q7. What do you like about the area immediately surrounding your home?

Comment

Q8. What do you dislike about the area immediately surrounding your home? Comment Q9. Are there any other comments you would like to make?

Comments

Noise insulation ‐ 6% No garage ‐ 3% Expensive ‐ 1% Maintenance problem ‐ 5% over occupied ‐ 1% Small ‐ 10% Storage ‐ 3%

Parks / Greenery ‐ 54% Outlook ‐ 3% CMK ‐ 54% Theatre / Restaurants ‐ 21% Buses ‐ 10% Train station ‐ 14% Lakes ‐ 2% Canals ‐ 2% Exscape ‐ 10% Amenities ‐ 22% Quietness ‐ 13%

Other developments ‐ 10% Poor Parking ‐ 23% Anti‐social behaviour / Noise ‐ 35% Himos ‐ 11% Street lighting ‐ 3% Cars speeding ‐ 9% Litter ‐ 15% Maintenance ‐ 8%

People from Campbell Park responded ‐ 23% People from CMK responded ‐ 76%


56

46

Appendix 3 Notes from meeting about future residential market in CMK, January 2012 “Failing to plan is planning to fail” – the future housing market in Central Milton Keynes (CMK) Monday 30th January 2012 Notes from the round‐table discussion

Attendees Julian Buttel

David Coles Architects

Catriona Morris

MKC Councillor

Leslie Clarke

Guinness Rod Pearson

Guinness

David Coles

David Coles Architects

Paul Quelch

Connells

Robert de Grey

MKCCM Stacey Rawlings Bidwells

Simon Elcock

Places for People Jane Reed

Housing , MKC

Clive Faine Abbeygate

Ian Rhodes

Crest Nicholson

Nick Fenwick Planning, Environment & Development, MKC

James Robinson

Skanska

Paul Gibson

Housing, MKC Neil Sainsbury Planning, Environment & Development, MKC

Bob Ham

HCA Gary Sharp

Crest Nicholson

Paul Hammond

HCA Peter Smettem

Milton Keynes Council

Chris Hatfield

David Wilson Homes

Diane Webber Planning, Environment & Development, MKC

John Kerr

Bellway Homes Peter Williams

Lambert Smith Hampton

Rebecca Kurth

CMK TC Catriona Morris

MKC Councillor

Mike Moore

Policy, MKC

47

What types of housing will be attractive and appropriate for a city centre in the next 5‐10 and 10‐20 years? Who would move into the 5,000 homes planned for CMK? People’s needs are paramount and should override urban design objectives – what need is CMK housing meeting? SRQ: Issues

The proportion of family housing planned for the SRQ was questioned Much of the older family housing already provided in CMK has been turned

into HIMOs This raises the question, do families with school age children avoid city

centres? Social housing in CMK is not necessarily appropriate for many people needing

affordable housing (it’s not in the right place?) Lessons from elsewhere: eg Upton, Northampton, where large townhouses have proved unlettable to the intended family market – too large and not enough parking resulting in social problems Key messages:

Height and family housing don’t mix well – keep family housing to 2‐3 storeys maximum.

Churn – high levels experienced in the CMK market. CMK seen as a ‘gateway’ where newcomers to Milton Keynes arrive and first base themselves, then they move on to somewhere else once they have found their feet.

Other types of accommodation needed for – students; serviced apartments meeting a demand for interim housing.

Recent experience of large, flatted development s in CMK is that many of them went straight to buy‐to‐let, meeting a temporary market demand for short term accommodation.

Need for good schools to attract families Council needs to control the quantity of land coming forward for

development in order to generate competition in the housing market locally. NB: It is no longer the case that major house building firms are land banking sites – they cannot afford to do this any longer. Also the HCA land deals required sites to be developed within a set time, which was a very powerful tool for bringing sites forward.



48

Where in CMK would residential development be most appropriate? Think of who will live in the area and what their needs are There is a difference between the approach to development needed for CMk versus the sustainable urban extensions. Mixed use:

Empty office space: create mixed uses in existing developments Conflicts: people want access to mixed use developments but there are

associated problems of noise and late night disturbance to address. Campbell Park:

Create a destination: eg Campbell Park marina Focus residential in Campbell Park rather than seeking mixed use in CMK

itself. There is about a 3 year supply of housing land in Campbell Park at present.

SRQ:

SRQ has planning permission for 600 dwellings – this is likely to reduce to c 490.

Market issues:

Market demand currently constrained by lack of availability of mortgage finance.

Flexibility and a light touch needed from the development framework – guide but don’t restrict

Need for more townhouses and houses; but there remains the HIMO issue (should be partly addressed by new policy/ Article 4 direction) and there is still demand for flats.

In order for the PLCs to invest, they need certainty ; the availability of land; clarity on planning obligations and infrastructure needs and requirements. The tariff has been very helpful in other areas providing certainty at the outset.

Problem in MK is a lack of supply as the land tap was turned off around 18 months ago (Post Meeting Note: MKC planning officers would query this point – MK has a considerable supply of housing sites in the pipeline. The hiatus arising from changes to housing targets and the core Strategy might possibly affect the supply further down the line, but should not be affecting sites currently. )

A spread of locations is requires in order to give choice to purchasers

49

We have a new market reality, developers can only sell so many new homes each year (and much less than previously), therefore sites, especially flats, are being mothballed.

High rise buildings and flats in particular give rise to cash flow issues for developers at present (more so than individual houses) eg The Hub – this type of development would not happen in today’s market conditions (Post Meeting Note: There is no reason that developments of flats cannot work if consideration is given at the design stage to the delivery to ensure that only an appropriate number of properties come to the market in line with demand.)

Buy‐to‐let underpinned cashflow of development like the Hub previously Buy‐to‐let no longer viable (Post Meeting Note: this is this is not strictly the

case ‐ rental yields are good, the point being made at the meeting was that the days have passed where one was able to sell large numbers of units off plan to buy to let investment companies. This was what enabled large flatted schemes to be delivered in the good old days ‐ that and lack of alternatives for buyers)

People are buying but slowly and at a reduced price Need a new model for large scale development

High rise issues:

High density and high, on‐site parking requirements affect viability of schemes (another reason for not building high density large scale flat/apartment schemes.

Once a development rises above 4 storeys then the additional requirements of an internal lift; additional land for parking; construction methods (concrete frame needed) make the schemes increasingly unviable and even if built, service and management charges can be punitive, making the development unattractive and unaffordable for many.

Looking at the SRQ and Campbell Park, do these areas cater for different markets? What is required and desirable for one may not necessarily be appropriate for the other. SRQ represents city centre living Campbell Park represents lower density, parkland living. So yes, they cater for different markets. Campbell Park, has potential for:

Elderly persons accommodation Family housing (with appropriately sized private gardens – remember the

lessons from Upton) On‐plot parking increases saleability


58

50

It’s a buyers market at present – people won’t compromise on what they want. Developers are risk averse. Townhouses – a solution to an urban problem,, BUT

They don’t sell off‐plan Layout is rarely family friendly Developers moving out of the market of large townhouses – don’t see a

market for this type of accommodation returning anytime soon.

1970s.80s developments elsewhere MK – not particularly good quality but offer large plots and good value for money – more attractive to families than CMK. Specific note from representatives from Guinness Housing Association – experience of Upton is that they are having to deal with and manage anti‐social behaviour.

Welfare reform will lead to a need for smaller units Welfare capping on larger units will present challenges to the RSLs

Is an average net density in the order of 100 dwellings per hectare achievable and desirable? The changes to PPS3 provide greater freedom over density. Lots of developers won’t bid now for high density schemes. If MKC were to throttle the supply of land, then that might increase interest in higher density schemes but only because there would be no other alternative. Issues around on‐site parking in high density schemes – hard to provide unless go to basement parking . SRQ:

higher densities appropriate there due to city centre location and juxtaposition with other developments.

Success of residential schemes are partly dependent on there being a certain quantum of development/ a critical mass

Would struggle to better 50 dph on low rise flats. (Post Meeting Note: SQR ‐ 50 dpha being exceeded is mentioned as unlikely but Barratts proposal for the site opposite Vision is at 130 dpha and with the right phasing of delivery is an appropriate density for this central site ‐ especially if the aspiration for a vibrant City Centre is to be supported.)

Campbell Park:

more potential for lower density. Won’t be viable to build more than 50 dph in Campbell Park, although that

might be possible in CMK.

51

Feels more remote/ suburban What is its USP compared to the developments say, in the Expansion Areas?

Why would people choose to go to Campbell Park? Mixed use:

Office conversions – the purpose built modern offices in CMK do not convert well or particularly easily to residential.

Mixed use creates vibrancy but can also create disturbance, so care needed Mixed use can be delivered across a larger site (eg across the whole SRQ) Need to focus on management (contrast between the differing management

regimes at the Hub and Vizion) The tenure mix of new residential development Key points: Flexibility:

Need for more flexibility in affordable housing provision in certain areas Financially, it doesn’t work to seek affordable housing in high rise / high

density schemes (over 5 storeys) Mixed use:

in order to make small, non‐residential units work, development must compromise on cost.

Affordability :

Depends on the availability of finance to the RSLs and hence to the developer Social rent now attracts £0 finance High rise developments bring with them higher management costs and

service charges Over 3 storeys, RSLs would ideally have a lift included in the development,

which again is reflected in higher service charges 30% affordable housing, especially with 25% social rent just doesn’t add up in

the current economic climate. Affordable rent doesn’t work on 1‐2 bedroom units – just about works on 2‐3

bed units, if the site is otherwise ok. There is demand for social rent in CMK as the area is attractive due to jobs,

facilities, accessibility etc. To achieve 25‐30% affordable housing in current market conditions a lower

car parking standard is needed

Services in CMK: Broadband CHP roll out expensive Campbell Park road infrastructure – will it work with a new layout?



52

How will new housing development in CMK be financed? First question – is it viable?

Cashflow a key issue Need small schemes that float on their own The HCA traditional approach worked

In CMK there is a viable housing model, but more low‐rise is needed. Financial market outlook grim for the next 5 years

Traditional sources of lending are no longer there Major housebuilders are in good health, but roll out of new development

based on profit line Housing – no pre‐lets or pre‐sales. Banks are risk averse. Demand from volume housebuilders for viable land packages in bite‐size

chunks – 150/200 units viable; 2000 unviable In Milton Keynes we can make it work (in terms of selling for more than it costs to build), but can’t over‐burden the housebuilders with standards:

affordable housing requirements briefs need to be clear design codes – don’t be too prescriptive; developers know what sells design codes should promote coherence when there are several

housebuilders on site

Implications of a potential relaxation in planning rules for change of use from commercial to residential (as per CLG consultation mid 2011) Change of use from commercial to residential likely to be a non‐starter in CMK – purpose built office stock does not necessarily convert easily. Plenty of other choice of residential development – no need to pursue conversion from commercial. Business owners would rather refurbish and reuse for lower rents.

53

Appendix 4 Notes from stakeholder workshop, March 2012 CMK Development Framework ‐ Stakeholder Workshop 29 March 2012 Topic 1: Key Structuring elements and other urban design objectives/principles Q1.1 Should the focus of pedestrian routes be around blocks (following streets)

rather than through blocks (which would link up directly with Portes Cocheres)?

The CMK public and private realms need to be clearly defined. The difficulty is when each affects the other ie. routes straight through the Centre:MK or Midsummer Place. In cases where the private realm takes over parts of the public realm, there should be a clear public benefit resulting from that change. However, there was also a concern that rules around public/private realm could be too prescriptive so this would need some care to get right. The DF should encourage people to venture into and through development blocks rather than around them as this is fundamental to maintaining active frontages. However, it might not be feasible to split development blocks to accommodate pedestrian “desire lines” so linking access to blocks with the existing Portes Cocheres might not be feasible in all cases. Access to the main entrances to the Centre: MK etc. would, however, need to be protected i.e. Portes Cocheres retained as now but it was felt that this was not so important for the rest of CMK. To pursue this it was suggested that the “science of pedestrian movement” should be explored though the focus of most people continued to be “street based”. The group also felt that block frontages should all be protected from the weather via colonnades or other means. The presumption should be to retain covered walkways. Other constraints discussed included the limitations placed on development and changes to access by listed buildings and that Portes Cocheres were important for wayfinding and for identifying crossing points. Questioned whether the options (pedestrian routes following streets or blocks) were necessarily exclusive ie: can we not seek to accommodate movement through both streets and blocks and encourage greater freedom of movement?


60

54

Q1.2 Density of new development – is 100 dph appropriate in CMK Q1.3 Density of new development ‐ is 50 dph appropriate in Campbell Park?

Mixed use developments are difficult as institutional investors do not want to have residential uses above office space. Qualitative issues: large amounts of office space already exist and much is empty as these are designed for large companies. But the demand in CMK is from small to medium employers (SMEs) whose needs are for significantly smaller office units and these are in short supply in CMK. CMK does not have the mix of uses that other city centres have – why is this? Land ownership (limited number of large land owning interests); relative youth of the city; costs? CMK remains important not just for enabling clustering of like specialisms, banking, accountancy, and estate agencies etc. but also to allow companies to attract the right staff (a comparison was made with Soho in London as a high cost location but attractive to staff who work in the film and TV industries). Developers do not favour low or high density developments. They favour what’s profitable at a particular point in time. Currently, low density housing is the only profitable route. But this should not discourage planners from setting a framework that provides a meaningful longer term perspective as the industry’s desires could change very quickly with a change in market conditions. One suggestion was to impose maximum rather than minimum densities, but warning from commercial sector that without the minimum densities it will be difficult to force through the amount of residential development required. Parking is also difficult with 100 d/ha densities unless specialist underground provision is made as surface level parking cannot cope with anything greater than 50 d/ha. Residential may be beneficial as can enable other commercial development. However, there was a feeling that the type of housing offered would be important. Comments were made that there should be more affordable housing in CMK. Section 106 liability and viability was also discussed as it can prevent sites from being attractive to developers. There may be too much focus on the CBD part of CMK. CMK doesn’t stop at Marlborough Gate but goes on down to the Canal. Also planning for CMK tends to disregard the “Do‐nut” estates such as Fishermead and Conniburrow. In effect the CMK grid roads become moats i.e. there is no local centre in Conniburrow to take the overspill from CMK.

55

Unclear as to who would live in CMK and whether it is desirable to continue to plan for more residential development in the city centre. Reference made to the NPPF which still encourages mixed use developments.

Q1.4 A finer grain of development is not a necessity in its own right; the existing street network in CMK is already fine grained.

Some smaller block sizes might be required to facilitate the development of “character areas” that people can find for themselves. But there was no consensus on whether this could mean that more streets were needed or just an increased number of smaller buildings such as have been developed in areas of Amsterdam. A finer grain of ownership would be desirable to move away from large institutional owners to allow in smaller owners and create something more diverse. The DF would therefore need to relax its approach to mixing uses which would allow this to happen.

Q1.5 Is the retention of all portes cocheres sacrosanct? Porte Cocheres (PCs) were felt to be sacrosanct as a unique symbol of CMK across the country (world?), though they do all look the same and can make wayfinding more difficult. Perhaps they could be painted in different colours?

Post workshop comments: Minimum housing densities useful but maximum densities are even

more important ‘Exclusive’ properties are in short supply in MK, preventing

company directors from living here and potentially form locating their businesses here.

Post workshop comments: New developments can have a finer grain, in context with a town

centre and High Street scale A finer grain may well be possible and appropriate with regard to

future development at Midsummer Boulevard East.



56

There was a discussion about the wisdom of turning off lights within the PCs and the lack of maintenance carried out on most of the PCs. Further work was necessary to look at how the PCs are maintained and who is responsible?

Q1.6 Could we justify bringing building lines forward if this helped to deliver multi‐storey car parks (MSCPs)?

Some concern about the implications of retaining the existing building lines on the viability of new schemes. Raised boulevards impact on the ability to bring forward building lines – though there was doubt about whether these had actually been raised or the parking lowered? Underpasses also dictate the road level. There needs to be a clear process for changing the use of plots. The building line gives a clear impression of MK. We need to increase public transport use but people will still want to use their cars. So how to increase parking capacity? We need to maintain character and vistas but everything else can be changed so long as we manage the additional demand.

Post workshop comments: Vehicular and pedestrian routes and circuits are vital to the health

and vitality of a town centre Opportunities to create dwell time within the network and which

improve accessibility should be supported This may be facilitated by changes to building lines in appropriate

circumstances balanced against size and scale of buildings and opportunities to grow the town centre.

Multi‐storey car parks are the only answer to car parking issues – people will not park and ride – they just won’t come to CMK to shop.

57

Topic 2 ‐ Key public spaces and landscaping Q2.1 Should a key principle be to improve Midsummer Boulevard East in its

entirety (or parts of it) as a key public/civic space, reflecting its location in the heart of the core shopping area?

Q2.2 Does CMK needs a new public /civic square?

Be clear at the outset what is required by way of public space – its use, functions, the constraints. Is it public space that functions as a destination or as a space that leads the visitor somewhere else (ie linking up with other public spaces to create a pedestrian route through the middle of the city centre)? Experience of businesses at the Hub is that it is difficult to draw visitors down from the shopping centre end. There was general agreement that the environment of the Midsummer Boulevard East (MBE) area needs to be improved. There are sites awaiting development and the area has an ‘empty lot ‘ feel and is not pedestrian friendly. It was also suggested that the design such as that used in the Tuileries gardens in Paris that allows many different routes across the site and creates many different spaces could be adopted. It was also suggested that recent developments in Bordeaux (Allees de Tourny1) could be a good model for MBE. The EDAW plan identified six key areas for public open space that should not be forgotten. In addition the links between MBE and Campbell Park should not be left out as there needs to be a better connection between the two parts of CMK. If Midsummer Boulevard East (MBE) became a public open space it could improve the connections between the north and south of CMK. There remained enthusiasm for retaining linkages north to south via Secklow Gate. But there was also a need to consider public transport that now uses MBE to provide ready access to Midsummer Place and the centre:mk. Any reduction in the availability of access to the centre of the shopping would be detrimental.

1

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geo.fr/var/geo/storage/images/photos/reportages-geo/bordeaux/bordeaux-allees-tourny/422838-1-fre-FR/les-allees-de-tourny-en-1979_940x705.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.geo.fr/voyages/guides-de-voyage/europe/france/aquitaine/bordeaux/(onglet)/photos&usg=__p8DgU6ipq3RdH1zkHc0aDuAwPtA=&h=705&w=940&sz=131&hl=en&start=13&zoom=1&tbnid=ZUn8IZo7LpksyM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=148&ei=9kGFT8vkJsrG8gP-1KDjBw&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dallees%2Bde%2Btourny%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4ACPW_enGB403GB402%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D432%26tbm%3Disch%26prmd%3Dimvns&itbs=1


62

58

Other thoughts were that the purpose of areas needed to be made very clear and their links with other parts of CMK clearly defined. The quality of the shopping and pedestrian experience would be affected by the quality of this experience but a successful open space would increase interest and therefore the “dwell time” in CMK. There was some doubt that CMK was missing out on any events that would be resolved by the creation of a new area of civic open space in MBE. There was also a thought that we should be reviewing the open space that is already available within CMK to determine whether that could be used for different purposes. For example, could Queens Court and Middleton Hall be used more fully to enhance the experience and attractiveness of CMK? Other views were that the open space would help to complete the string of pearls from the Station to Campbell Park and that to make Midsummer Boulevard, a pedestrian only area would be going back to the original concepts for MK – which had been lost in recent years.

Post workshop comments: Support for the creation of a ‘grand’ civic square for the city – it

must be special. Midsummer Boulevard East should be improved There are opportunities to create private and public spaces,

covered and open areas, considered in the context o surrounding uses.

This will need to be masterplanned in light of existing activity and to support the existing shopping centres.

The approach to town centre transport should be considered across CMK (linked into outer areas) as a whole and how transport infrastructure can support land uses and add to the vitality of CMK and the shopping area in particular

The development of a dedicated carriageway along Midsummer Boulevard has the potential to create movement restrictions and conflict with the connection of pedestrian circuits

There needs to be an appropriate long‐term solution to the market and the right mix and balance of uses across the boulevard.

59

Q2.3 Should we be seeking to improve existing and underused or isolated spaces by improving access to them; or is their charm due to their relative isolation?

The key problem was thought to be the lack of effective wayfinding. Progress is already being made with improved wayfinding at Station Square through to Campbell Park However, it was also considered important to include “secret spaces” that could be sought out and explored by the public. Wayfinding would not be appropriate in such cases so some care would be needed to ensure that wayfinding was appropriate and not over blown. Important to consider existing pedestrian desire lines – minor improvements might be possible to certain public spaces to encourage more people to make use of them. When considering the open space structure of CMK, the H5 and H6 grid roads function as transport corridors and also as landscaping corridors framing the city centre. Further thoughts included how to better integrate the Grand Union Canal and the Portway and Childs Way corridors into the “offer”? In the future could access on a main route (perhaps the Portway) be restricted to small cars or personalised transport? This links with a current idea in LTP3 for development of a “Taxi Bus” – which would enable small numbers of people to travel to many different places. Possibility of EU funding was currently being considered.

Post workshop comments: CMK street furniture and landscaping should be enhanced and

maintained. Currently some would say that the standard of maintenance in CMK does not reflect well on the city and could deter future investment.



60

Topic 3 – Access, movement and parking Q3.1 Do you agree that in recognition of the desire line they represent, there

should be pedestrian provision where streets meet boulevards?

The discussion started by considering the issues – how to accommodate additional parking spaces within CMK proportionate to the planned level of growth and how planned improvements to public transport could mitigate the need for additional car parking. Description of the original transport structure and hierarchy of routes – visitors arrive in CMK on a grid road; transfer to a ‘blue’ boulevard and then onto the ‘slow streets’ where surface car parking is located. A query was raised in respect of the CMK transport hierarchy as described in para 4, page 12 of the workshop topic papers. In the adopted Milton Keynes Local Plan (MKLP). there is a disparity between the text in para 7.28 and Plan T1 in the MKLP which shows the primary and district distributor roads. Although para 7.28 in the MKLP describes the ‘gates’ in CMK as corresponding to District distributors, only the V6 (Grafton Gate); V7 (Saxon Gate) and V8 (Marlborough Gate) are shown on Plan T1. The view of MKC officers is that the lower case text in para 7.28 is incorrectly drafted and Witan Gate and Secklow Gate are not and should not be classed as district distributors as unlike the former three gates they are not grid roads. Discussion followed of the multi‐modal transport model. So far the model has looked at the situation in 2026 based on the development projections in the Core Strategy. The modelling done so far is high level and strategic and does not include site specific or individual junctions. Further modelling at this smaller scale can follow. Returning to the question, there was a feeling that there are already considerable opportunities for pedestrian and vehicular conflict and that we should not be encouraging more crossing points where conflict could be a problem. The worst area for pedestrian and vehicular conflict is Avebury Boulevard between Xscape and the Theatre District. There was a request for information about pedestrian casualties.

Q3.2 Should there be an aspiration still for 24hr access through the centre:mk ?

Originally two pedestrian through routes were promised when the doors were added to the shopping centre. General agreement that there should be some access through the shopping centre at key locations as the building is

61

just too large for people to walk around (throught Midsummer Place; Queens Court and then around John Lewis) . The Town Council gets regular complaints that there is no clear or well‐lit path around the outside of John Lewis – so improvements to external paths and lighting might help to improve access around that part of the building. The extent to which the centre should be opened up to public access varied, from access to enable shorter north‐south routes to more longitudinal access, creating a public space, like a High Street for people to stroll and ‘promenade’. The original idea for 24 hour access to the shopping centre came about when the planning applications were submitted for the extensions to the centre. These have now lapsed. Some of the walkways within the shopping centre are covered by walkways agreements and these could be renegotiated to achieve more accessibility. From a management point of view, 24 hour access presents huge security and management issues. The shopping centre is not a High Street but an enclosed shopping centre and different conditions therefore apply. It is essentially private, not public space. There are huge costs associated with 24 hour access and there would need to be a convincing argument that extending public access into the night would, in some way, provide financial benefits over those additional costs. So far, the centre:mk has had limited success encouraging retailers to trade to 8pm at night, let alone stay open later. Wider issues of making CMK feel safe and more welcoming at night, eg for people leaving the theatre. Some criticism of the approach of security guards in the shopping centre around the Queens Court food area and Pizza Express at night. Further issue is the difficulty in accessing some fo the shops from the outside of the shopping centre. The shop units are increasingly turning their backs on the external access from the colonnades and restricting access only from within the malls. This might be due to security (easier to monitor activity at only one point of entry rather than two) but again inhibits the permeability of the shopping centre from the surrounding external space.

Q3.3 Are there any other pedestrian routes / desire lines that should receive targeted attention for improvement ?

Links felt to be lacking between:

Campbell Park and CMK, including links to the canal Lack of public land link between Xscape and Campbell Park (though

there are routes from Fishermead to Xscape which are planned to be adopted by MKC)


64

62

Need to do more in respect of cycling – the redways go to the edge of the city centre then stop. Need to expand the cycle routes east‐west and north‐south through CMK. There are nearly 20 connections with the redway system but only 1 route through the centre. Sustrans route 51 runs along Midsummer Boulevard.

Q3.4 Do you agree future parking for new development should be provided on site (rather than the current provision of 30% max) ?

Current parking policy in CMK is that the developers cannot provide more

than 30% of car parking requirements on‐plot. The question is whether or not we want to continue that restriction. There was a view that greater flexibility was appropriate – even up to allowing 100% of parking requirements to be met on‐site. .

Agreement that any public spaces lost to development needed to be

replaced. Warning that 100% of parking on‐site would affect viability of schemes –

undercroft or MSCP parking is expensive and such an approach might limit the amount of floorspace that can be achieved.

Need to consider whether the amount of car parking on a site is a key issue

for firms moving into CMK?

Post Workshop comments: As recognised in the EDAW study, although MK has a well

developed redway cycle network, the system does not extend well into CMK

Anecdotal evidence suggests that, notwithstanding some partial improvements (eg completion of the north‐south Saxon Gate redway link) cycling in CMK remains hazardous. The aspiration of creating an environment where the cyclist can safely share carriageways with motor vehicles has not been realised.

Proposals to complete the ‘cruciform’ (ie a redway running up Midsummer in the central median) and to upgrade other strategic redways arriving in CMK eg H5, H6, V6 and V8, are supported and are consistent with Policy T1 of the MKLP. These proposals are also consistent with MKC’s low carbon agenda/ aspirations.

Pursuing and implementing such measures in the short terms will provide the best opportunity of providing genuine transport choice and the potential for modal shift through the creation of a safer environment for cyclists.

63

Need an understanding of how much car parking is currently available in CMK

and at what point it will be fully utilised. Alternatives to car parking?

Commercial park and ride Staff parking outside CMK, with courtesy bus. Customer behaviour for retail is changing – increasing online

purchasing; high fuel costs mean that fewer people are driving to CMK. Christmas 2011 saw a drop in car borne visitors from 81% of visitors previously to 71%.

Can employers be encouraged to open up private parking to the public? First need to be clear what need there is for private parking to be used. The use of private parking is unlikely to be acceptable to many businesses and institutional investors.

Additional question/ discussion – CMK movement network and links to surrounding residential areas

Some concern at the possible removal of the public transport route through Midsummer Boulevard. There is a clear relationship between the movement network in CMK and the rest of Milton Keynes. The role of the Development Framework is to make the best decisions for how traffic flows within CMK.

Post workshop comments: Car parking is critical to the success of CMK. Basement car parking

is unviable currently. Some schemes may, however wish to secure more than the 30% on site maximum and there should be flexibility to achieve more or less parking.

All on‐plot parking will increase costs (especially if MSCP or undercroft parking is required) and this will impact on viability of schemes and on the built form and densities.

100% on plot parking would also go against the long term parking policies for CMK where public parking has taken its share of the burden of parking demands from new developments.

The ring of MSCPs as proposed in the EDAW study and the Adopted MKLP are unlikely to come forward due to cost and also sustainability factors

The Framework should recognise that a future doubling of the population does not result in double trips and double demand for parking.



64

Is there a conflict between the different roles of CMK – both as a sub regional centre and a district centre for the surrounding estates? There are issues for through routes into the surrounding estates. There are strategic routes into CMK from the north, south and west, but poor access from the east. Funding infrastructure – the MSCPs as proposed by the EDAW plan would have cost in the region of £40 million to develop and would have created 20,000 parking spaces.

Post workshop comments: Agree that there should be a relationship between CMK and

access/interchange with the surrounding estates. The scale of growth proposed for CMK requires an appropriate

transport solution Given MK geography and layout it lends itself to multiple hopper

services and not one or two larger interchanges. As the current characteristics are for a small number of people going to numerous destinations as opposed to large numbers of people going to limited destinations.

Whilst any increase in population would increase pressure on the transport network it would also drive demand and increase the customer base for more public transport services

A comprehensive strategy would need to be set out in CIL through the Charging Schedule and Infrastructure Plans.

65

Topic 4 – Districts Q4.1 Is it agreed that the West End/ SRQ is not included as a particular district

and hence has the flexibility to accommodate a variety of uses? The approach being suggested seeks to balance flexibility with prescription

over land uses. Flexibility is needed to allow for creative applications where they will complement the CMK offer.

Views expressed that Campbell Park should be made predominantly residential.

Concern that the DF should not be silent on what uses are appropriate in

those areas not currently identified on the plans as falling within a distinct ‘district.’

Is it more appropriate to talk about destinations within CMK rather than

districts? Destinations are about people, pedestrians and movement. Perhaps some areas within CMK should be protected – eg core shopping

centre; leisure/entertainment area. The rest could be left open to the market but with criteria to require mixed use; a mixture of small and large footprint uses and active frontages.

As an alternative to districts use performance criteria to determine why a particular use should be in a specific location.

Alternatively retain the concept of districts but produce something more

narrative in style, describing in qualitative terms what the area looks and feels like; what its character is, so that future land uses can be judged for their contribution to that character.

Cultural provision in CMK does not sit well with the commercial leisure and

entertainment sector. . Cultural provision should be spread throughout the city centre.

Post workshop comments: The framework should be flexible in order to adapt to changes from how we

live, work and spend our leisure time whilst reflecting the “Basic Principles “ of CMK development. Flexibility is key to CMK’s success but this should be reinforced by some basic rules/ principles. We should not be trying to reinvent the “ basic principles “ every time at a review. To continually review will hold back development and deliverability as some would suggest happened in the last development cycle ?


66

66

If the plan is correctly implemented then its flexibility will allow for a whole

range of design and built form. CMK has some very iconic buildings all of which can be dated architecturally over the course of the last 40 years. The Framework needs to be flexible enough to allow for new buildings that are taller and higher in density than the prevailing areas when appropriate.

Abandon any notion of Land Use Zoning, eg there is very little physical or functional relationship between MK Gallery and Xscape. A plan of destinations within MK, expressing the varied activity levels, different purposes of the trips, the hot spots and the cool spots would be the most effective way of staring to build a plan/framework for the centre.

MKC needs evidence to understand how the city currently operates and how the varied activities, rather than land uses, inter‐relate. Without a full understanding of who is in the city centre, why they are here, what they are doing etc , it is virtually impossible to make any meaningful proposals that will lead to the strengthening of existing relationships or creating the conditions where new relationship between activities can be fostered and enhanced.

Some “place criteria” will need to be produced to inform development control decisions and to shape policy.

The delivery of Cultural programme for the City Centre is probably the City Centre’s last real chance to maintain its vitality and vibrancy. There was the strong sense that the assembled group were aware that MK is not immune to the same pressures affecting all town centres. However it is important not to get drawn into “off the peg” solutions that may be being adopted by other places.

The mix of uses in CMK should be varied to take advantage of opportunities as they arise and to fulfil the role of a town centre.

The framework should, however, have very clear policies on retail/leisure land uses – as set out in NPPF in regard to the town centre first policy. Given the size and scale of CMK the dilution of retail/leisure uses across the whole area would have an adverse impact on the ability for shopping streets and circuits to function and prosper.

The continued designation of a Primary Shopping Areas – where retail development is required to be located.

The existing boundary for the primary shopping area is correct and allows for the opportunities for churn and change, together with significant new floorspace to come forward in a phased manner over the next local plan period and promote a competitive town centre environment and investor confidence.

In the context of public transport, moving forward with a model shift – there should be less reliance on car parking.

Key principles should relate to public realm and permeability – the framework needs enough detail yet enable flexibility for creative approaches.



Extract from Strategic Policies chapter CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES

Objective of policy To set out a framework for achieving a more lively, varied accessible and

inclusive city centre 3.1 Work began on a review of Central Milton Keynes (CMK) in the mid 1990s, prompted by the need to tackle new sustainability and transport objectives. From this work, which culminated in the production of the CMK Development Framework, it became apparent that completing CMK on the basis of existing land use and transport principles could eventually lead to gridlock in and around the city centre.

3.2 There was also a concern to create a livelier and more vibrant city centre, that not only performs well functionally as a place to work and shop, but is also a place people want to live in, visit, and enjoy. This includes integrating different parts of the centre more effectively but relates to more than just the physical environment. The Council is actively involved in developing ideas under the broad heading of “cultural planning”, recognising the links between built form and the various activities that go on within a city centre.

3.3 CMK is seen as a focus for change in helping to realise new transport objectives in the City. About 30,000 people currently work in the centre, and in 2001 it was estimated that on average some 600,000 people visit each week. This means there is potential to achieve a major shift in the modes of transport used for journeys to and from CMK – away from the car and in favour of public transport, cycling and walking. High quality public transport will be necessary to achieve this switch in CMK; planning obligations will be sought from developers to finance its provision, in accordance with the tests set out in Circular 05/05, or its successor, and the Council’s adopted SPG on Planning Obligations for CMK.

3.4 Measures have already been introduced to promote the demand management of car use such as the CMK Parking Scheme and promote public transport by developing Quality Bus Initiatives. Reducing car trips to CMK also creates the potential for a centre less dominated by roads and parking areas, leading to opportunities for a more mixed and intimate scale of development.

3.5 This process is far from complete. The changes being considered are sensitive ones, particularly in maintaining business and economic confidence. A CMK Partnership has been set up with a number of sub groups, to discuss and advise on different aspects of CMK. The Partnership includes Milton Keynes Council and English Partnerships as well as business interests, neighbourhood and parish councils, and local amenity groups.

3.6 The Central Milton Keynes Development Framework was commissioned in mid-2000 from EDAW consultants and others, on behalf of English Partnerships and Milton Keynes Council, with the CMK Partnership as key stakeholders. It was published in October 2001 and covers a 30-year period rather than the 10-year period of the Local Plan. It incorporates the findings of an earlier separate study for Campbell Park “The New Urban Framework Plan for Campbell Park “ prepared by Terry Farrell and Partners. It sets out a strategy for implementing a vision for CMK agreed by the key stakeholders, dealing not only with the physical development of the City centre but also issues associated with the implementation and delivery of

development. These include joint venture and new working relationships between the Council and English Partnerships. Subsequent work is developing and refining these ideas.

3.7 The first deposit version of the Local Plan was produced before the CMK Development Framework had been completed. Key principles and proposals of the Development Framework have now been incorporated into this Local Plan. The CMK Development Framework was adopted by the Council as Supplementary Planning Guidance in January 2002. This has led not only to a significant increase in the number of policies for CMK but also to major changes to those CMK policies from the first deposit version.

3.8 The Council is seeking to achieve a balance between development in CMK and elsewhere within the City, with regard to the provision of public facilities matching that of private sector and commercial development

3.9 As the City grows, it can also support new facilities that serve a wider area than just the City or Borough – e.g. the new theatre and the indoor leisure activities at Xscape. This wider role was recognised in Structure Plan shopping policies where CMK was identified as an “emerging regional centre”. However, it is also important to take into account the possible impact of further development in CMK on the balance between homes and jobs in the City, and on other centres such as Bletchley.

CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES POLICY S5 Within the Local Plan period, Central Milton Keynes will continue to develop as an emerging regional centre and a focus for retail, commercial and cultural development within the City.

The key objectives for Central Milton Keynes are to:

(i) Achieve a broader mix of uses, within a finer grain of development, incorporating a high standard of design

(ii) Promote a higher density of development, leading to a greater intensity of activity supporting and supported by high quality public transport

(iii) Reduce the influence of the car in the design and layout of the area

(iv) Encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport for people travelling to, from and within the area with walking the first priority within Central Milton Keynes (CMK)

(v) Integrate different facilities and quarters within the centre


68

Extract from Town Centres and Shopping chapter

CENTRAL MILTON KEYNES 3.10 The strategic objectives for CMK are set out in Policy S5. Together with the more detailed policies that follow, they reflect work that has been carried out on a review of CMK over the last few years, in particular the CMK Development Framework. To ensure delivery of the framework, the Local Plan has been revised to incorporate the main findings and recommendations of this study.

3.11 This framework document reflects both changes in national planning policy - e.g. on sustainable development, public transport, higher density and mixed-use development, as well as evolving local aspirations for the City Centre and public consultation. It has the status of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and is a material planning consideration in the assessment of planning applications for the development of remaining undeveloped sites in CMK and the redevelopment of existing sites and buildings.

3.12 For the purpose of these policies, CMK includes the Campbell Park grid square unless otherwise stated.

3.13 Planning policies for CMK set out below fall into 3 main categories including:

General Policies for the City centre as a whole.

Policies for individual Quarters of the City.

Policies for Priority Development Areas where major change is expected over the next 10 years.

GENERAL POLICIES FOR THE CITY CENTRE

SHOPPING

Objectives of policy To define the main shopping area in CMK and identify sites where new

development is proposed. To define the circumstances under which new retail development will be

permitted in CMK 3.14 Most of the remaining development sites in CMK were previously shown on the Proposals Map as Mixed Use sites. This designation reflected outstanding 7(1) consents under the New Towns Act, and the aspirations by the Council and English Partnerships to introduce a greater variety of uses - both horizontally and vertically - on remaining development sites. To facilitate more mixed use development in CMK as envisaged in the CMK Development Framework, the notation for undeveloped sites in CMK has been deleted from the Proposals Map. It has been replaced by new notation reflecting the Quarters designation for CMK.

3.15 Continuing growth in expenditure is expected to result in capacity for the phased development of additional retail floorspace in CMK. Current indications are that the first phase of incremental further development of the shopping centre will be appropriate by about 2005.

3.16 The scale of this potential increase in floorspace will be kept under review by the Council, as the actual effects of Midsummer Place and Xscape are assessed. Subsequent phased improvements to shopping provision in the period 2005 to 2011 may be appropriate if, designed to improve and extend the existing retail offer, rather than create a further major new shopping centre similar to Midsummer Place.

3.17 In relation to convenience (food) retailing, the report recommended that any capacity for additional floor space would be better located in Newport Pagnell and Bletchley town centres. Two new Local Centres are identified in Policy LC1 to serve the new communities in Campbell Park and the Sustainable Residential Quarter in CMK. Additionally, Block C4.1 in CMK has been identified as a site for an integrated mixed-use development including a large new food store. Significant retail development (Policy CC2) is defined as more than 2500 square metres gross floor space, consistent with the PPG6 threshold for impact studies to be required.

SHOPPING POLICY CC1 Within CMK, the main shopping area is between Silbury Boulevard, Avebury Boulevard, Saxon Gate and Marlborough Gate.

Elsewhere in CMK, with exception of block C4.1, retail development will be small scale and generally part of mixed shopping, office, leisure and housing schemes.

POLICY CC2 Planning permission for significant additional retail floorspace in CMK will only be permitted if the Council is satisfied that:

(i) Sufficient retail expenditure exists within the Milton Keynes catchment area to support the proposed additional retail floorspace in a sustainable manner, and,

(ii) The proposed development would not materially affect the vitality and viability of any District or Town Centres, including those in towns outside the Council’s area

CMK DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Objective of policy To state the circumstances under which supplementary planning

guidance/supplementary planning documents (SPG/SPD) will be prepared. 3.18 Additional SPG/SPD based on the CMK Development Framework will be produced by both Milton Keynes Council and English Partnerships. This may be in the form of Briefs to guide the development of an individual site, block or quarter within CMK. Additionally, it might cover design advice on the development of high rise buildings at particular locations.

CMK DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK POLICY CC3 Within CMK, Supplementary Planning Guidance based on the Development Framework for CMK will be prepared to guide the development of sites



OFFICE DEVELOPMENT

Objectives of policy To maintain CMK as the main office centre in the Borough To make better use of urban land and encourage a more sustainable form of

development.

3.19 CMK is the largest office centre in the Borough with a significant concentration of office employment located between Saxon Gate and the railway station. The plot ratio is the relationship between the total site area of a proposed development and the total gross floor space of the proposed building. A plot ratio of 3.5 to 1 means the total gross floor space of the building is 3.5 times greater than the total site area.

3.20 To facilitate a higher density of development and greater intensity of activity within CMK, the plot ratio has been increased, from the maximum plot ratio of 1.75:1 previously applied to office development in CMK to a minimum plot ratio of 2.5:1 or 3.5:1.

3.21 This means that more floorspace can be accommodated on a particular site, with implications for building height and design, job densities and transport. The focus for tall buildings will be around Station Square, along Midsummer Boulevard and specific locations identified elsewhere. Strategic policy S5 is cross referenced to this policy , which means that higher density development must contribute to meeting the Council’s wider objectives for CMK – such as more mixed use development – rather than just leading to larger office buildings.

(Policy CC4 has been moved and is after Policy CC16)

OFFICE DEVELOPMENT POLICY CC5 The Council will seek to maintain the role of Central Milton Keynes as the main office centre in the Borough.

Within CMK, planning permission for new office developments will be granted on sites allocated on the Proposals Map provided the minimum plot ratio of the development is 2.5:1 except in the following locations where the minimum plot ration will be 3.5:1

i) Station Square

ii) Sites fronting or adjacent to Midsummer Boulevard

iii) Any other locations identified in Supplementary Planning Guidance.

NON-RETAIL USES IN THE CMK SHOPPING BUILDING AND MIDSUMMER PLACE

Objective of policy To seek a balance between retail and non-retail use in the Milton Keynes

Shopping Building and Midsummer Place 3.22 The Shopping Building now known as the “the centre:mk” and Midsummer Place are the focus for comparison shopping in the Borough and are crucial to maintaining the vitality and viability of the city centre as a whole. The policy aims to

protect the primary retail function of both buildings while recognising the need for a range of other uses and services, such as restaurants and cafes, banks and building societies. Midsummer Place opened in 2000 providing an additional 39,000 sq. metres (gross) of mainly A1 floorspace. As shopping floorspace in CMK increases, additional non-retail uses can be accommodated without harming the primary role of the centre. Relaxing restrictions on the proportion of non-retail units also assists in diversifying uses within the centre.

3.23 The policy also reflects the special characteristics and design of both buildings. It is intended to:

limit the total number of units in non-retail use control the extent of non-retail uses within the internal Arcades and Walks prevent concentrations of non-retail uses, except within units, which are primarily

orientated towards the exterior of the buildings.

3.24 The overall percentage limit on non-retail floor space is intended to apply to the size of the building at the time a planning application is submitted for an individual unit.

NON-RETAIL USES IN THE CMK SHOPPING BUILDING AND MIDSUMMER PLACE POLICY CC6 Planning permission will be granted for non-retail uses in units that are primarily orientated towards the exterior of the buildings.

In other units, planning permission will only be granted for non-retail uses if the proposal satisfies the following criteria:

(i) The overall total of non-retail floorspace on the ground floor would be less than 20% of the total ground floor retail floorspace of the particular building, and

(ii) In the Shopping Building the non-retail frontage in any unbroken frontage to an arcade would total no more than 25%, or to the central section of a walk no more than 40%, or

(iii) In Midsummer Place, the non-retail frontage in any unbroken frontage to east and west walk would total no more than 20%

KEY TRANSPORT PRINCIPLES

Objective of policy To ensure that the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users are

given priority in new developments in CMK. 3.25 CMK is seen as the focal point for achieving changes in travel behaviour in the City. Focusing development in locations such as CMK, which are relatively well served by public transport, reduces dependency on the car. Increasing the density of development in CMK also helps to increase the potential viability and patronage of public transport, and maximises opportunities for securing a high quality public transport system. To encourage journeys to and within CMK by means other than the car, new development should be planned so that it offers safe and convenient access for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Transport interchange points will be developed at key locations in the City centre such as at the Railway


70

Station. A key principle for new development in CMK is that it should facilitate pedestrian movement and activity, creating a public realm with a lively street scene.

3.26 The ease and availability of parking in CMK has been a major factor behind the success of CMK. The Council recognises parking provision is fundamental to maintaining the attractiveness of CMK. Although additional parking will be developed in CMK, it will be part of a strategy of promoting the use of alternative means of travel.

KEY TRANSPORT PRINCIPLES POLICY CC7a New development in CMK should reflect the following access and transport principles:

(i) Create a critical mass of new development and residential population to encourage walking and cycling, supporting and supported by high quality public transport.

(ii) Protect existing and proposed transport routes, including routes into CMK

(iii) Reallocate existing highway space in CMK to create a safe, integrated and inclusive public realm, which connects existing and proposed areas of public open space and centres of activity and encourages pedestrian movement and activity

(iv) Improve interchange between pedestrians, cycles, buses, trains and cars and develop existing and proposed key transport interchange points at Lower Ninth Street /Midsummer Boulevard, Station Square and by the Theatre/Xscape buildings.

(v) Provide for the parking needs of business, retail, residents and other visitors consistent with maximum parking standards

(Policy CC7b has been moved and appears after Policy CC10) POLICY CC7C: KEY PRINCIPLES FOR PARKING

Objective of policy To explain how new parking will be provided in CMK 3.27 The number of surface level car parking spaces within CMK will be reduced as a consequence of releasing land to maximise development opportunities or for improvements to the public realm. However, as new development proposals come forward, the overall number of parking spaces within CMK will increase consistent with the Council’s parking standards. The majority of these spaces will be provided in multi-storey car parks (MSCP).

3.28 Most new MSCP will be located around the edge of the City centre and accessed directly from the grid road network. In these locations, the MSCP will offer good access to and from the main approach routes to CMK, but without adding to traffic congestion in the City centre. They will be linked by sheltered pedestrian routes to destinations in CMK and connections with public transport services. Additional MSCP will also be developed around the railway station to serve the needs of commuters, and at strategic locations in the City centre to serve the needs generated by new development. MSCP will usually form part of mixed development blocks. Providing spaces in development blocks rather than on street frontages will

reduce the visual dominance of the car in the street scene. Planning obligations will be sought from developers to fund public transport and parking provision.

KEY PRINCIPLES FOR PARKING

POLICY CC7C

Development proposals in CMK should meet the following parking requirements:

(i) Where development on land currently used for car parking occurs alternative parking should be provided mainly in multi-storey car parks, with limited provision on street or within new development

(ii) New parking provision will be phased so that its provision does not prejudice the implementation of public transport proposals serving CMK

(iii) Off-street car parking (including integral garages, surface parking or multi-storey car parks) should be located within development blocks and not on street frontages

DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Objectives of policy To improve the sustainability of CMK To achieve a high standard of design in new buildings To ensure public space and public art is provided as part of new

developments 3.29 The design policies have been revised to reflect the CMK Development Framework. Illustrated design statements accompanying planning applications will assist the Council in assessing development proposals.

3.30 These policies highlight important principles for development in CMK. They are intended to create flexible buildings that can adapt to changing demands and uses over time, and a mix of land uses that helps to sustain activity in the City centre at different times of the day and night. Providing dwellings in CMK also provides opportunities for people to walk to work or to shop.

3.31 New development in CMK should be more sustainable, create a sense of place, facilitate pedestrian movement and contribute towards the creation of a lively street scene.

3.32 Public art can act as a focal point within new development, helping to enliven the appearance of the area and create a sense of place. The Council has produced guidance on its “Percent for Art” policy.

DESIGN AND LAYOUT POLICY CC8 All development proposals in CMK should achieve a high standard of design and be based upon a thorough analysis of the physical context and constraints of the site. Development proposals should:

(i) Create a high density built form with a broader mix of uses both horizontally and vertically, within a finer grain of development.



(ii) Maximise development opportunities by reducing the area used for roads and parking within boulevards, gates and streets.

(iii) Make a positive contribution to the public realm, including provision or improvement of open space

(iv) Include an element of public art as an integral part of the design

(v) Provide safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian through routes within or between buildings, which are accessible to the public 24 hours a day and encourage pedestrian permeability through developments.

(vi) Minimise the visual impact of private vehicles, parking and servicing areas on the quality of the streetscape

(vii) Pay attention to detail in terms of lighting, signing, street furniture, decoration and works of art and ensure its provision is co-ordinated and complementary to provision elsewhere in CMK.

Detailed illustrated design statements to demonstrate how the above criteria and any relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance for the proposal have been taken into account should accompany planning applications.

DESIGN OF NEW BUILDINGS POLICY CC9 New buildings should:

(i) Incorporate covered walkways on the frontages of all buildings facing Gates and Boulevards and provide sheltered pedestrian routes from multi-storey car parks to Midsummer Boulevard (“The City Spine”)

(ii) Use a high standard of facing materials.

(iii) Interact with and contribute positively to their surroundings at street level, encourage pedestrian activity, and contribute to a sense of place and vitality.

(iv) Generally, have a minimum height of five to six storeys with taller buildings in prominent locations. Residential development should have a minimum height of 3 storeys

(v) Comply with Policy D4: Sustainable Construction

(vi) Be designed to maximise the use of natural lighting, and ventilation and solar gain

(vii) Be designed to be adaptable for a range of different uses

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (IN CMK)

Objectives of policy To ensure adequate physical and social infrastructure To ensure that all development in CMK contributes to the wider objectives for the

City Centre, as set out in the CMK Development Framework 3.33 The delivery of the CMK Development Framework means that development proposals should include adequate provision for infrastructure and community facilities. This may include the protection or enhancement of existing provision, and new measures to mitigate any losses or negative impacts arising from development.

3.34 Planning obligations will also be used to achieve the agreed planning objectives for CMK and the wider area. These include the provision of affordable housing; major transport infrastructure including the public transport system and multi-storey car parking; other major infrastructure requirements; open space and improvements to the public realm; and other needs related to the proper planning of CMK.

3.35 In considering the need for planning obligations, the Council will also take into account the potential cumulative impact of development proposals and the wider impact of city centre development on areas surrounding CMK and on other centres in the City.

3.36 The Council adopted Supplementary Guidance on Planning Obligations for Central Milton Keynes in July 2003. It intends to produce more detailed SPG/SPD on the likely requirements of planning obligations in CMK, including Quarters Plans and briefs for development sites.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS POLICIES IN CMK POLICY CC10 The design and provision of new development will be expected to help achieve the strategic goals and principles of the CMK Development Framework. The Council will seek the following improvements as part of any development proposals in CMK: (i) Contributions to the economic, social and cultural infrastructure required to

support the realisation of the CMK Development Framework and other policies in the Local Plan.

(ii) Improvements to, and provision of, community facilities including meeting places, education and childcare, healthcare and recreational facilities.

(iii) Support for innovation and enterprise including training facilities and other projects that help to develop the skills of the resident workforce and help sections of the community that are disadvantaged in the labour market.

(iv) Improvements to the pedestrian environment, cycleways, public transport system infrastructure and highways.

(v) Financial contributions towards the provision of new or improved public transport services and car parking, including multi-storey provision.

(vi) Provision for the remodelling or upgrading of existing CMK infrastructure, including utilities, communications and other services.

(vii) Support for the cultural development of CMK, including the provision of public art that enhances the built and natural environment.

(viii) Provision for new or improved public realm including public open space, leisure and recreation facilities in accordance with the standards in Appendix L3. Where it is undesirable or inappropriate to meet these standards on site, contributions will be sought towards provision elsewhere.

(ix) 30% of new housing proposed within the category of affordable housing. The list is not exhaustive and further guidance to developers on detailed requirements will be contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance, including Quarters Plans and Design, Development and Implementation Briefs.


72

POLICIES FOR INDIVIDUAL QUARTERS OF THE CITY

3.37 The City Centre has been divided into eight quarters, their location is shown on the Proposals Map.

These quarters are:

(a) Midsummer Boulevard, the City Spine (b) The Central Business District (c) The Sustainable Residential Quarter (d) The City Core (e) The Station Square Quarter (f) The Enterprise and Knowledge Quarter (g) The North Western Quarter (Sport and Retail Park) (h) Campbell Park

3.38 The City Centre contains a number of distinct sub-areas (quarters) each characterised by a particular use or activity. Within these quarters different types of development may be proposed. While some of these developments will take place within the period of the plan, other proposals because of their complexity and long lead times will occur beyond the standard 10-year Local Plan period. Therefore it will be necessary in some instances for land to be safeguarded for the development of those schemes in the future e.g. improvements to public transport.

3.39 The key objectives for CMK including Campbell Park have already been described in Strategic Policy S5. Policies for the development of quarters in CMK set out the principles, aims and aspirations that the development is intended to achieve. These policies will be supplemented where appropriate by SPG/SPD. This will give greater advice and certainty on the development of sites; SPG/SPD may be prepared for each quarter or block or for development projects, which have complex or difficult issues to address.

MIDSUMMER BOULEVARD “THE CITY SPINE”

Objective of policy To outline the principles for development along Midsummer Boulevard. 3.40 Midsummer Boulevard is the main route or “spine” through the City centre linking the Railway Station up to Campbell Park. It is the principal route for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport activity within the City centre. A high quality public transport system will run along its length and a route for this scheme is safeguarded on the Proposals Map.

3.41 The Boulevard will be the focus for high density mixed use development in the City centre. It will feature: -

Local landmark buildings offering opportunities for innovative architecture. Residential development in the form of apartments, New development using land created by narrowing the Boulevard and land

currently used for car parking. 3.42 Along the Boulevard, the development of shops, restaurants and services will provide new active street frontages. These together with new public spaces, works of

public art and other attractions will contribute towards the creation of a lively street scene and generate pedestrian movement and activity along the street.

CITY SPINE POLICY CC7B Development along Midsummer Boulevard should be designed to reflect the following principles

(i) Create a high density built form of high quality design, incorporating a mix of uses with buildings of at least 8 storeys in height

(ii) Make Midsummer Boulevard the main focus for pedestrian, cycling and public transport activity in CMK.

(iii) Develop Midsummer Boulevard east of Saxon Street as a ‘high street’ where pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users have priority

(iv) Narrow Midsummer Boulevard and reallocate existing car parking space for redevelopment with alternative parking provided mainly in multi-storey car parks and with limited provision on street or within new development.

(v) Create a high quality public realm with activity focal points and landmark buildings connected to existing and proposed public open spaces and centres of activity.

(vi) Create active ground floor frontages contributing to a lively street scene.

(vii) Feature public art as an integral part of the public realm with pavilions and kiosks in areas of public open space.

(viii) New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 175-275 dwellings per hectare

Facilitate the introduction of a high quality public transport scheme linking the railway station up to Campbell Park and its extension beyond

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the Central Business District

3.43 The Central Business District (CBD) is broadly defined by North Row / Portway, Saxon Gate, Avebury Boulevard and Grafton Gate. It includes most of the City centre offices including the Central Business Exchange (CBX Building), plus the City Church, Magistrates Court and Police Station. The majority of buildings within this area are currently single use office blocks surrounded by surface level car parking.

3.44 Although, most of this area has been developed, there is scope over and beyond the plan period for the redevelopment of some of the existing buildings and for additional infilling. New development opportunities will focus on the third phase of the Central Business Exchange (CBX3).

3.45 New development in the CBD should reinforce the quality of business space within the City centre as well as strengthen the attraction of CMK as a business location. The CBD includes a section of Midsummer Boulevard, the “City Spine “, where opportunities for higher density development have been identified. Although business uses will be the dominant land use in the CBD, residential development,



café/ restaurant provision and some limited local retailing would also be appropriate within it.

3.46 New development sites on North Row should normally only come forward after 2011 and include a major landmark building at the Grafton Gate /Portway entrance to the City centre

CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT POLICY CC11 New development or redevelopment in the Central Business District (CBD) should reflect the following principles:

(i) Consolidate the CBD as the main business centre in CMK.

(ii) Provide high quality business space to accommodate a broad variety of new businesses and other uses

(iii) Develop buildings of at least 8 storeys in height on sites fronting or adjacent to Midsummer Boulevard

(iv) Provide a mix of uses including residential accommodation together with shops, business services and cafes/restaurants at ground floor level.

(v) New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 175-275 dwellings per hectare as part of mixed use schemes.

(vi) Include a landmark building at the Grafton Gate / Portway gateway to CMK

SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL QUARTER

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the Sustainable Residential

Quarter 3.47 The Sustainable Residential Quarter (SRQ) is broadly defined by Avebury Boulevard, Saxon Gate, South Row / Childs Way and the railway. It also extends across Avebury Boulevard to Grafton Park, between Grafton Gate and Lower Fourth Street. It includes a large area of undeveloped land (Block B4), the Leisure Plaza and Toys R Us and Argos stores.

3.48 The majority of this area will be developed for residential purposes, with some development providing small-scale business premises and opportunities to live and work at home. Other associated uses such as community facilities, shops and services providing for the needs of local residents and workers in CMK will be provided within a new Local Centre or elsewhere in the SRQ. Block C4.1 has been identified as the preferred location for an integrated mixed-use development, including a large new food store. The store will meet the needs of the growing residential population of CMK, as well as the needs of shoppers and workers in the City Centre. It will also replace any food store provision that may be lost if the Food Centre is redeveloped. There will be scope for people living in the SRQ to walk to work or to other activities. The SRQ will cater for a mixed residential community, providing a variety of different housing types and tenures, meeting different housing needs, currently not available in CMK.

3.49 Higher density development is envisaged particularly in development along Midsummer Boulevard “The City Spine “ and at the new local centre, where new

residential development will mix with other uses and should be located above active ground floor frontages. The majority of dwellings will be in apartments, which will be pre-dominantly 6 storeys in height but rise to 8-10 storeys at key locations. Taller buildings will be considered on their merits taking into account the overall design of the building and the impact on the surrounding area. Family housing will be provided by the development of town houses, which will be predominantly 4-storeys in height.

3.50 The Council adopted SPG providing further guidance on development within the SRQ in September 2003. In May 2004, the Council’s Development Control Committee resolved to grant outline planning permission for a new residential quarter on the whole of Block B4 and the southern section of Block B3, comprising 1960 dwellings, together with a primary school, community centre public open space, A1-A3 uses, B1 or D1 uses and a potential combined heat and power plant, subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State and the signing of a section 106 agreement.

SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL QUARTER POLICY CC12 New development in the Sustainable Residential Quarter is designed to promote urban living in CMK and should reflect the following principles:

(i) Include a mix of uses and local facilities

(ii) Provide a broad mix of urban housing types including specialist housing for the young, elderly and key workers, and 30% affordable housing

(iii) New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 100-175 dwellings per hectare

(iv) Provide small-scale business premises and dwellings designed to facilitate home working

(v) Provide an integrated mixed-use development including a large new food store on block C4.1, in addition to a range of other shops, services, bars, restaurants, and community facilities provided within a new Local Centre or elsewhere within the Sustainable Residential Quarter.

(vi) Provide for a Combined School and a small park including children’s play facilities

A Master Plan will be prepared setting out the design principles for the development of the Sustainable Residential Quarter. This Master Plan with have the status of Supplementary Planning Guidance

CITY CORE QUARTER

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the City Core

3.51 The City Core Quarter is broadly defined by Silbury Boulevard, Marlborough Gate, South Row / Childs Way and Saxon Gate. It includes the Shopping Building, Midsummer Place, The Point, the Food Centre, the Theatre District and Xscape. It also includes part of the car park opposite Lloyds Court. The area is dominated by


74

modern shopping development and is the centre of cultural and entertainment activity in the City.

3.52 Development in this area is intended to make it the main focus of activity in the City centre, “The Heart of the City”, offering a diverse mix of shopping, entertainment, cultural, civic and residential and commercial development. Major development opportunities exist on temporary car parking areas and around existing buildings or may come forward by the redevelopment and relocation of existing land uses. These all offer the potential to introduce new activity and vitality to the City Centre as well as consolidate its position as the main shopping area and cultural focus.

3.53 A major feature to make the City core, the Heart of the City is the development of a new public square (Civic Square) and market area following the removal of the Secklow Gate Road Bridge over Midsummer Boulevard. The majority of the new square will be located east of the Point, on the site of the existing temporary car park, between Midsummer and Avebury Boulevard. It will function as a flexible, multi-purpose, public meeting place, where pedestrians will have priority over the car.

3.54 Around Civic Square, high density mixed uses development will provide: -

New cultural, shopping and leisure facilities providing active ground floor frontages with residential and commercial development on upper floors.

a Civic and Community Hub with facilities that could include Open Government, Life Long Learning and Training, and Information and Communication Technology.

This development may necessitate in the longer term, redevelopment of buildings like the Point and the Food centre. 3.55 As part of the City Spine, Midsummer Boulevard east of Saxon Street will become more like a “High Street” with pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users having priority. The high quality public transport system will run along its length. When appropriate, the Council may exercise its right to run emission free public transport services through the existing covered Boulevard at Midsummer Place. Development of surface level parking spaces for retail and other uses will integrate the Shopping Building (now known as the “the centre: Mk”) to higher density development to the south of Midsummer Boulevard.

3.56 Other significant developments along Midsummer Boulevard, which will also change its character and encourage pedestrian movement and activity include:

The removal of Secklow Gate over the current market area. With the relocation of an expanded market to the High street created along Midsummer Boulevard

and the Square. Improved linkages to Campbell Park by the construction of an enhanced bridge

link over Marlborough Street. A new public open space enclosed by development between Midsummer

Boulevard/ Marlborough Gate and the new bridge into Campbell Park.

Development to east of the John Lewis Building in CMK is also important in integrating Campbell Park into the rest of the City centre. Building heights within the City core will normally be 5 to 6 storeys high although this may be higher for landmark buildings. Residential development will be in the form of apartments.

CITY CORE QUARTER POLICY CC13 The City Core will be promoted as the main destination within CMK and a broad mix of uses will be encouraged including shopping, entertainment, residential, hotels, cultural and civic uses. The design and layout of new development should reflect the following principles:

(i) Integrate existing and proposed development by breaking down the development block structure and reducing the physical separation between buildings

(ii) Create a new Civic Square and market area (following the removal of the Secklow Gate Road Bridge over Midsummer Boulevard) to act as a focal point within CMK

(iii) Create new Civic and Community buildings and development with active ground floor frontages around Civic Square.

(iv) Ensure that the design and layout of development around the Midsummer Boulevard and Marlborough Gate junction does not prejudice the introduction of an enhanced bridge link into Campbell Park and reconfiguration of engineering infrastructure in this area

(v) Development with an aspect or elevation fronting Campbell Park should support the creation of a new skyline with high quality, distinctive buildings.

(vi) Create a new public open space, enclosed by development, between Midsummer Boulevard and the bridge to Campbell Park.

(vii) New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 175-275 dwellings per hectare as part of mixed use schemes.

If the redevelopment of the Food Centre occurs during the currency of this Local Plan, redevelopment should achieve a broader mix of uses and promote a higher density of development. It should be integrated with the Theatre District to improve east-west linkages south of Midsummer Boulevard.

STATION SQUARE QUARTER

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the Station Square Quarter 3.57 The Station Square Quarter is broadly defined by Silbury Boulevard, Grafton Gate, Avebury Boulevard and the railway. It includes the existing Station Square and the bus and railway stations.

3.58 The main aims for Station Square are to: -

Capitalise on the opportunities created by its location by the railway station Redevelop this area as a major high-density commercial district at the western

end of the City centre Integrate it with other parts of CMK

Its role as a gateway to the City centre will be strengthened by the development of a new public transport interchange connecting rail, bus, taxi services and commuter carparks to the new high quality public transport system. As the location where most travellers will gain their first impression of the City, the design of the interchange



should be distinctive and functional, providing passengers with real-time information on public transport services as well as clear information and signage to assist legibility for visitors and tourists.

3.59 The existing Square will be built over and reduced in size to create a modern high profile point of arrival to the City. The remodelled square will be surrounded by hotels, restaurants and shopping facilities so that it becomes a centre of activity throughout the day and the evening. Commercial office development to create accommodation of varying sizes will be developed. These should prove attractive to high profile occupiers requiring good rail access to London. The majority of residential development will in the form of high density urban apartments however, serviced and short–let accommodation will be provided associated with a business hotel. Additional multi-storey car parks will also be developed around the railway station to serve the needs of commuters. SPD will be prepared to facilitate a comprehensive approach to the development of Station Square.

STATION SQUARE QUARTER POLICY CC14 New development or redevelopment should create a new commercial district around the focal point of a remodelled Station Square. The design and layout of new development in the Station Square quarter should reflect the following principles:

(i) Create a new public space, surrounded by office accommodation of varying sizes incorporating a mix of uses including shops, bars, restaurants, and service uses providing active ground floor frontages

(ii) Include a hotel and a range of residential and serviced accommodation

(iii) New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 175-275 dwellings per hectare

(iv) Develop a transport interchange between rail, bus and taxi services and facilitate the introduction of a high quality public transport system

(v) Create a high density development, with buildings of at least 8 to 10 storeys in height

ENTERPRISE AND KNOWLEDGE QUARTER

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the Enterprise and Knowledge

Quarter 3.60 The Enterprise and Knowledge Quarter is broadly defined by Silbury Boulevard, Saxon Gate, North Row / Portway and Marlborough Street, but also extends across Saxon Gate to include the YMCA and adjoining buildings. This Quarter also includes the Civic Offices, Central Library and Lloyds Court.

3.61 The aims for this area are to: -

Create a new residential and enterprise community Design new development to be flexible and adaptable Build on the existing mix of development within this area.

The types of uses that will be encouraged in this quarter include research and development, education and training, business support services and accommodation for small businesses. In the longer term there may be potential to locate a higher education institution or University within this area. This would assist in enhancing the growth of knowledge based companies in Milton Keynes as well as raising the skills levels of the local population. If this does not come to fruition, then alternatively an element of sheltered accommodation for the elderly will be considered.

3.62 New residential development should aim to expand the supply of affordable accommodation available within the City centre. The expansion of the YMCA by North Seventh Street (which already plays a key role) onto land used for parking and beyond North Row would assist in this respect. An element of new dwellings in this quarter should also provide opportunities to live and work at home. If redevelopment of existing accommodation occurs, then the mix and quality of replacement dwellings should be of a high standard.

3.63 The future accommodation needs of the Council are under review and the Council is seeking to develop not only a new Civic and Community Hub in the City Core but also to relocate the Civic Offices and the Library to a more central site. In the longer term both buildings are likely to become available for development.

ENTERPRISE AND KNOWLEDGE QUARTER POLICY CC15 The design and layout of new development in the Enterprise and Knowledge Quarter should reflect the following principles:

(i) Promote the creation of a residential and enterprise community

(ii) Develop buildings of innovative design with a mix of uses, densities and forms

(iii) Include active ground floor frontages, particularly facing boulevards, streets and pedestrian and cycle routes to and from neighbouring areas

(iv) Provide small-scale business premises, a business support centre and design dwellings to facilitate working at home.

(v) Enhance Secklow Mound as an area of public open space.

(vi) Where redevelopment opportunities occur, improve the quality and mix of residential development.

(vii) Increase the supply of affordable housing accommodation

(viii) New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 100-125 dwellings per hectare. Higher density development may be appropriate at gateway locations to CMK.

NORTH WEST QUARTER (SPORTS AND RETAIL PARK)

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the North West Quarter 3.64 The Northwest Quarter is broadly defined by Portway, Grafton Gate, Elder Gate and the Railway. It includes the National Hockey Stadium and adjoining retail warehouse park. Key aims for this quarter are to: -


76

Complete the National Hockey Stadium Improve pedestrian and cycle links to Station Square and to neighbouring Grid

Squares. 3.65 Development opportunities in this area are limited because most of this area is already developed and unlikely to come forward for redevelopment over the Local Plan period. Development opportunities are largely confined to land between the Railway line and Elder Gate, which is allocated for commercial purposes on the Proposals Map.

3.66 To encourage visitors to the stadium to travel by means other than the car, development in this area should relate the National Hockey stadium closer to Station Square. A comprehensive network of pedestrian and cycle routes should also be created improving the links from this quarter to surrounding areas.

NORTH WEST QUARTER POLICY CC16 The design and layout of new development in the North West Quarter should reflect the following principles:

(i) Not prejudice the completion of the National Hockey Stadium

(ii) Improve the relationship between the National Hockey Stadium and Station Square

(iii) Improve pedestrian and cycle links to Station Square and Rooksley

CAMPBELL PARK

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development in Campbell Park. 3.67 Policy CC4 reflects the design principles proposed in the Campbell Park Master Plan prepared by Terry Farrell & Partners. The master plan was commissioned by English Partnerships and involved consultation with the Council and other key stakeholders. It has now been incorporated into the CMK Development Framework. The design principles are intended to lead to a more inclusive and sustainable form of development, with a broader mix of land uses and development at higher densities. They are also intended to improve links between and integrate Campbell Park more closely with other parts of the City centre and the rest of the City as well as capitalising on its location by the Grand Union Canal. Among the uses proposed in Campbell Park are more housing, employment, community facilities and a local centre. A mixed-use development for leisure and recreation mixing homes, offices with cafes and restaurants is proposed around a new canal basin and marina. The Park area is the largest green space in CMK and will be retained and enhanced. The Council adopted SPG providing further guidance on development within Campbell Park in September 2003. In August 2004, the Council’s Development Control Committee resolved to grant outline planning permission for a major mixed-use development, including new marinas alongside the Grand Union Canal, within Campbell Park, subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State and the signing of a section 106 agreement. The development consists of around 2300 dwellings plus live-work units, A1 retail floorspace, A3 and B1 (Business) floorspace,

leisure and community facilities together with associated open space, landscaping, parking and infrastructure.

CAMPBELL PARK QUARTER POLICY CC4 The design and layout of development in the Campbell Park grid square should reflect the following principles:

(i) Improving pedestrian and cycle links with the City Centre and adjoining grid squares, and creating new urban pedestrian and cycle routes within the new development

(ii) Extending the Midsummer Boulevard axis up to the park

(iii) Creating a cultural infrastructure including a significant and prominent cultural building at the western end of the park

(iv) Create a mixed use development and canal basin alongside the Grand Union Canal

(v) Conserving historic features, including the ancient Portway route and medieval hedgerow between Silbury Boulevard and H5 Portway

(vi) Developing a distinctive high density built form of high quality design, incorporating a mix of uses within a finer grain of development

(vii) Protect and enhance the Park as an area of Public Open Space

(viii) Contribute to the provision of new or improved pedestrian and cycle links, public transport facilities and services and other necessary transport infrastructure within CMK as a whole.

New residential accommodation should be developed at a net density of 100-200 dwellings per hectare.

PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS

Priority areas are parts of the City centre where major change is anticipated over the next 10 years, such as the Theatre District, and the third phase of the Central Business Exchange (CBX3)

CBX 3

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development of the third phase of the Central

Business Exchange (CBX3) 3.68 CBX3 lies to the south and west of the existing Central Business Exchange, between Midsummer Boulevard, Witan Gate and Avebury Boulevard in the Central Business District. Future development of CBX3 is intended to make it a centre for business with conference and exhibition facilities, a hotel and serviced accommodation. As a development along Midsummer Boulevard the “City Spine”, it is a focus for higher density development and will be served by the high quality public transport system.



CBX 3 POLICY CC17 Development of the third phase of the Central Business Exchange (CBX) should reflect the following principles:

(i) Integrate with the existing CBX building

(ii) Provide a mix of uses including an exhibition and conference centre, hotels, bars and restaurants, offices, training centre and business services, small scale retail premises at ground floor level and a range of residential and serviced accommodation

(iii) Provide parking within the development and/or alternative parking provision elsewhere within CMK

(iv) Provide safe and secure routes providing permeability through the development with 24 hour pedestrian access linking Midsummer and Avebury Boulevards

BLOCK D4

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within Block D4 3.69 Block D4 is defined by Avebury Boulevard, Secklow Gate, South Row / Childs Way and Saxon Gate. It has been largely developed for housing and includes buildings such as Saxon Court and the Garden Centre. The main aims for development in this area are to:

Tie the area further into the city centre Improve pedestrian routes into Fishermead Strengthen the local residential community

3.70 New residential development in the form of apartments and townhouses together with community and local shopping facilities will be encouraged here. If redevelopment of the eastern part of this block occurs including the Garden Centre site, new development should provide a mix of uses to integrate this area with the City Core Quarter to the north.

3.71 The CMK Development Framework anticipates the development of the vacant site to the rear of Saxon Court will be developed as a landmark residential or commercial building beyond 2011. New development opportunities should create a safe attractive public realm and improve pedestrian routes into Fishermead.

BLOCK D4 POLICY CC18 The design and layout of new development of Block D4 in the City Core quarter should reflect the following principles:

(i) Increase the residential community, by developing new residential accommodation at a net density of 100-175 dwellings per hectare

(ii) Provide new community facilities and local shops

(iii) Include a mix of residential, office and entertainment uses in any redevelopment of the eastern part of Block D4

(iv) Improve pedestrian routes into Fishermead

(v) The undeveloped site to the rear of Saxon Court (Block D4.1 south) should be developed as a residential and commercial landmark building to mark this prominent entrance to CMK. Development of this site should be designed to integrate with the redevelopment of Saxon Court

PARK GATEWAY

Objective of policy To set out the principles for development within the Park Gateway 3.72 The Park Gateway is broadly defined as the area between Silbury Boulevard, Marlborough Gate, Avebury Boulevard and Lower Twelfth Street. It includes the Theatre and Theatre District and also extends across Midsummer Boulevard to the rear of the John Lewis department store.

3.73 Development to the north of Midsummer Boulevard and east of the existing John Lewis department store provides a major opportunity to develop distinctive buildings of innovative design on the Park edge. These will serve as visual landmarks. This development will also be important in integrating Campbell Park into the rest of the city centre. Mixed-use development will include new and existing shops and other uses. Additional parking provision will be provided in multi-storey carparks, screened by other development in views from elsewhere

3.74 New development in the Theatre District between the Theatre and Lower Twelfth Street is intended to diversify the current mix of eating and entertainment uses in this area and introduce new uses. Development of the existing surface level parking areas to the north will assist in:

Drawing pedestrian activity across Midsummer Boulevard, Improving the district’s relationship with the Theatre Providing an active south-western corner to the new area of public open space

enclosed by development north and south of Midsummer Boulevard and Campbell Park.

To the south of the Theatre District towards Avebury Boulevard and the Xscape building, new development should aim to integrate the Xscape building into the city centre.

3.75 Development to the north and east of the Theatre up to Midsummer Boulevard and Marlborough Gate provides opportunities for the expansion of existing cultural uses such as the Theatre and Milton Keynes Gallery and the introduction of new uses such as a museum. The area could also be a desirable location for a restaurant or similar facility on the south side of Midsummer Boulevard.

PARK GATEWAY POLICY CC19 (i) Between Lower Twelfth Street and the Theatre: Development should be

mixed use with a variety of employment premises, entertainment, bars, and restaurants on the ground floor and residential and office use on upper floors.


78

(ii) North and east of the Theatre up to Midsummer Boulevard and Marlborough Gate:

Development should be for cultural uses including the expansion of the Theatre and Gallery or for restaurants.

(iii) North of Midsummer Boulevard, between the John Lewis Building (Block E2.4) and Marlborough Gate: Development should be mixed use including retail, entertainment, cultural activities, restaurants, bars and a multi-storey car park. Buildings should be distinctively designed to act as a visual landmark for visitors.

Available in audio, large print, braille and other languages

01908 252708

Urban Design & Landscape Architecture Planning, Economy and DevelopmentMilton Keynes CouncilPO Box 113, Civic Offices1 Saxon Gate EastMilton Keynes, MK9 3HN

T +44 (0) 1908 252708F +44 (0) 1908 252329E [email protected]


cmk development framework - milton keynes · cmk development framework review draft 2 this document...

Documents